Simple question

Yes. My server has 3 mirror arrays
>2x1TB for Music, wallpapers, etc
>2x2TB for anime and TV series
>2x4TB for Blu-ray rips

All backed up to a single 8TB.

If by superior you mean less supported, slower, and the least efficient space wise, ok. :3

>69266723
(You)

That's a funny way to spell btrfs.

No. Do you think I should? If so, why?

>RAID for insignificant performance gains
Unadulterated autism

>RAID is backup

Attached: 1492828476490.gif (340x340, 18K)

Is running raid for pure redundancy a good idea on a mission critical system provided the server isn't concerned about read/wright speed? Still backup offsite.

Yes, RAID5.

Hoarding torrents.

Someone post that dumbass who got eight drives fail on RAID 0

I'm What kind of speed are you looking for? When I'm done encoding my Blu-ray rips on my main machine, I send the finished files over the network to the server and easily saturate a gigabit connection during a sustained transfer of 250+GB at a time easily.

Also my server acts as my HTPC for my living room TV and I'm able to watch movies easy. No hiccup or loading other than to wait for the array to spool up.
>RAID 5
Yuck.

>What kind of speed are you looking for?
Mostly files frequently but irregularly requested by users from other servers on the local network and clients across the internet. Think HTTP downloads and FTP hosting. It's not really a backup system and more a minimizing the reliance on a back up system, minimizing downtime. There's still a backup server but this wouldn't be it.

TL;DR
Prioritizing redundancy before speed while using external storage for backup.

>what's RAID0

>raid0
>backup
nani

no, i can't afford to

Then yes absolutely raid is fine if you're only doing mirror for 2 drives. Anything more than that, consider raid 10 if uptime and redundancy are needed.

no

Attached: 1526365858319.jpg (4011x2100, 3.73M)

Attached: 1525010955193.png (1362x665, 635K)

never bothered with bcache on a ssd but this is the way I would go

At work.

maybe it just failed by chance and if he restarted it would work?

>he doesn't use DrivePool to selectively duplicate his disk

OH NONONONO

Does anyone use snapraid? Thinking about doing that for my NAS and backing up everything to that.

Not on my PCs
RAID1 on my server and raid5 on my NAS

yes.

Simple answer.
Yes.

>RAID0
>backup
Are you okay, user?

nigga you best be trolling

Attached: really.gif (300x290, 1.74M)

Raid 0 for my video games because who gives a shit if it dies.

Dumb snail cat poster

I've never run a raid before and I think it should be in my interest to, at least, buy another 120GB SSD that I use just for my operating system and put that into a raid config so that in the off-chance that one of my SSD's die then I can just continue business as usual.

Is that really how it works? If I have two primary operating systems setup in a RAID1 config and one dies, does the computer just start up as normal? Does Windows or some distributions of Linux tend to tell you "one of your harddrives is dead, chief." ?

>RAID
Yes. RAID1 for OS, RAID5 or 6 for storage depending on the number of drives.

To me RAID isn't about performance and it's not backup either. It's about being able to keep on using the computer while waiting for a new drive to arrive when one dies & spending 5 minutes replacing the bad drive. The alternative is to not have a working computer while you wait for a replacement drive & spending time re-installing and restoring from a backup which isn't entirely up to date. It may be days or weeks or a month old.

8-way SSD RAID0 is totally fine if you need the raw performance for some reason and your data loss is limited to what you've been working on the last few hours (4k video editing and some specialized things like that). If the answer to the question "Do I care, even a little, if this array dies?" is no then RAID0 is probably fine.

is two M.2 SSD's RAID 0 meme tier?

Attached: 1526415480002.png (128x128, 39K)

Yeah, I use RAID 1 for backups.

Why do you heathens keep messing with the cẵt

Those aren't sentences you fucking retard

Yes, I have a 4TB RAID10 array of 8 1TB 15000rpm SAS12 disks.
>used space: 3.4TB

I only do mirroring (RAID 1) and don't manage big pools of data.
I also have a backup that's also basically mirrored, but not using any kind of multidevice setup.

why?
lvm + symlinks are a much better way of doing things, especially backups.
now if you have disposible data like an os install that you just want running as fast as possible then thats another thing

Attached: 2019-01-04-1546585572.png (628x317, 41K)

Completely pointless, my data doesn't need high availability, so I just use extra drives as additional backup.

if you're doing it for performance, then yes

if you're doing it to get double the storage capacity, then no, that is a legitimate use case

Attached: sysadmin of gensokyo.jpg (1333x1000, 529K)

Is this guy still alive?

multidisk on btrfs is a joke. one disk breaks and your shit is now locked as ro and only way out is remaking the filesystem. the whole point of raid (on a desktop/workstation) is if one disk breaks you can still keep using the system without any meaningful loss in productivity and swap the broken disk for a new one when convinient.

Yes

yes.
the scsi bus is already slower than the ssd throughput, raid 0 will do nothing

bullshit

No, bfa sucks