Best Ethernet NAS solution SOHO

[koganstyle]

I was thinking about a 4 bay solution to store my files on and with some redundancy if possible

 

http://www.qnap.com

 

Opinions welcome ?

Edited May 20, 2014 by koganstyle

[jaclaz]

There is unfortunately no such thing as generic *some redundancy*, each "mode" has it's advantages and it's drawbacks.

 

Either you have full (and possibly multiple) redundancy or you have not. This means "backup" more than any RAID setup. 

 

IMHO a line to be drawn between "online" full redundancy, which means more or less having two devices, separated, mirroring each other and "offline" full redundancy, which means more or less having one (or possibly two) backups of the data.

 

Still IMHO, if you want online reliability (which is not redundance) you should choose RAID 5, or RAID 6, whilst possibly the most "convenient" one is RAID 5 +spare.

 

Qnap "entry level" thingies can do all of them (with 4 disks), and they do have a good reputation, but they are not exactly "cheap".

 

Those (as some of the competitors) offer a whole range of (BTW often very nice) services/connections/what not, which in a number of cases are simply unneeded, if you explain us what the intended use would be, maybe it would be possible to find simpler solutions.

 

jaclaz

[koganstyle]

Thanks for your reply jaclaz, just sticking my foot in the water as I imagine you guys have massive volume of files to store when modding OS’s.

 

Call me old school but i want nothing to do with the cloud

 

I don’t need full redundancy, just if a disk fails I have a chance to recover

 

Let’s pretend I have the cabbage for a decent solution

 

The intended use is for a storage device, my doc's, photos, video's, ISO  Images. I just don’t want to have to be bothered downloading them again or re-typing work docs or rediscovering notes ive made about things. Also some of my photos aren’t easy to replace from holidays

 

At the moment I have a $100 AUD external WD 1TB disk with no backup or redundancy

 

ATM I’m thinking  QNAP TS-420 4 Bay Turbo NAS and buy some disks (config as RAID 5)

Edited May 21, 2014 by koganstyle

[Flasche]

Call me old school but i want nothing to do with the cloud

 

Its the smart thing to do. I only use the cloud, so I can have a spare "usb drive" in a sense. Also it is encrypted so they, or prying eyes don't sneak on my stuff (which isn't important just blender stuff). The only other reason I trust this particular cloud service is because it is made/run by Kim Dotcom. And I would, believe that he would things that he does (or runs) to be very very secure

[koganstyle]

Kim Dotcom seems shadey to me

[Flasche]

Kim Dotcom seems shadey to me

 

He probably is, and that is why I trust his client with my stuff.

[jaclaz]

You have to weight accurately what your needs are, and what inconveniences the NAS/RAID "model" has when compared with a "plain" backup/mirroring strategy.

 

If you are looking for redundance or "real" recovery possibility, you will be better off buying two or three additional disks (with an external case or an el-cheapo USB adapter) and make periodical (incremental) backups.

The simplest approach is with two externa disk, you lable them Odd and Even and use it on the corresponding period you choose.

Once every (you choose day , week, month, year  ) you connect the external disk and do an incremental backup (or mirror new files) of the storage you have "online", then store the disk, NOT connected to mains or network or any PC until you use it next time, i.e. double the chosen period.

Theoretically the two disks should also be stored separately, i.e. not in the same cabinet, not in the same room, possibly not even in the same building.

 

RAID (which is BTW a very good approach) does NOT provide "real" recovery possibilities, it represent a very good way to have no hassles in case of "normal" issues and guarantee the minimal downtime.

Yes, if a disk fails in a RAID5 it is considered "normal" <- this is exactly the case for which Raid 5 was designed.

 

With plain 3 disks 5 Raid in case one disk fails, the data won't be available until you replace the failed disk with a new one and rebuild the array.

With 4 disks Raid 5 (Raid 5 + spare) in case one disk fails, data will be available again as soon as you rebuild the array (and thus you have theoretically more time to procure a new spare disk).

With Raid 6 (still 4 disks) the array can bear the failure of two disks, but data won't be avialable until you replace the two failed disks.

 

Now the BAD news .

 

There is a relatively newish, often underestimated issue/risk .

To rebuild an array takes TIIME:

http://storagegaga.com/4tb-disks-the-end-of-raid/

 

The mechanism to re-build an array needs that the remaining disks are "perfect", i.e. that they have not any "URE":

This article, though a bit (okay, a lot )  too pessimistic/alarmistic IMHO, has anyway some good points:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/162

see also this one, which is more "relaxed": 

http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2012/08/i-come-not-to-praise-raid-5/

 

The idea is that the actual disks in a RAID must be "good drives", which seems a trueism/utterly obvious, but that needs to be stressed, if you choose to go that way.

 

And, generally speaking, the smaller the disks are in capacity, and the less is the amount of data on them, the better (another seemingly obvious consideration).

 

It's time to choose, but choose wisely:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097576/quotes?item=qt0357926

 

jaclaz

Edited May 21, 2014 by jaclaz

[uid0]

With plain 3 disks 5 Raid in case one disk fails, the data won't be available until you replace the failed disk with a new one and rebuild the array.

With 4 disks Raid 5 (Raid 5 + spare) in case one disk fails, data will be available again as soon as you rebuild the array (and thus you have theoretically more time to procure a new spare disk).

With Raid 6 (still 4 disks) the array can bear the failure of two disks, but data won't be avialable until you replace the two failed disks.

 

Eh? Raid 5 copes with the loss of a single disk, and the data remains available for read/write, just at increased risk. If the raid card can't rebuild the array while it's up, it's not a very good one.

[jaclaz]

Eh? Raid 5 copes with the loss of a single disk, and the data remains available for read/write, just at increased risk. If the raid card can't rebuild the array while it's up, it's not a very good one.

My bad  I somehow got things mixed up , should have been:

With plain 3 disks 5 Raid in case one disk fails, the data won't will still be available but you will be running in degraded mode until you replace the failed disk with a new one and rebuild the array.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degraded_mode

With 4 disks Raid 5 (Raid 5 + spare) in case one disk fails, data will be available again as soon as you rebuild the array, which is normally done automatically, i.e. the degraded mode will last only as long as the spare is inserted in the array and the array is rebuilt (and thus you have theoretically more time to procure a new spare disk).

I hope now it makes more sense.

jaclaz