Register for the iXsystems Community to get an ad-free experience

RAIDZ pool across different SATA controllers: bad idea?

Status
Not open for further replies.

darrenbest

Dabbler
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
33
I have a motherboard with 8 SATA ports: 4 from the on-board controller, and 4 from a Marvell "RAID" chip (the RAID function is easily disabled). I currently have 4 x 2TB drives to use for building my NAS, with plans to add more, larger drives as they become more affordable. The NAS will be for Office, graphics, and small video files for a 10-seat office environment (not constantly-updating database transactions, rather mostly just standard documents).

I'm wondering about how to implement a RAIDZ (single parity) for my current setup. I know the "power of 2" rule says that an optimal setup my situation would be to use 5 x 2TB drives now (4 data, 1 parity), leaving another optimal setup for three larger drives later (2 data, 1 parity). I don't object to buying another 2TB drive now.

However, I am uncertain of the wisdom of splitting a RAIDZ pool of 5 drives across different controllers. This would not affect performance, I assume, but what about if one of the controllers on the motherboard were to die? Would re-building the RAID be problematic if I replace with a different motherboard?

On the other hand, if I build a "non-optimal" RAIDZ pool with my current four drives (3 data, 1 parity) on one controller, and another four-drive pool with larger drives later on the other, will I regret it from a performance standpoint?

Finally, am I even correct in my assumption (that in the event of a motherboard failure, it would be easier to recover if the entire pool is on a single controller)? If I am being needlessly worried, please let me know. Thanks.
 

ProtoSD

MVP
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,348
Would re-building the RAID be problematic if I replace with a different motherboard?

Nope, not a problem at all. It's one of the FAQ questions. Splitting across controllers shouldn't be a problem either as far as I'm aware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top