[Leaplist] My little farm (was: Backup to external USB md RAID 1/5?)

[Jason Boxman]

On Friday 28 March 2008 19:27, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Jason Boxman wrote:
> > It's larger in physical size than zero.
>
> So are external 3.5" drives.  And I'm just talking the non-insulated
> against shock types.  If you want better insulation/mounting, they
> can be over 2" x 7" x 10".  ;)

True enough.  I was probing reliability before looking at enclosures.  
Obviously, I've never owned one, or I probably wouldn't have even asked as 
the size for a quality enclosure is apparently quite huge.

> > I have five boxes and when it's time to move,
> > it's five too many.
>
> Five?  Five?  Okay, what's up here?
>
> I have four (4) for:
> - Firewall (Slim MicroATX)
> - My Desktop (Mini-Tower MicroATX)
> - My Wife's Desktop (Cube MicroATX)
> - My Server (Tower eATX)

I tend to enjoy keeping 'state' on my workstation by never powering it down or 
logging out of X, so I've had a dedicated gaming box for a couple years now.  
So I presently have,

x Firewall (mid-tower case, Celeron 300MHz)
x Server (full tower, 2x733MHz P3, 6 3.5" PATA drives, 3Ware 7500-4)
x Backup Server (full tower, P3 500MHz, 3 3.5" PATA drives, 3Ware 7810)
x Workstation (mid-tower, Sempron 64 2800, 2x80GB PATA)
x Gaming (mid-tower, Athlon 64 3300, 1x80GB PATA)

The latter two are relatively light, cheap cases, with only a few drives.

The Server and Backup Server are huge, and the former is especially heavy, 
thanks to a very solidly built case.  I hadn't considered having to move when 
I originally bought it and six 5.25" bays sounded nice.  The H700A has a 
4x3.5" drive cage above the PSU in the back, too.

> I use my Desktop and Server to back each other, along with DVD-R/RAM
> and 2.5" disks.  I might have a 5th case around that I'm building for
> my family, etc...
>
> Why are you complaining about a backup server when you have five (5)
> systems?  You could use one of the other ones as a backup server in a
> secondary role.  ;)

I could, but I hadn't considered it before now.  Of course, I now need some 
way of stuffing an additional 3x300GB PATA In my little workstation, replace 
those with a pair of 750GB SATA drives, or buy a larger, heavier case.  Ugh.

I have fantasized about nuking the firewall box for a couple of years, but the 
WRT54G v3 I had was utterly awful for that task.  Running OpenVPN on it, 
under a heavy load, would lock up the device.  Unacceptable.  Also, I use a 
few custom kernel patches for PPPoATM and the ipp2p patch for marking p2p 
traffic, which would require I cross build a kernel somehow.

If anyone is successfully using a firewall appliance and has built a custom 
kernel for it, I'd be curious to hear about it.  My current firewall has a 
nice Adaptec 4 port NIC based on the tulip chipset that I rather enjoy having 
access to.

I don't intend to do away with my dedicated gaming box or use my file server 
as a workstation, so the backup server has been the next logical target.

> > Not having any money, several systems I acquired for free.
>
> I just gave away a Cube MicroATX system without memory/disk at the
> InstallFest a few months back.  I might have another to give away
> soon as well.

Sweet.

> > The backup server is a huge, ancient full tower system.
> > It's an inch taller than my HX700B full tower, but with
> > one less 5.25" bay.
>
> Then recycle that duty, backup, into a smaller case.  I'm not trying
> to be "argumentative" here, just questioning some sense.  ;)

Works for me.  I am simply trying to recycle whatever I currently have on 
hand.  In this instance, it's probably best to buy an inexpensive case and 
just downsize the backup server entirely.  I'd just never thought of it.  

CoolMax seems to be selling cases now and they were giving them away in 
November.  The one I bought is decent, though obviously cheap, for less than 
$30 after rebates.  Maybe I'll get another of those.  For the 3.5" drives I 
worry about temperature and airflow.

> If something is big that I don't like, I make it smaller.  If
> something is separate and can be combined with another thing, I
> combine them.
>
> Heck, with the free VMWare server, it's pretty easy to virtualize
> these days, especially for something that is rarely run like a
> near-line backup.  ;)

True -- virtualization is something I haven't messed with much.  The File 
Server only has 768M of RAM -- ECC PC133 -- and I don't know what kind of 
milage virtualization will get out of that.  It does have the benefit of 
being a dual processor system, though.  But backups on the same physical 
system don't make much sense to me; I like to keep them separate to protect 
against electrical issues internally killing a whole box.

I'd thought about sticking the firewall on the File Server and virtualizing 
one or the other, but I like physical boxes as it keeps things simple.  It's 
hard to screw up a dedicated install on a physical box.  If it goes down, I 
just lose the one system, not the virtualized one which I now need to migrate 
to another suitable system, if I have one.

> > It has an old Dell P3 500MHz slot 1 CPU mainboard, so I doubt
> > it'll fit in a Slim or Cube case.
>
> I have an extra Slot 1 (and even a Slot A) MicroATX mainboard.  ;)

Oh, really?  They made mATX slot 1 mainboards?

> > Wouldn't be if I owned a mainboard of that form factor
> > and a Slim case.
>
> I've only paid more than $40 for a MicroATX mainboard twice in the
> last 3 years.  Most have been just under $40, and two (2) have been
> under $20.

Indeed.  I guess I'll pay more attention next time I buy new equipment; Next 
upgrade might be a new workstation in Spring or Fall of 2009.

> > Meh.  That's what I suspected.
>
> It's all about risk.
>
> Here's a flip ...
>
> There is more risk to use an external mirror/stripe than putting your
> "near-line backup" on a system with an already existing duty as its
> 2nd duty.  Just a consideration.  ;)

Oh, I'd just assume skip external storage if it's not reliable.  Not worth the 
risk.

> That's what I mean by the fact that I backup my desktop to my server,
> and my server to my desktop.  I don't need the available 1-2TiB on
> either system alone, but I can use 50-75% of each system's 1-2TiB of
> storage for backups of each other's data.

Sounds reasonable.

> Simple solution for home users IMHO.
>
> I use LVM to create a volume that is _never_ mounted at boot, and has
> to be explicitly enabled.
>
> > How much extra?
>
> If you already have enough to backup your data with those three (3)
> disks, then move them to another system that you use already and use
> that storage.  I thought that was obvious.  ;)
>
> > I use Dirvish and need at least 1:1.
>
> Then do 1:1 as you are doing now.  You have three (3) existing
> drives, your just moving them, right?  I have PATA controllers if you
> need them.

I certainly thought about it.

> > I've done fun things like accidently `rsync --delete
> > against a filesystem with an NFS mount and had to recover
> > most of my files from backup.
>
> Then why don't you script your backups so you remove the human
> element?

Oh, this was a one time partial restore of files.  I'd upgraded KDE on my 
laptop, I think back when Woody was still standard, and it hosed.  So I was 
trying to `rsync` over all the files on the system, but ran with --delete and 
it obviously picked up my NFS mount under /hostname.  Oops.

> > I enjoy having a full backup on-line and available.
>
> Yes, which is called a "near-line."  We've been over this before.
> Nothing is changing here.  You can enable/disable in software,
> especially if you use LVM volume groups.
>
> > I suppose I could do that.  Only a few years ago, I was still
> > dual booting my workstation, so that would've been more of a
> > pain.
>
> Given the fact that the FUSE 3rd Gen NTFS driver can safely write to
> NTFS filesystems, that isn't an issue either.  ;)

Not the backups; having my workstation backup the file server.  I hate having 
to boot back and forth.  Solved with a dedicated Windows box.

> > I've lost my backup server (was RAID-0 as I couldn't yet
> > afford another 300GB ATA disk for RAID-5) and my single SCSI
> > 18GB SCA OS drive on the file server almost simultaneously.
>
> Well, I don't know what to tell you.  But at least it was just your
> backup, and not your usable system.  ;)

Agreed.

> > I like reliable backups.
>
> Well, striping over external FireWire or USB ain't it.  Even eSATA is
> a compatibility joke right now (don't get me started).  Only SCSI and
> SAS are technically viable, but they aren't pricewise.
>
> Hence why I'm still for network-based near-line.
>
> > So, no, I won't be switching to using USB2'd drives, ever.
> > I just thought I'd ask.
>
> I'm hopeful eSATA will "come around."  Until then, network.  ;)
>
> > My true goal is simply to reduce footprint.  However, I
> > happen to have all these existing systems.  Other than physical
> > size, they all work fine.  I can't afford to replace them with
> > a bunch of MicroATX based systems today, since that'll probably
> > cost more than $0.
>
> Wait.  Are we talking about replacing only one (1) system, your
> backup system?  Or are you complaining about all five (5) of your
> boxes?  And in that case, what does that have to do with backup?
> Especially if you only replace one (1) system?

Maybe everything, maybe nothing.  Depends on what I ultimately end up 
eliminating.  You'd think the firewall would be the easiest to replace, but 
I've grown found of my 4 port NIC and custom kernel.

> Hey, rant away, I don't mind.  But I would like to help, seriously.
> So that's why I'm pointing out that you're "not working the problem."
>  ;)

The original objective that brought about the question was reducing the 
physical quantity of systems from five to either four or even three.  I don't 
see the File Server or Gaming system going away.  Although the Workstation 
could be replaced with a laptop, but I'd rather not as I enjoy my dual 
monitor setup.

> > In the future, once the equipment is sufficiently old to
> > justify replacement, I think I favor the Micro-ATX mainboards
> > and cube cases.
>
> I started three (3) years ago on the slim/cube, and almost five (3)
> years ago with the mini-tower MicroATX solutions.  What finally got
> me "changed over" were dirt-cheap MicroATX mainboards.

Interesting.

> > I'd also like to reduce the number of hard disk drives,
> > but the ones I have work fine.  The 4x120GB WDs have lasted
> > for years.  My 2x120GB and 3x300GB Seagate drivers are all
> > still under the five year warranty for at least 3 years each.
>
> I'm still running with a dozen 200GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 drives.
>  ;)  Now I'm starting to buy only 2.5" SATA drives, since the cost
> premium is within 50% (around $0.30/GB, whereas 3.5" is around
> $0.20).  2.5" SAS has taken over the server closet in the last two
> (2) years, and that's bringing prices down further, and it will
> continue.

Yeah, I've seen those drives.  They're really sweet.  I wish I could just 
afford to have all 2.5" SAS drives.  I look forward to the price on consumer 
2.5" drives to further decline.  Someday, they'll probably be standard.

In additional to systems, I ultimately want to reduce my quantity of physical 
drives.  With fewer drives, I can mostly run RAID 1 and not bother with 
expensive PATA/SATA RAID solutions, though I love my 3Ware cards.  (I've 
never paid up for hot-swap bays, though, since my stuff isn't that critical 
and I can't afford the luxury of spares.)

I'd like to move to 2x500GB, say, for the file server, and 2x750GB or whatever 
the larger size is for the backups.  That's four drives, down from the nine I 
have currently.  Of course this existing nine probably need to die or find 
other purposes before I buy new drives.  The 336GB of RAID 5 storage I have 
now seems to be more than enough for my needs.

> > So I am kind of stuck unless I want to stop using perfectly
> > good equipment and spend more money to replace it all with
> > smaller mainboards and cases and fewer, larger hard drives.
>
> Definitely consider 2.5" then the next time you buy in the coming
> years.  If you mirror/stripe, the performance difference to 3.5" is
> not much.

Excellent.