NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Suggestion for x-raid3
This is a suggestion for a hopefully smarter utilization of disks-arrays of disks of different sizes. Say that I have 3 disks of 1 TB each. I buy a 3 TB disk and put it into the empty slot, after s...
I'm not saying X-RAID2 is anything but fine, I'm suggesting there is room for improvements.
I realize that my first example was a bad example because it fails to illustrate an advantage. Moving on to the second example.
"With one 3TB disk there was nowhere to have a redundant copy of 2TB of the data on the disk. But with two there is. So the volume will expand to 5TB (before overheads, measurement discrepancy etc.)"
That is not correct. 2x3TB disks would amount to 3 TB of total volume capacity (X-RAID2 is equal to standard RAID1 in this scenario). This is clearly demonstrated in the X-RAID2 IN ACTION link you provided. That is, 2 disks of the same size will not add any volume capacity, the second disk will only provide redundancy.
The second example has 2x1TB + 2x3TB. X-RAID2 would treat every disk as if they where 1TB, which would amount to a total of 3TB in volume capacity. Ditching the 2x1TB disks, and only using the 2x3TB disks, X-RAID2 would still only get 3TB of volume capacity, cause the disks would simply mirror each other for redundancy.
What I am proposing (calling it X-RAID3) is that if you make a sub-array out of the 2x1TB disks, that is, treating 2x1TB disks as a single 2TB disk (raid0). And using the 2x3TB disks as if they where 2x2TB disks, we would in theory have 3x2TB disks. This would amount to a total of 4TB of volume capacity, which is 1TB more than X-RAID2 is able to get.
I realize that my first example was a bad example because it fails to illustrate an advantage. Moving on to the second example.
"With one 3TB disk there was nowhere to have a redundant copy of 2TB of the data on the disk. But with two there is. So the volume will expand to 5TB (before overheads, measurement discrepancy etc.)"
That is not correct. 2x3TB disks would amount to 3 TB of total volume capacity (X-RAID2 is equal to standard RAID1 in this scenario). This is clearly demonstrated in the X-RAID2 IN ACTION link you provided. That is, 2 disks of the same size will not add any volume capacity, the second disk will only provide redundancy.
The second example has 2x1TB + 2x3TB. X-RAID2 would treat every disk as if they where 1TB, which would amount to a total of 3TB in volume capacity. Ditching the 2x1TB disks, and only using the 2x3TB disks, X-RAID2 would still only get 3TB of volume capacity, cause the disks would simply mirror each other for redundancy.
What I am proposing (calling it X-RAID3) is that if you make a sub-array out of the 2x1TB disks, that is, treating 2x1TB disks as a single 2TB disk (raid0). And using the 2x3TB disks as if they where 2x2TB disks, we would in theory have 3x2TB disks. This would amount to a total of 4TB of volume capacity, which is 1TB more than X-RAID2 is able to get.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
