vertigo

Planning on using a Ryzen 7 (8-core). And yes, I realize it has nothing on a Xeon, but compared to other desktop CPUs, including the i7, it is a big step up. So I'd be assigning the first core (two threads) to unRAID, and the other 7c/14t to the main PC.

I don't really know how parity works (I have a theory, but for the time being, I'm willing to accept it as some sort of dark arts black magic voodoo, to be able to protect an unlimited amount of drives with only one drive without eating into any of the storage capacity save for the parity drive), but I do understand that it works that way. I just don't currently feel it's worth the expense when I have a backup already and would maintain that backup regardless of if I used parity. That said, if cache drives really aren't necessary, despite the fact that pretty much everything I've seen regarding unRAID says they are in order to have decent transfer speeds, then that would drastically reduce the cost and necessary drive bays and SATA ports, which would make me more open to the idea. I guess if I determine that unRAID would work for me, I'll have to do more research into that, but I'm trying to take it one step at a time for now. As for your statement "Perhaps a more important use of cache these days is for dockers and VMs, since you can afford to have relatively small SSDs in cache for this purpose, and so gain a lot in performance," I have a couple questions. First of all, when you say VMs in this sentence, are you referring to the VM my gaming PC would be running in, or a VM within that VM? And would a cache SSD really be beneficial considering everything would be running off an NVME SSD, which will be much faster than a cache SSD would? Ok, so instead of my initial thought of assigning a core to a NAS VM and the other 7 cores to my main PC VM, I would just assign the single core to unRAID. I have to say, I'm not fond of getting such a beastly CPU then giving up 1/7 of it, not to mention running a PC (VM) with 7 cores (the OCD in me wants an even amount), but oh well.

trurl - As I said, I realize the cost for how I do it is higher than if I were to use parity, but even if I used parity, I would still do actual backups, because parity ≠ backup. So it wouldn't save me from having to spend the money on an additional drive for every drive of storage, it would just make me have to get an additional drive or two or more in addition to the additional drives I already need and have to maintain a true backup. And having to buy disks the same size is not a worry. Every time I need to increase my storage space, I simply buy two drives for every one drive of additional space I want to add. For example, the last time I bought more drives, I bought 4 x 4TB drives, which increased my storage by 8TB with the other 8TB being used as a backup. It's simple and, once I get a bigger case so I can increase my space and set it up properly, will allow me to store the backups in a safe or perhaps even offsite for a true backup. I can have 100 parity drives and one fire will nullify all redundancy and cause me to lose everything. I feel like the majority of this thread has been dealing with parity, which is what I specifically said I don't want to do, and it's tying up the conversation and detracting from the points I'm trying to learn more about. I know you guys need to have an understanding of my intended setup, but I would like to keep it on track and discuss the intricacies of the setup as I intend so that those points that are truly applicable to me don't get lost in the background, and try to keep parity discussion at a minimum. I definitely appreciate the help, but IME threads have a tendency to veer off course and then the initial questions never get answered, and I'd like to avoid that.

tdallen - So I would only need to run unRAID, and use that to create shares to my media for Kodi, and if desired later, run PLEX in a container, then create just one VM for my main PC? In that case, how would resource allocation work, e.g. would unRAID itself need a cpu core assigned to it, or could I assign all cores to my main PC VM and unRAID just uses what it needs and the VM gets the rest? Also, I was under the impression the purpose of the cache is that without it, when using parity drives, transfer speeds are slow due to the parity overhead.

For every drive I have in my computer, I have an identical drive with identical contents. So if I have a drive failure, I just have to get another drive of the same capacity or larger and copy everything over from the backup drive. The backup drives are intended to be kept in a safe, though currently, due to the limitations of my setup, they're just sitting in an enclosure next to my computer. Bottom line is that if I wanted to do a parity-type backup, unRAID certainly seems like a good way to do it, and in the future I may go that route. But currently, to keep costs down and keep things simple, I plan to continue the way I'm doing things, only with a new PC (or two, if I decide to separate them out) to give myself more room for drives. And even if cost and drive space weren't an issue, I would still be concerned about losing data due to a cache drive failure. For example, currently I rip a Blu-ray then use mkvtoolnix or makemkv to convert the files to mkv files (main movie and special features). I make the mkv's from the source disc iso directly onto one of the drives I want to store them on, then I copy them from that drive to its backup drive. Then I delete the source iso. If I were using a cache drive (or more than one) in order to maintain good transfer speeds when using a parity drive (or multiple parity drives), then the potential would exist for the cache drive to fail before copying the data over to the platter drives, which would mean I'd have to spend the time re-ripping the disc (though I could keep the iso until after the cache is done transferring everything, but that's just more to keep track of) and, even worse, going through determining which tracks to mux into mkv again. I like knowing when I copy stuff that it's where it needs to be and fully backed up, and I don't like the idea with a cache drive of doing a file transfer but not actually having it be complete. And in addition to that, as I said before, I use FastCopy to verify the files after transfer to ensure they weren't corrupted in transfer, and all that would accomplish in this case would be to verify that they transferred to the cache drive without corruption, but the possibility would still exist for them to be corrupted when being moved from the cache drive to the platter drive.

Yeah, I get that, and it does make it somewhat more tempting, but the fact is, I'm going to have the 1:1 backups anyways, since simply having parity is not a backup. So it's not a matter of making that second drive the parity drive, it's a matter of having to buy an additional drive to use that way. And, since I'd be using a parity drive, I'd have to use a cache, which means having to buy another 1-2 SSDs, which definitely starts increasing the cost. And then I have to worry about a cache drive failing before copying everything over to the platter drives. Doing a 1:1 is more expensive and less convenient than doing parity, but it's much cheaper than doing both a 1:1 and parity, and it removes the possibility of losing data because the cache drive fails.

Correct. I understand that unRAID works this way. When I say OS, I mean the various ones I will actually be using, on top of unRAID. So, if I go this route, I will use unRAID to create various VMs, particularly a server/NAS VM, for which the OS will be linux, and my main PC VM, for which the OS's will be Windows and one or more Linux distros. So the server VM will be single-boot, and the main PC VM will be multi-boot, and all of these OS's (Windows and Linux) will be run off a single, non-raided NVME SSD. That will be that drive's main purpose.

I won't be running the OS on RAID 1, just the data drives. Not sure if that matters. The problem with trying it out first, aside from time, is that I don't have the new build to try it on. That's why I'm trying to figure this out, to decide what parts to get (all-in-one or separate main PC and server). The only way that would work, and I'm considering doing this, is getting a bigger case and trying to do it all in one, and if that doesn't work, I'll get a smaller case for my main PC and get another mobo/cpu/ram/psu for the server, but then I'd have to move everything over and it would just be a pain. As I said, I am considering it, so I'm not totally against it, but if I can determine that unRAID won't work for what I'm trying to do it'll save me the time and headache of doing it. Of course, even if I do separate them, I still have the problem of wanting to run the two drives in RAID 1 on a multi-boot system, though I suppose I could probably put those in the server as well since that would be running one constant OS, though I'd really rather keep them in the main PC. Also, you say to use BTRFS, but last I heard (admittedly several months ago), BTRFS was found to have some pretty major problems requiring a more or less total revamp, which would mean it's not an ideal candidate. I haven't done any research on this specifically, since I just didn't plan on using it, but is that not accurate? Yes, I realize that if a drive fails, I have one working copy, and if that fails before I'm able to get all the data off of it onto another drive, I lose everything on it. And that would suck. I have thought about using one or even two parity drives, but ultimately, the cost is just not worth it, not to mention needing more drive bays for no added data. And I could do that then lose the server in a fire or to theft, and I'm right back to my current situation. So it's a question of how much protection is enough, and at least for now, I'm ok with my current setup. Maybe later down the road I'll switch to a parity setup.

ashman70 - No. I want to run unraid as the base layer, then two (or more?) VMs on top of it, one being a media server (most likely running linux), and one being my main PC, which would be set up to multi-boot Windows and one or more linux distros. But I was planning on using the NVME SSD to hold the OS's, and the SATA SSD that currently has my Windows install on it for games and active stuff like downloads, encodes, mkv muxing, etc. And I might get a second SATA SSD to use for the same stuff, to increase the space. Then there will be the two platter drives that hold my important, non-media data, which I want to run in RAID 1 for redundancy and increased speed, and the media drives, which would be assigned to the server VM. Does that make sense?

tdallen - The only actual RAID I want is the RAID 1 for my two non-media drives. This way, I have the redundancy I currently have, but unlike now where I have to copy everything to both drives manually, it would be automatic (would only have to copy once instead of twice), and with faster read speed. The reason I don't want to use a parity drive is because I don't want to spend the money for a drive that will give me no extra storage space and, while it would be nice to have that extra layer of redundancy, it's not needed as I keep 1:1 backups. But you're saying running those two drives in RAID 1 under unRAID would not be a good idea? Your other point does have me concerned, about the possibility of virtualization with hardware pass-thru being finicky. Considering linux already tends to be finicky on its own, and I'm looking at doing one or multiple linux distros on top of it, I wonder if I'd just be asking for a massive time sink and headache.

@bjp999 - Since you're considering consolidating, and you don't want to move the server out of the basement, I assume that means you are thinking of having your main PC in the basement as well? That should be doable with a long HDMI cable and an active USB extension cable or with HDBaseT and I think you can do USB over the network as well.

Thanks everyone for the replies. @ashman70 - As I stated, I don't want/need a parity drive, since I back up my data onto separate drives. I do this since this is a real backup, whereas RAID is not, and I don't want to waste money by having wasted drive space in the form of parity drives when the data is already backed up. The drives I intend to put in RAID 1 also have another drive to which they're backed up, as that's my really important stuff. And yes, I know unRAID is different from hardware RAID, which, from what little I know about running RAID, I'm pretty sure I don't want to do. I want to run those drives in a software RAID 1 setup. I just don't know if this could be done via unRAID, or if it only does parity setups. I don't know that I'll need to use containers, and I don't currently use or plan to use PLEX, since I prefer Kodi, though I may end up using it for transcoding for playing my media over the internet. Even then, though, from what little I know about containers, I don't think that'll be necessary or even beneficial, as I could just run PLEX on the server VM. I'm not clear on what you meant when you said "Isolating your OS and programs/games on a dedicated SSD is key to VM performance. This drive is not part of the array but outside of it." I plan on getting an NVME SSD for running all the OS's (Windows, whatever linux distro(s) I decide to use for my main PC, and whatever linux distro (or maybe something like FreeNAS) I decide to use for the NAS VM) and using my current SATA SSD, and possibly getting a second one, for games and maybe to use for active projects (encodes, mkv muxing, etc). Would this work, or are you saying I'd have to use a separate drive for each VM? I'm fine with having to shut down a VM in order to change the resource allotment, that makes total sense. But you're saying I could in fact shut down the server VM and give all cores to the main PC VM and switch back and forth at will, I would just have to shut down both VMs first?

I'm going to be building a new computer soon, and am trying to decide how to do it. I'm looking for advice both on general setup and on whether or not I should use unRAID. I'm typically the only one accessing my media, but I want the ability for others to do so, and I also want to be able to easily access it remotely once I get internet capable of streaming. I don't transcode content to watch locally, but may need to for watching over the internet. In the past, I've had a separate server for my movies, etc, but currently, due to larger capacity drives, I have them in my main computer, which I do prefer for multiple reasons. I'm torn on whether to keep it that way or split it back up into a main/gaming rig and a server. As I see it, the advantages to keeping it all in one are: + It would be cheaper (only need one case/mobo/cpu/ram/psu) + It would be more power efficient (only one computer running instead of two) + Faster transfer speeds (not limited by network) Whereas the disadvantages are: - It limits me more on cases (need a case that can hold more drives (server/movie drives plus 2 3.5" drives and 1-2 SSDs that would otherwise be in the main computer)) - Likely slightly more noise from main PC, which would be close enough to hear, vs being able to stick server in an unused room where noise wouldn't be an issue and allowing main PC to be quieter due to less drive noise and being able to run fans slower due to not having to push air through and cool the drives - More traffic on the SATA bus, which could cause issues (would be transferring between two internal drives, meaning the read traffic from one and the write traffic to the other will all be on the same bus, which causes issues on my current computer, e.g. Windows will sometimes freeze for a few seconds, mouse occasionally freezes for half a second to a second, videos will stutter and freeze, and I would really like to get rid of these issues). Running a separate server would mean transferring from a drive on the main computer to a drive on the server, so only the read traffic will be on the main computer's SATA bus, which should (in theory) go a long way to reducing the problem. - Less separation of data, leaving more drives exposed to potential viruses, ransomware, etc that the main computer may be afflicted by (low concern) - Possible issues and definitely more work with sharing the media from different OS's (I plan to multi-boot Windows and one or more Linux distros), not to mention I hate Windows sharing and with a separate server could avoid it for the media drives - Having all the drives spin up every time I reboot (whether installing software/updates or switching OS's) is less than ideal for the power supply and the drives, and would like lengthen my boot time, which I like to have as short as possible - Media files would be unavailable when rebooting (not a big issue, but would be nice to not have availability impacted by this) My understanding is that unRAID would help with the last four disadvantages, as I would run a NAS VM and a gaming PC VM, so that would separate the media drives so they couldn't be infected by something in the gaming VM, it would simplify the sharing of the media drives as they would just be done once in the NAS VM, and it would allow me to reboot the main PC VM without affecting the NAS VM. I have several concerns and questions, however, about using unRAID: 1) It's another layer of complexity, which adds another point of failure. This is especially concerning due to the possibility of the flash drive failing, leaving me with a non-functioning computer until I get a replacement flash drive and load a replacement key on it, and then hope it doesn't happen again in the next year or I'll have to contact support and hope that I'm able to get another replacement key and that it doesn't take a long time to do so. 2) Slow transfer speed without using a cache, which I don't want to have to do, both due to cost and due to the fact I don't want to risk the cache drive failing before it transfers everything to the platter drives. I prefer to know that once something is done transferring, it's actually done. I also use FastCopy to perform verification when doing file transfers, and using a cache it could verify a successful transfer to the cache drive but then the file could get corrupted between the cache and the destination drive. I'm wondering if this only applies to the use of parity drives, as that seems to be the cause of the slow speeds. Since I don't want to use a parity drive (I simply do a 1:1 backup on separate drives), would I get normal speeds the same as I would get doing file transfers in an OS not running in an unRAID VM? Is unRAID even meant to use that way, or is it only meant to use for RAID-like purposes? 3) What would the speed be like in the VMs (especially the main one) vs just running the OS's on their own? In the LinusTechTips videos, he shows that despite running in a VM, the gaming performance is still excellent, but I wonder if it's really running at or near 100% or is it only performing at maybe ~80% and that just happens to be more than sufficient for his situation. In other words, if my video card is able to provide 60 FPS in a game running in Windows, would it still provide 60 FPS running in Windows under unRAID, or would it be more like 50 FPS? Similarly, if a video encode takes an hour in Windows, would it still take an hour under unRAID, or would it take several more minutes or even longer? I just find it hard to believe you would get 100% or even >90-95% efficiency running in a VM. 4) Are CPU core and memory assignments permanent once a VM is created, or can they be changed on the fly? For example, I'm planning on using a Ryzen 8 core for my new build, so if I were to assign 1 core (2 threads) to the NAS VM and 7 cores (14 threads) to the main VM, could I change that later, maybe to shut down the NAS VM and give the main VM all cores for encoding or to give the NAS VM more cores if it turns out 1 isn't enough (I can't imagine it wouldn't be)? 5) While I don't want to use RAID for my server/media drives, I do want to run the two 3.5 drives that will be in my main PC (if I do separate boxes) or tied to the main VM in RAID 1. Would there be an issue running normal RAID in an unRAID VM? I've never run RAID before, so I'm not sure how exactly I'm going to accomplish this yet, especially since I'm going to be multi-booting (any suggestions are very welcome). Maybe the best way to do it would be to use unRAID and assign them to the NAS VM simply so they'll always be under one OS. 6) If I were to buy a Plus key, and later needed a Pro key, would I just pay the difference or would I have to pay the full Pro key price? I'm sure I've probably forgotten something, but this is already really long as it is. Thanks for any answers or advice. This has been driving me crazy trying to figure all this out.