It is a possibility, but LTO-8 drives are still £3,000+ for just the drive. The drive would also then be the weakest link, and quite an expensive one.
With 10Tb NAS drives coming in at £300 each, that's £1,200 for four drives with 30Tb capacity at RaidZ. An extra as spare, or two extras for RaidZ2 and a spare, and you still haven't broken £2,000. Michelle. On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 19:55 +0100, s...@pandora.be wrote: > I have only read this thread very superficially, but LTO tape (linear > tape open) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape-Open > > LTO-8 has native raw capacity of about 12TB so attaching a LTO-8 > drive may be an option. > > The same page says, by the way, that LTO-9 is supposed to have 18TB > native capacity, > but "delayed to late 2021" (which is now). > > Given the fact that the compressed capacity of LTO-8 is 30TB you are > probably still well below the limits of a single LTO8 tape, > that is, it is quite possible that if you have less than 30TB of > data, you can make a backup to a LTO-8 drive. > > Regards, > David Stes > > ----- Op 1 dec 2021 om 18:08 schreef Mehmet Erol Sanliturk > m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com: > > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:55 PM Michelle <miche...@msknight.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I'm trying to achieve a resilient way of bringing together all my > > > older > > > drives for a backup solution using scraps of whatever I can get > > > my > > > hands on. > > > > > > I have closing on 12TB of data so even the 10 won't be enough to > > > back > > > everything up, but this is as much for the exercise of doing it, > > > as > > > achieving anything solid. It won't be under pressure, but I'd > > > rather > > > push the envelope and see what I can do. > > > > > > So how would the command go? > > > > > > zpool create tank raidz mirror drive1 drive2 mirror drive3 drive4 > > > drive5 > > > > > > ...which is where I come unstuck with the 2TB drive in the mix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few days ago I lost many weeks of work because my drive #1 / 3 > > died , not > > synchronized into #2 / 3 and #3 / 3 . > > This made the computer unbootable . > > I replaced the failed disk and synchronized it with #2 . > > The disk #3 failed and made the computer unbootable . > > I replaced that disk and synchronized it with #2 . > > > > The #1 disk was new but bought approximately 5 year ago . > > > > You are saying your disks are older . > > > > One "safe" but slow choice would be the following . > > > > Use external USB docks for each of your disks and make their file > > systems > > compatible > > with your computer ( if your disks have other file systems ) . > > > > With your synchronization shell scripts (1) mount (2) rsync (3) > > un_mount > > your drives > > by using cron or ( manually which this option is not a good choice > > ) . > > > > If any one of your disks fails , it will not affect your computer . > > This will be slow but without any other harm . > > > > > > The most suitable additional action may be to backup your data to > > external > > disks > > regularly . These disks will not be continuously connected to the > > computer > > and will not be affected by electricity harmful effects . > > > > > > > > OR > > > > You may use another computer ( such as a single board computer ) as > > an NFS > > server > > ( or a NAS if one is available to you ) , and use your drives in > > that > > server . > > Then synchronize your drives from your computer . If any disk fails > > , it > > only affects the server > > but your computer continues to work without affection . > > > > > > > > Mehmet Erol Sanliturk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 11:17 +0000, James wrote: > > > > On 01/12/2021 08:31, Michelle wrote: > > > > > Say I was to put a 2tb, three 4tb and a 6tb together (a 2 and > > > > > two 4 > > > > > would make 10 and the other 4 and the 6 would also make 10) > > > > > > > > > > Would that be possible with ZFS now? > > > > > > > > I think it has always been possible, ask is is sensible? Try > > > > it, if > > > > you > > > > have nothing to loose. The problem is if one drive fails is > > > > takes > > > > out > > > > all of one side of the mirror. > > > > > > > > Why not use 2 separate 4TB mirrors? 4&4 = 4, 4&6 = 4, total > > > > 8. You > > > > loose the 2TB drive completely but (guessing) it is the slowest > > > > and > > > > oldest. You ignore 2TB of the 6. > > > > > > > > You don't say what you are trying to achieve but it's unlikely > > > > you > > > > have > > > > the full 8TB of data, it is unlikely it can't be split. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > > > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
