|
Ater the fiasco I had with a couple of 1.5TB drives from Seagate and their complete denial of any problem with the drives, I refuse to touch anything by them any more. Their "RAID Certified" drives wouldn't work reliably in a RAID configuration, breaking the RAID at going through a rebuild at least once a day.
3 flash upgrades later, the drives now "work", as in they don't give the RAID controller the impression that the array is broken, but the drives have to do something akin to restarting themselves to work again, causing a rather sizable delay in the access of any data.
It took them over a year to finally-sort-of-admit there was a problem and come up with fixes that "worked".
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: <400GB left
Good lord man, I consider <1GB free as "a bit full"!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
It's 10% of "nominal capacity" before RAID 5 (formatted capacity of the current one is just under 3TB after RAID) so it's getting a little close to my "worry" level - if I needed to make a HDD mirror of a new PC it would be tight.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I've gotta agree with Griff here. My home NAS is about 2/3rds to 3/4ths full on a 3TB mirror. It's not urgent yet; but if WHS 2011 didn't only have a single year of support left (and no upgrade path) I'd probably be plonking another drive into it the next time someone had NAS grade drives on sale. As is, I'm keeping a somewhat closer watch on its capacity; and will probably get a replacement in place this fall instead of early next year.
For peace of mind, I'd want to have the new box running in parallel with the old one for a month or three; so waiting until the old one is completely full first isn't acceptable.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: For peace of mind, I'd want to have the new box running in parallel with the old one for a month or three; so waiting until the old one is completely full first isn't acceptable.
Oh, I agree, it was just interesting to me the different scale of things. My home system has 3 128GB SSD's, and I back up actually to my laptop for personal stuff and all personal and client work lives on GitHub as well (or the client's source control system). But it's interesting that I'm still happy and quite functional in a 1/2 TB world.
I actually just got a new 500GB SSD, but haven't even installed it yet!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Why not just add the new toy to the network, leaving the current one in place as is? Reliability concerns?
According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Data duplication concerns.
I'd rather have it in one place - plus I can sell the old one once the new is burnt in.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
If you really need to send the data from the old to the new one... just remember to put the old one on top of the new one... it's always faster when bits go down...
|
|
|
|
|
And don't bend the cables - the zeros will be OK, but the ones will get stuck in the corners. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And soon will come the fun: transfer from old to new...
That's easy.
Just take the discs out of the old Raid, and put them in the new one. Job done.
You can send the leftover discs to me, for disposal.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, that should work.
But...I don't trust theories, so I'll leave the new disks in and copy the data in case the new NAS doesn't recognise the format from the old one. I'd really hate to lose all that data.
But thank you very much for being so considerate with my disposal needs! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
16 TB!
That should be illegal!
Don't for get to get 2 though so you can backup the backup.
|
|
|
|
|
I would use robocopy for the transfer:
robocopy <source> <destination>
A bunch of options are available.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping to be able to do that within the NAS by connecting it to the old one as a share so I don't have to take everything via the PC. I know the last time I did this it took all day and night via PC FTP, and I've added a lot since then.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
If it runs Linux, then what is the file system, FAT32? NTFS? Something else?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know - it's possible it's EXTn, my first NAS box used that (but it wasn't RAID).
If I have to find out, it means there has been a major problem! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC Most of them run using the EXTn FS. BTRFS's raid support isn't considered officially production ready yet; and AIUI licensing incompatibilities make shipping a product with the Linux kernel and ZFS both pre-installed problematic. I covered why they don't just port their base platform to BSD a bit earlier over on the insider forum[^].
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a particularly stunning one! Thanks for posting!
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks: I get a great deal of pleasure from these images and get a chance to learn something. Time well spent, I would say!
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed! 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
The explanation there says "digitally reprocessed".
Just wondering the steps in that digital reprocessing ...
... remove noise ... sharpen ... pseudo-color ... what all, and in what order?
|
|
|
|
|
Virtually all of them are re-processed in some way: for me, does not lessen the beauty or the lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree. No lessening of the beauty or magnificence. Makes one feel sooooooooo very insignificant on both the time and size scales.
Just curious as to what image processing they do on the raw images.
|
|
|
|
|
I searched for troll on Google maps and it took me to Global Advisors[^]. I find it funny.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
