ServeTheHome's RAID Calculator Bug and Suggestion Box
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
Nice job Patrick.
Noticed a few bugs:
In the size you have 2 (2.5TB) listing as well as a RAID6 in between 900GB and 1TB. The first 2.5TB listing calculates as 2TB correctly though.
Noticed a few bugs:
In the size you have 2 (2.5TB) listing as well as a RAID6 in between 900GB and 1TB. The first 2.5TB listing calculates as 2TB correctly though.
Fixed the duplicate 2.5TB, added 2.0TB, fixed 3.0TB drives and removed the RAID6 in the capacity columns.
Thanks mmmmmdonuts and readers for the feedback!
4.0TB is currently broken but I will get that fixed tonight.
Feel free to send any additional feedback or enhancement ideas.
Thanks mmmmmdonuts and readers for the feedback!
4.0TB is currently broken but I will get that fixed tonight.
Feel free to send any additional feedback or enhancement ideas.
I'd like to see the results display your total raw volume vs. usable volume rather than just displaying the usable volume - makes it a bit quicker to understand what you're seeing.
Also, could we get raidz/1/2 options? May end up being exactly the same as raid0/5/6 but not everyone will know that
Also, could we get raidz/1/2 options? May end up being exactly the same as raid0/5/6 but not everyone will know that
Great ideas. I think we may end up re-doing the whole base 10 to base 2 conversion portion. That was on the list for yesterday but it didn't make it. That is where we could do RAW to usable. One other thing is that I wanted that capacity drop-down to be an editable field which would rely upon the base 10 to base 2 conversion.
On the RAID Z/Z2/Z3 portion, that was on the post as on the list so good to hear we are thinking the same thing. Those need to get broken out for the conversion portion.
On the RAID Z/Z2/Z3 portion, that was on the post as on the list so good to hear we are thinking the same thing. Those need to get broken out for the conversion portion.
Enhancement request: Add units to all results columns, whether hours, days, years, etc.
Enhancement request: Change formatting to make large numbers easier to read. One of my MTTDL results was "4120458233786.7". I'd like to see this as "4,120,458,233,787" for better readability - commas added and the result rounded. Even better, change the units depending on the size of the result. One MTTDL results might be labeled "104 Years" while another might be "123 Days".
Enhancement request: Add text explaining the lower paragraph. I interpreted the values to be the percentage chance of some type of failure after the passing of the number of years in the heading.
Enhancement request: Add a little bit of information about the underlying calcuations and then add a disclaimer about how the results can be used to compare different RAID models but will not accurately measure expected system lifetimes.
Enhancement request: Change formatting to make large numbers easier to read. One of my MTTDL results was "4120458233786.7". I'd like to see this as "4,120,458,233,787" for better readability - commas added and the result rounded. Even better, change the units depending on the size of the result. One MTTDL results might be labeled "104 Years" while another might be "123 Days".
Enhancement request: Add text explaining the lower paragraph. I interpreted the values to be the percentage chance of some type of failure after the passing of the number of years in the heading.
Enhancement request: Add a little bit of information about the underlying calcuations and then add a disclaimer about how the results can be used to compare different RAID models but will not accurately measure expected system lifetimes.
Bug in Raid Calculator
RAID Mode: RAID-Z
Disk Size: 250 GB
Quantity of Disks:4
Gives:
RAID-Z
Raw Storage: 1000.0 TB / 1000000.0 GB
Usable Storage: 0.7 TB / 68,5 GB
RAID-Z uses one disk for Parity much like RAIDS and requires at least three drives to be used.
I think the Raw Storage is a little large :¬)
Raid Calculator v1.05
RAID Mode: RAID-Z
Disk Size: 250 GB
Quantity of Disks:4
Gives:
RAID-Z
Raw Storage: 1000.0 TB / 1000000.0 GB
Usable Storage: 0.7 TB / 68,5 GB
RAID-Z uses one disk for Parity much like RAIDS and requires at least three drives to be used.
I think the Raw Storage is a little large :¬)
needs overprovisioning at reasonable levels.
We know that 10% is too little, 25% is right on, and 40 or 50% is ideal.
For example, the OCZ Vector runs in slc-emulation mode for maximum speed and massive lifespan gain until it reaches 50% utilized, so if you ran 51% OP you would get a very very powerful fast drive that can go the distance.
Also explain OP - How trim is not everything, and that 25% OP saves you from loss in speed after 20 seconds of full writes, really saves you from 20-1400s, and completely makes a world of difference 1400s + in write.
If you suggest 10% OP for SSD - what if your trim/firmware/setting fails? you won't end up with a dead drive. We all know about trim not working ahem.
We know that 10% is too little, 25% is right on, and 40 or 50% is ideal.
For example, the OCZ Vector runs in slc-emulation mode for maximum speed and massive lifespan gain until it reaches 50% utilized, so if you ran 51% OP you would get a very very powerful fast drive that can go the distance.
Also explain OP - How trim is not everything, and that 25% OP saves you from loss in speed after 20 seconds of full writes, really saves you from 20-1400s, and completely makes a world of difference 1400s + in write.
If you suggest 10% OP for SSD - what if your trim/firmware/setting fails? you won't end up with a dead drive. We all know about trim not working
ahem.