DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum
Unfortunately no one can be told what fun_plug is - you have to see it for yourself.
You are not logged in.
Announcement
IRC Channel #funplug on irc.freenode.org
#1 2009-03-27 04:10:59
- woody240
- Member
- Registered: 2009-03-27
- Posts: 6
DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
New here and my first post.
I have the DNS323 with two 1TB drives setup as Raid 1. I have been reading a lot about the fun plug and want to install it but have not seen one article where somebody has installed it on a Raid, at least if they had it has not been mentioned. Anyone have any experience in this type of setup?
Second question is, probably a stupid question at that. Volume_1 is my first drive, I am assuming that Volume_1-1 was automatically named as my Raid drive?
Woody
Offline
#2 2009-03-27 08:48:04
- flashman1207
- Member
- Registered: 2008-05-27
- Posts: 92
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
I have RAID 1 and I can't remember there being anything you need to do additionally..
In regard to your 2nd question, If you have RAID 1 there is NO 'Raid drive' as you put it. Both disks have the same data on them.... mine are called Volume_1 and Volume_2
Disclaimer: there are loads of other people with LOADS more knowledge about this stuff as me....
Offline
#3 2009-03-27 14:26:35
- fordem
- Member
- Registered: 2007-01-26
- Posts: 1938
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
fun_plug should work just fine with RAID1 - I say should because although I haven't tried ffp (fonz fun_plug) with RAID1, I have been running a fun_plug of my own creation (much simpler) running on RAID1 for quite some time.
To look at the second question - what you would see depends on your configuration - I see a single volume called Volume_1 - because I have used the entire space on my disks as a single RAID1 array, it is possible to have a Volume_1 and a Volume_2 as flashman describes, IF, you did not use all the space for the RAID1 array, in which case the DNS will create a second volume with the remainder of the space - however - and flashman, you might want to check this out - those two volumes will not have the same data on them, unless you put it there.
So flashman, if you think you have a RAID1 array, and you're seeing two separate volumes with the same data, you may have a problem of some sort.
Offline
#4 2009-03-27 17:22:09
- woody240
- Member
- Registered: 2009-03-27
- Posts: 6
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
Thanks to flashman and fordem
Installing funplug, makes sense the raid is by definition redundant so why wouldn't funplug work. Thanks! As far as the volume naming, both identical drives and I used the entire drive. Probably nothing but will keep doing some research on it.
Offline
#5 2009-03-27 18:24:43
- fordem
- Member
- Registered: 2007-01-26
- Posts: 1938
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
Woody - in your case I think the Volume_1-1 name has something to do with permissions, this unit has a strange way of dealing with multiple shares or shares where mutliple users have access, and if I remember correctly, it appends the -1 to the share name for the second user, and -2 for the third and so on.
Offline
#6 2009-03-27 19:21:33
- qryptiq
- Member
- From: New Ro
- Registered: 2009-03-10
- Posts: 49
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
fordem,
i'm confused by your signature. could you explain "RAID1 is for disk redundancy, not data backup, don't confuse the two ..."
RAid 1 is duplicating two drives... isn't that a form of data backup?
Last edited by qryptiq (2009-03-27 19:25:01)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DNS-321, 2x1.5tb Barracudas
Offline
#7 2009-03-27 19:45:03
- Caretaker
- Member
- Registered: 2009-03-23
- Posts: 8
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
ffp (fonz fun_plug) is running fine here on a RAID 1, even installed it on an USB-Stick connected to the DNS-323.
Offline
#8 2009-03-27 19:58:17
- woody240
- Member
- Registered: 2009-03-27
- Posts: 6
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
Fordem, that makes sense I added one user and it appeared shortly after I did that. I will add another user tonight to see.
Offline
#9 2009-03-27 21:26:04
- luusac
- Member
- Registered: 2008-04-29
- Posts: 360
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
qryptiq wrote:
fordem,
i'm confused by your signature. could you explain "RAID1 is for disk redundancy, not data backup, don't confuse the two ..."
RAid 1 is duplicating two drives... isn't that a form of data backup?
Yes it is a kind of backup, but think about data deletion or corruption - whatever happens on drive 1 also happens on drive 2, delete that important photo or document and it is gone (automatically) on both drives with raid1. However, if one hard disk dies the box will keep on running because of redundancy. It all comes down to what you priorities are - what is most important to you. There are several ways to skin this cat. If backup is key for you and the 323 is going to be your primary storage then think about running the drives independantly and using a script to automatically backup drive 1 to drive 2 at a timed interval - there are lots of posts here on how to do that, and I think on the wiki too.
Offline
#10 2009-03-28 00:39:40
- fordem
- Member
- Registered: 2007-01-26
- Posts: 1938
Re: DNS323 Raid 1 & installing funplug
qryptiq - Luusac did an excellent job of explaining why RAID1 is not backup, all except the first six words of his post.
As the signature says RAID1 is about disk redundancy - about keeping a system functioning even though a drive has failed.
Here's an example...
You have a server running a point of sale system in your store, it has a single disk drive in it, and you're running a backup every fifteen minutes (it's a busy store) to a tape drive - what happens if that single drive fails - the server stops working and even though you have lost no data (you have it backed up) you cannot make any sales and so business is lost - you have to replace the disk, reload the operating system, and restore the data from the tape.
Let's look at the guy across the street from you - he has a RAID array in his server - when a disk fails, he gets an alert message saying the disk has failed and he continues to do business. At 5:30 pm after he closes the store, he can shut the server down and replace the disk.
That's disk redundancy - it's all about reducing the downtime impact of the disk failure.
Now - just for the sake of discussion - the guy across the street has no tape drive, he thinks he doesn't need one, after all he's got RAID, and that's a kind of backup (maybe his name is luusac 
). Along comes the latest version of the conflicker virus (supposedly scheduled for April 1), you both get hit hard.
What do you do? You lose some business whilst you clean up and restore your backup.
What does he do? All he can do is hold his head and cry - his database is screwed and he has no backup - and statistics show that for people like him, whan that loss of data occurs, he'll be out of business within two years.
If down time is not an issue for you, you don't need redundancy, but you do need a backup - if down time is an issue, you need both redundancy AND a backup
Offline