>>101431354
RAID is Not a Backup, so in case of failure just restore your backups, dude?

>>101431409
He had no backups. He didn't care about redundancy either. He's still trying to see if he can save the drive and get the array back up but he sent it out and they said it's fucked.

What was he storing?

File: 1647103925183.png (635 KB, 1362x665)

635 KB PNG

>>101431354
Holy retard, what a normie!
And I thought eight drives was insane.

Assuming 99.9% reliability:

0.999 ^ 8 = ca. 99.2% no failure --> 8 out of every 1000 fails
0.999 ^ 30 = ca. 97.1% no failure --> 29 out of every 1000 fails

That's almost quadrupling the expected failure rate!
(It is coincidence it seems to linearly grow, it's obviously exponential)

>>101431354
>data hoarder
more like
>data burner

but why. raid 5 would have saved him.

>>101431442
Literally this.
In this day and age unless one is running a data storage business there really is nothing of value (material, sentimental or whatever) that would take up 200tb of space

>>101431354
reddit niggers

>>101431354
This is what happens when you don't gatekeep enough.

>>101431354
If you have 200tb in RAID 0 with no backups you obviously don't care about your data, so why is bro so bloddy pressed?

>>101431442
I'm thinking coomer.

>throwing for content

>>101431354
>Refurbished
First mistake. But as a data hoarder I am genuinely kinda mystified and unsure if I even qualify for the title. My grand total of all data is a bit above 5TB. This is everything I love, have watched and want to keep, see, or listen. It's all genuinely stuff I personally like and which i've collected over two decades. It's that small. I have no idea what the purpose is or drive these people have that collect unrelated stuff that they have never interacted with and never will. I absolutely get and support people who say have huge databases of stuff and share them publicly as a kind of archive or library available to all, that's a valuable service, but I never understood the drive of regular people to have assloads of data they will NEVER watch or listen or fap to.

Also a proper stash is always offline and cold storage.

>>101431354
How does one build an array of 30 drives? Even raidz3 adds just 3 drives of parity, which seems low. Is there a golden ratio between data and parity?

>>101432314
Oh, it's those faggots who're too good for 1.5GB YIFY, so they need a magnitude of order more space.
t. 8+4TB data and 8+4TB offline mirror

Yes, I could have 30TB space, but I lost my data once 15 years ago, never again.

>>101431671
but then how could he get content out of it

>>101431354
>raid 0

What was he expecting lmao

File: 22a.png (495 KB, 680x499)

495 KB PNG

>>101431354
>be reddit faggot
>hear about that one anon who put 8 3.6TB hard drives in RAID 0
>childsplay.webp
>buy 30 12TB hard drives
>configure then in RAID 0 Stripe
>"backups? who the fuck backups their shit in [current year]?"
>one of the drives shits the config
>absolutely go apeshit about it
>can't go back because no backups

what was going through this faggot's head ROFLMAO

>>101431354
if you are willing to blow the money to get 30 used drives why would you not get a few more so you can raid5/raid6? fucking dumb

File: 1710494849009347.gif (354 KB, 500x491)

354 KB GIF

>>101431354
>RAID-0TODDLERS BTFO

>>101432314
my collection tripled in size as better quality releases came out and i replaced my 2gb series from early 2000s with 15gb bluray rips

>>101431354
This is why I back up all my data on m-discs and then use the hdds for new stuff.

>>101431354
>A RAID-0 of 30 used drives on Windows
If you have no redundancy why didn't he just fill up every disk indipendantly? When one drive failes only the data on the one drive is lost

>>101432358
>How does one build an array of 30 drives?
Redundant RAIDZ pools? But considering modern drive sizes even with RAIDZ-3 I wouldn't go past a dozen drives per pool.

I got those HDDs and so far I'm extremely happy with them. Best deal for storage in the world right now

>>101433748
They really are so long as you don't use them in a 30 drive raid0

>>101431354
haha isn't that to be expected

>>101431354
>using anything other than mirrored RAID
>not using a single big drive and just periodically copying everything other or cloning to an identical drive
?
are people just lazy or immovable

>>101431354
>raid 0
>oh no my data is gone when it breaks
MORON

>>101431518
It's no coincidence because 0.999 is very close to 1.

>>101431354
I hope everyone is laughing at him in the comments.

>>101434581
True.
Does anyone happen to know typical hard drive failure rates?

>>101433654
since its 200tb he probably wanted to speed up the operation and thought he could get away with it without redundancy.

>>101432358
plain Linux raid DM, using lvm, btrfs raid 0 works fine, plenty of HBAs have raid modes. No hobbyist is gonna hit a disk limit and most data centers aren't doing massive basic raids anymore. Idk what raidz3 is. What I do know is if you have 30 drives you can just make a huge lvm volume and then format it as ext4 if you want dead simple full retard raid0

>>101433654
Raid0 speeds up read speeds as long as its actually striped, and you never lose space due to having something such as an 8gb file and 7gb left on a disk. Its fine for throw away data but most people that use raid0 do it out of laziness and ignorance.
You could also ask why raid1 instead of automatic backups

>>101431354
what is up with redditors ?
I was looking at potential solutions taht would have avoided this catastrophic failure and ended up on this thread :
https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/rokzvu/jbod_if_a_drive_fails_in_a_34_drive_jbod_array_do/
> OP : if I do A would I lose data?
> hurr you should do B
> I'd do C if I were you

can't these fucking moron answer the goddam question? especially if it's a yes/no question like this one...
I seem to encounter this pattern more and more on the reddit, this makes it very frustrating to browser this website...

>>101431354
>raid 0
he chose poorly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubw5N8iVDHI

>>101431726
>In this day and age unless one is running a data storage business there really is nothing of value (material, sentimental or whatever) that would take up 200tb of space
wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvWBnPNWMQg

Unironically what is the use case for a 12TB hard drive with 30x write speed?

>>101431354
I've been in this same scenario where I want to grow my array so I have to stash my data temporarily somewhere else to rebuild it, but I don't use a fucking array nevermind a RAID 0, just format the drives in xfs and fill them up one by one, if one fails you lose the data in that one drive and you don't have stress the drive up for a month when retrieving the data.

>>101431354
Are these drives actually a good buy they are flooding the market now

>>101434823
it's totally pajeet behavior, just like in stackoverflow

>>101436044
Good if you know you're buying refurbished, bad if you're getting scammed by Amazon sellers labeling them as new, I almost got fucked if it wasn't for the comments.

>>101431354
I would never use RAID-0.... I have a RAID 6 with 2 parity drives. As others have said, not a backup, but you should still have redundancy with that much storage.

>>101436360
Just imagine having to rebuild a 200TB pool from backups.

>>101431354
>30 drive array
>RAID-0 (should really be called AIDS since it does away with the "Redundant" part)
>ReeeeeeeeFS

>>101432358
You stripe 2 raidz3's

>>101432358
>Is there a golden ratio between data and parity?
Yeah but it depends whether the drives are Seagates and how often you back up the array.

>>101437189
what if you have 3+ raidz pools? can you raidz1 5 raidz2 vdevs?

>accidentally sets up RAID0 thinking it's JBOD
how did this idiot even get enough disposable income to buy 30x12TBs
>>101432728
>>101433654
>>101433916
>>101434502
if you actually read the post, he didn't even intentionally put it into RAID0

File: Screenshot from 2024-07-1(...).png (758 KB, 1366x768)

758 KB PNG

>>101431354
i don't know much about RAID. if one drive fails they all fail?
why would anyone do this and risk their data being lost?

>>101431442
4k uncompressed films and 25GB pc games are the only things i can think of that would require that many TB.

people who store uncompressed films on hdds are retards in my opinion

>>101435801
i noticed he never played any of them in the video and that's because emulation for a lot of those condoles is crap

>>101432537
>1.5GB
bloat
200-500mb is optimal

>>101431442
the kind of stuff you want to get rid of but just can't

>>101437625
>why would anyone do this and risk their data being lost?
A situation where you need a large amount of temporary storage. Editing a movie might be a good example. Once the work is done your transfer your completed file to something else

>>101431671
>>101432552
>refs
doubt it. I fiddle fucked with using the new pools utility vs the ol dynamic disks a year ago. I built the pool of 4x2tb HDDs in raid5, began to load it with data (like 3tb) , and at some point the transfrr just stopped responding. I canceled and I honestly cant remember but I think new transfers would either error out or immediately stall. either way I rebooted and the pool was dead, it was corrupt and failed and none of the refs inbuilt utilities could salvage it so it was completely hosed. I said fuck to the no, deleted the pool, did dynamic disk raid 5, and haven't had a single problem with corruption or errors.
im so happy I tested it before actually migrating my data because every site I read about refs and pools said this is extremely common and frequent, and yeah it clearly fucking was if it happened with an hour of first using it.

>>101437625
>if one drive fails they all fail?
There are different kinds of RAID. In RAID0, there is 0 fault-tolerance, every other type handles at least one drive failure.
>why would anyone do this and risk their data being lost?
because in the olden-days before SSDs, this was basically the only way to make persistent storage faster
now there is not much use-case for it outside of scenarios like >>101437755 where you need tons of writes on fast scratch media and want to avoid wearing out SSD write-cycles

fake ass post written to farm upboats

>>101431354
>reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1e43x8w/catastrophic_data_loss_my_200tb_backup_nightmare/
>I lost entertainment data

200TB of coomer data gone :(

File: 1489393463136.jpg (306 KB, 1509x666)

306 KB JPG

>>101431442
he was storing these.

>>101439710
sick and disgusting!

>>101431354
one 4chan thread for every reddit post
imagine that

RAID ignorant here: RAID 0 isn't for write/read speed? Do 30 disks in RAID 0 become X30 faster?

>>101439887
RAID 0 speed doesn't scale linearly. You hit against diminishing returns from latency, disk cache, striping size etc. RAID 0 is purely for scratch disk and you need more I/O throughout with no compromises on capacity.

>>101440295
Thx for the answer, I was trying to understand what the guy in OP was meant to achieve and for what purpose...

>>101440328
The user thought they were combining disks as one and wasn't aware of the consequences of doing it. Whatever it was a RAID-0 or a JBOD.

>>101440328
He had no idea what he was doing and just created a default new array in windows server, thinking there was no risk of failure since it was only for a couple months with refurbished drives.
Actual retard.

>>101432314
>>Refurbished
>First mistake

Yeah this is the bonkers part to me.
I honestly dont understand people who buy critical compents second hand, for anything really.
The first storage server I built was on a budget, so I filled it with WD Greens, which worked fine for a while, but being a server that was running 24/7 the drives started to drop dead one by one after about 2-3 years.

Nowadays its always brand new WD Red NAS drives.
SMART alert a drive is starting to degrade? Replace that shit and rebuild the array ASAP.
My latest setup just had 4x12TB drives installed into the array alongside 4x6TB drives, and I had to use a JBOD raid box to temporarily store the data so I could reformat the filesystem to allow a partition bigger than 64TB, and I was fucking shitting myself for the few days I was copying everything back.

>>101431354
>RAID-0
>30 used drives
>Windows
>ReFS
Lmao

>>101440815
The price savings are just too good to pass up

>>101440815
If WD red wasn't outright scam tier people wouldn't look at refurbs
They've zero right to be as expensive as they are

>not putting all your data on 100 different SD cards hidden under your bed
NGMI

>hotlinking r*ddit on 4chan
Is reddit really this desperate for traffic?

>>101441882
So why aren't people just buying Ultrastar drives?
>cheapest per TB by far (less than half as much per TB as WD reds around here)
>5 years warranty
>support SE/ISE
>SATA and SAS variants

>>101431354

Anyone who uses windows is a legit spastic.

>>101442214
they are they are just buying used ones

>>101442262
Then why are people always bitching about Reds being so expensive? Even /hsg/ is regularly filled with retards that apparently never heard of anything other than Seagate IronWolfs and WD Reds?

what device is he using that could connect and hold 30 drives?

>>101442283
because they want them to be cheaper that's the only reason
And they should be cheaper. The same drives cost more now than they did when they were released.

>>101442288
mutiple JBODs