1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HR34 and 4TB External Drive

Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by docderwood, Sep 28, 2012.

  1. Nov 20, 2012 #41 of 132
    kevinturcotte

    kevinturcotte Active Member

    3,957
    1
    Dec 19, 2006
    Outside...
    Can the HR line deal with RAID 1? Would this impact performance?
     
  2. Nov 20, 2012 #42 of 132
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    I have 2 HR's running RAID1 right now and tested another running RAID5. The one that was running RAID5 is now running RAID0. No issues at all.
     
  3. Nov 20, 2012 #43 of 132
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,322
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Don't the risks of raid 0 greatly exceed the benefit?
     
  4. Nov 20, 2012 #44 of 132
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    What risk? There's no redundancy but I certainly don't see that as a risk.

    It's no different than running off of one drive.
     
  5. Nov 20, 2012 #45 of 132
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,322
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    I'd see it as less reliable than running it off one. If either drive dies, you lose it. It seems to me there is a greater chance of that happening than one drive.

    Of course we're not talking mission critical data here, and we know if the DVR dies, you lose everything essentially. But it's adding one more component to the mix.
     
  6. Nov 20, 2012 #46 of 132
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,975
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    that's right and he knew that
     
  7. Nov 20, 2012 #47 of 132
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    I don't see it as a risk at all. If you're running off 1 drive and 1 drive fails you lose everything. If you're running RAID0 and you lose 1 drive you lose everything. Like I said before, it's no different than running off one drive.

    The odds of 1 of the 2 drives in a RAID0 array failing are the same as 1 drive in a 1 drive setup failing.
     
  8. Nov 20, 2012 #48 of 132
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    Please don't speak for me. I know what I said and meant it.
     
  9. Nov 20, 2012 #49 of 132
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    The odds of each single one failing is the same, but it's twice as likely as there are twice as many drives .
     
  10. Nov 20, 2012 #50 of 132
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    But a single failure is still a total loss. If it only takes a single drive failure to lose everything then the odds of you losing everything are the same as a single drive system. Same result, same odds, more space.

    I use Enterprise Level drives, odds are lower.
     
  11. Nov 21, 2012 #51 of 132
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Well, I was pretty good at statistics, and heartily disagree, but I think that's where we'll end up unless a math whiz comes along.
     
  12. Nov 21, 2012 #52 of 132
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    How is a single drive failure different than a single drive failure? :lol:
     
  13. Nov 21, 2012 #53 of 132
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,975
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    You're right , there is clearly demonstrated missing knowledge.

    The rule is simple: total reliability is a product of multiplying all part's reliability.

    Say one HDD has reliability equal 90% [0.9], then two same HDD will has total 0.81 ie 81%. Any engineer knows that and it shouldn't be discussed here.
     
  14. Nov 21, 2012 #54 of 132
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    If experience of the hardcore users is any indication, the DVR will likely die before either of the hard drives dies.
     
  15. Nov 21, 2012 #55 of 132
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    There are few engineers here so it bears repeating.
     
  16. Nov 21, 2012 #56 of 132
    Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    True, over the total lifetime of the two drives, and that is the calculation for RAID 0. However, the whole point of RAID 1 is to exploit the fact that the failure of a drive is likely to happen at any point over the entire expected lifetime of the drive (as stated in the MTBF rating). Therefore, the likelihood of both drives failing at the same time is vanishingly small. I honestly don't see the point of RAID 0 in a DVR use case. The DVRs don't need the extra drive performance, and buying two 1TB drives is more expensive than one 2TB drive.
     
  17. Nov 21, 2012 #57 of 132
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,322
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Very possible. This is one reason I'm not doing a raid setup until the policy changes.
     
  18. Nov 21, 2012 #58 of 132
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    26,999
    522
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    Validate that. Tell me what the odds are on hitting a home run the next time you get up after hitting a home run. And if you do hit a home run in successive at bats, what are the odds on hitting a third one?

    Rich
     
  19. Nov 21, 2012 #59 of 132
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    26,999
    522
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    Agreed and that's the problem we all face. Make the HRs and HDDs compatible with each other within an account and the problem goes away instantly.

    Rich
     
  20. Nov 21, 2012 #60 of 132
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    Space. 2 x 2TB = 4TB.
     

Share This Page