1

I am building a DIY home server NAS with a DAS and Proxmox and don't need enterprise-grade redundancy. I am happy to use something other than Proxmox, I just like how easy it is to use containers and it's often recommended for home labs.

At worse; if I lost all the data in the pool it would be a major inconvenience but nothing irreplaceable would be lost.

I am filling the drive pool with different sized hard drives I have lying around and would like to build it such that I can:

  • Add new drives when I need more storage
  • Remove & replace smaller drives with larger ones
  • Survive the failure of 1 drive
    • Can an imminent HDD failure be detected and data recovery avoided by adding a new drive to the pool, migrating data off of the failing drive and removing the failing drive before it fails?
    • This would be more risky but it would avoid the need for a parity drive or fancy RAID configuration

I have a very basic understanding of techniques of redundancy when combining drives but it sounds like I want something similar to RAID5, where I can have 1 drive failure in a pool of 5 disks and recover by replacing the failed drive. However this only works for a pool of 5 disks of identical size.

I have been trying to understand if an LVM pool could be used for this - I believe that's similar to combining drives using the Windows partitioning tool.

3
  • The RAID is a personal decision entirely based on how many disks you have, how many you want to use as spares, and how much storage you want. Your options are limited if the disks are different sizes.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jun 26 at 21:44
  • I know this is unsolicited but note that RAID is not a replacement for backups. Cheap or fake RAID controllers are a bigger risk to your data than a failed disk (if the controller loses its logical volume you lose all data on all disks), so you may want to devote some of those spare disks to your backup system. Commented Jun 26 at 22:39
  • You could probably RAID 5 but then say smallest drive is 500 GB, then even on larger drive only 500 GB would be assigned to the array. superuser.com/questions/380192/… Commented Jun 28 at 20:04

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .