Jump to content
Division-M Community
Sign in to follow this  
zulu7

Duplication Level Implementation

Recommended Posts

I believe there was a thread in the past, discussing the need for duplication level specification.

 

This comes from the need of having more than a single copy of critical files. As an example: my server comprises of 9 drives, from which a couple were salvaged from other NASes. The condition of those were not great (couple of bad sectors) but was not qualifying them to be binned. I had a power cut (or some sort of surge spike) and after this event, two of my drives died. Quite a proportion of the files (original and duplicate) were lost forever.

 

You may say, I shouldn't have include iffy drives, in my server however it seemed a bit wasteful to throw away 2no 2tb drives because a couple of bads.

 

Therefore the request would be to implement levels of duplication. maybe something along this lines:

 

Level 1 - single duplicate

Level 2  - three copies of selected folder

Level 3 - four copies.

 

Alternatively specification of the most healthy drive to store duplicates maybe could work around the issue.

 

All please endorse if you feel that this feature would be welcomed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for this feature !

 

i have pretty the same situation.

i have 11 drives:

 

3x 3TB brand new

3x 2TB -> 2 years old (24/7)

2x 1,5TB -> 4 years old (24/7)

2x 1 TB -> ~6 years old

1x 500GB -> ~ really old

 

it would be nice to tell drivebender, to store  more duplicates of my critical data on the new drives and just one duplicate on the older drives.

 

best greetz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the two of your guy's posts, I have a very similar setup, that has multiple drives, some reconditioned from the factory, as zulu stated also one or two with a bad sector. Nothing major and just like you guys, also not with binning the drives. 

 

I can understand that any of these features could increase the processing time for DB, which can be a bad thing for those with lower performance servers. What if it was a feature that carried a warning stating performance hits?

 

I might add that this feature for me would be more beneficial if it there was a way that certain drives to store only duplicated files, as a 2nd duplicate. Thus.... not fully impacting performance, and still granting the additional feature for those important files? 

 

Since DB already pings the performance and SMART condition of the drives in question, what if it allowed some degree of this feature automatically? A rule that would enable another level of redundancy "duplicate storage only" on drives with potential errors. 

 

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely utilize this feature. I have a bunch of WD and Seagate drives that randomly dies even though its less than a year old... having multiple back ups for critical files would definitely be better if two drives died together for some reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd this feature, mostly because I've had to pull 2 NAS HDD's within 2 days because of file corruption issues and lost a bunch of files.. Would be nice to scale duplication or some other form of drive backup, especially with bigger HDD pools, than only being able to have a single drive failure before issues and your data is unprotected during the rebuild period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like this idea as a quick fix, but would love to see a snapraid style snapshot parity option in the future. ( I would even pay a bit more for that additional feature license for that feature, this way only the people who want/need that feature would get it.) That way I would not need full duplication of some folders, but could instead protect the entire array, similar to raid 6, I could have 2 or more parity drives in a snapshot format. 

 

While this does not work well with everyone (Snapshot is best for files that do not change often) it would be a great compliment to OP's suggestion of multiple duplication drives, and also ensuring that duplication does not move files to drives with known smart failures. (I have 3 drives that are showing fair because they are over 40K Hours, yet have been working better than some with sub 10K hours).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

I use your software for a very long time. I lost a license in a hardware change, but hey buying a new one was kind of a gratitude to your great work!

I would also be very interested in this feature. I have an HP Micro Server with good Raid drives, but I'd like to have some extra security for certain files (Fotos, digital mail, etc.).

Please consider implementing this :)

 

Best Regards Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×