[MLStrand56]

I'm contemplating building a frankenstein Media Server, using an old Asus K8V-X mobo that I'm not using. I want to use a 4x SATA/RAID controller, using RAID 5 for the data drives. Is it possible to use RAID 5 with only 4 data HD's? All the RAID 5 setups I've ever seen, use 5x HD's. The OS would have it's own HD.

I think that 4x 2TB RAID 5 HD's would be make a nice Audio/Video(?) Server. I like the idea of moving all my Audio/Video(?) files to one central location.

MLStrand56

[LiveBrianD]

You only need 3 HDs for raid 5.

[waldojim]

You can use any number of drives for raid 5 - after the first 3. Meaning, 3,4,5,6,7, whatever you feel like. The only problem that arises from raid 5, is that you have a maximum failure tolerance of one drive.

[MLStrand56]

waldojim, on 21 December 2011 - 02:07 PM, said:

The only problem that arises from raid 5, is that you have a maximum failure tolerance of one drive.

Yes, but that's also true of a single D:\Data Drive. If it fails, ALL your data is lost forever. At least with RAID 5, if one HD fails, the lost data is rebuilt after the dead drive is replaced. With RAID 5 is recommended to buy your HD's from different sources, so you don't end up with all your HD's being from the same batch number, which increases the likelihood that 2 drives will fail at the same time.

MLStrand56

[waldojim]

You are right about the single drive. My point is only that your dependency on limited drive failures go up with more drives in the array. Meaning in my 3 drive array, The chances of loosing 2 drives is minimal. But with 5 drives, the chances of any two failing are MUCH higher. With 7 drives, that goes up even more. Eventually, you will want to consider something a little more flexible and failure proof. A dedicated NAS array at some point would be ideal. Something with a stripped, mirrored Free-nas array that is easily expanded. Of course, I am just talking about speed and reliability. Those suckers aren't cheap.

[MLStrand56]

waldojim, on 28 December 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

You are right about the single drive. My point is only that your dependency on limited drive failures go up with more drives in the array. Meaning in my 3 drive array, The chances of loosing 2 drives is minimal. But with 5 drives, the chances of any two failing are MUCH higher. With 7 drives, that goes up even more. Eventually, you will want to consider something a little more flexible and failure proof. A dedicated NAS array at some point would be ideal. Something with a stripped, mirrored Free-nas array that is easily expanded. Of course, I am just talking about speed and reliability. Those suckers aren't cheap.

Well my PCI RAID Controller only handles 4 HD's.

How do you figure that running more HD's Increases the likilihood of multiple simultaneous HD failures? Mathematically it Decreases the possibility.

I agree that a 5x 2TB RAID 5 NAS would be GREAT, I just can't justify the $850'ish price for an Empty (w/o HD's) NAS.

MLStrand56

[mjd420nova]

I like the four disk array with the first drive being solid state. When backups or archive procedures are adhered to, there's no fear of failure.