Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups and
to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward file
share not DLNA.
I could go for RAID 1 which means that one drive can fail in a pair of 2. Alternatively RAID 6 means two drives can fail in the group of 4.
Statistics leave me cold. Either route gives me 8 TB of space and the
ability to recover from two drives failing. I want reliability rather
than speed, the network will be the limiting speed factor.
Anybody give me the pros and cons for each route please before my brain explodes :-)
On 23/01/2025 14:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups
and to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward
file share not DLNA.
I could go for RAID 1 which means that one drive can fail in a pair of 2.
Alternatively RAID 6 means two drives can fail in the group of 4.
Statistics leave me cold. Either route gives me 8 TB of space and the
ability to recover from two drives failing. I want reliability rather
than speed, the network will be the limiting speed factor.
Anybody give me the pros and cons for each route please before my
brain explodes :-)
Both give you the same single write speed and double read speed, plus
the same capacity. However, RAID 6 gives you recovery from the failure
of ANY two drives, while RAID 1 can't recover from a double drive
failure of same pair.
On the other hand, if you suffer a hardware failure, RAID 1 drives will likely be readable, individually, in any machine, while RAID 6 may
require at least two drives and the *SAME* model RAID controller or
software.
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
On 23/01/2025 14:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups and
to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward file share not DLNA.
I could go for RAID 1 which means that one drive can fail in a pair of 2. Alternatively RAID 6 means two drives can fail in the group of 4.
Statistics leave me cold. Either route gives me 8 TB of space and the ability to recover from two drives failing. I want reliability rather
than speed, the network will be the limiting speed factor.
Anybody give me the pros and cons for each route please before my brain explodes :-)
Both give you the same single write speed and double read speed, plus
the same capacity. However, RAID 6 gives you recovery from the failure
of ANY two drives, while RAID 1 can't recover from a double drive
failure of same pair.
On the other hand, if you suffer a hardware failure, RAID 1 drives will likely be readable, individually, in any machine, while RAID 6 may
require at least two drives and the *SAME* model RAID controller or
software.
Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups and
to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward file
share not DLNA.
I could go for RAID 1 which means that one drive can fail in a pair of 2. Alternatively RAID 6 means two drives can fail in the group of 4.
Statistics leave me cold. Either route gives me 8 TB of space and the
ability to recover from two drives failing. I want reliability rather
than speed, the network will be the limiting speed factor.
Anybody give me the pros and cons for each route please before my brain explodes :-)
On 23/01/2025 14:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups and
to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward file >>share not DLNA.
ok...
(there are also things like plex server that you can run on it - although >upgrade the RAM to 8GB if you do)
I could go for RAID 1 which means that one drive can fail in a pair of 2. >>Alternatively RAID 6 means two drives can fail in the group of 4.
Statistics leave me cold. Either route gives me 8 TB of space and the >>ability to recover from two drives failing. I want reliability rather
than speed, the network will be the limiting speed factor.
QNAP boxen usually support ling aggregation - so if your switch is up to
it, you can get more than 1 x gig ethernet total throughput out of it (but >not to the same endpoint if that is a single gig ethernet connection).
Anybody give me the pros and cons for each route please before my brain >>explodes :-)
With 4 drives, then RAID 5, 6 or 10 are your best options.
5 Tolerates a single failure, but gives a speed boost on read (when
working normally). Big slow down in degraded mode.
6 Is slower but will allow any two drives to fail. So a better fit for
your use case.
10 Is similar to 6, but is both faster in normal operation, and
dramatically so in degraded mode. The down side is it will always cope
with one failed drive, and often 2, but it does depend on which group the >drives are. So 10 would be better for more general network mapped folders >where you want performance and up time.
On 23/01/2025 in message <vmu1g2$1o8va$2@dont-email.me> John Rumm wrote:
On 23/01/2025 14:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups
and to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward
file share not DLNA.
ok...
(there are also things like plex server that you can run on it -
although upgrade the RAM to 8GB if you do)
The advantage (to me) of the Nvidia Shield is if I feed it an iso file
it presents it as a DVD with the full menu and whatever resolution the original DVD was.
I decided to go for RAID 6 in the end, it's copying data over as I type.
Thanks to everybody for the input :-)
I have a lot of empathy with Chris Green's comment that the best thing
is to avoid RAID. 4 TB is plenty of capacity for my needs so I will
think that through.
The advantage (to me) of the Nvidia Shield is if I feed it an iso file it >>presents it as a DVD with the full menu and whatever resolution the >>original DVD was.
I run my DVDs etc through handbrake and reduce them down to a single video >file - saves space and makes them more portable etc (can extract most of
the "extras" to other files if wanted)
I decided to go for RAID 6 in the end, it's copying data over as I type.
for a backup role, that is probably a good choice.
Thanks to everybody for the input :-)
I have a lot of empathy with Chris Green's comment that the best thing is >>to avoid RAID. 4 TB is plenty of capacity for my needs so I will think >>that through.
RAID has its place, just don't think of it as proper "backup" in isolation >(although in part of a bigger scheme it can be a part of it)
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 23/01/2025 14:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:Surely for backup systems speed doesn't really matter does it? At
Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups and >> > to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward file
share not DLNA.
I could go for RAID 1 which means that one drive can fail in a pair of 2. >> > Alternatively RAID 6 means two drives can fail in the group of 4.
Statistics leave me cold. Either route gives me 8 TB of space and the
ability to recover from two drives failing. I want reliability rather
than speed, the network will be the limiting speed factor.
Anybody give me the pros and cons for each route please before my brain
explodes :-)
Both give you the same single write speed and double read speed, plus
the same capacity. However, RAID 6 gives you recovery from the failure
of ANY two drives, while RAID 1 can't recover from a double drive
failure of same pair.
least not for small 'home' systems. My backups run overnight and even
if they took an hour (which they don't) it wouldn't matter in the
slightest.
On the other hand, if you suffer a hardware failure, RAID 1 drives willIn general I avoid RAID, it seems to add complexity (and thus
likely be readable, individually, in any machine, while RAID 6 may
require at least two drives and the *SAME* model RAID controller or
software.
likelihood of failure) without actually gaining much. I simply
duplicate my important backups to different drives in different pieces
of hardware (which are also in different buildings). If any one
backup fails completely I still have the other backup and of course
the original.
In uk.d-i-y The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
Indeed.
The question is what you're going to do when the first RAID1 drive fails.
If you keep a spare drive around, you might just plug it in (or keep it as a hot spare). If you don't, you may have to order a drive and wait for it to be delivered - at that point you have no protection from another drive failing.
The subsequent problem is that rebuilding onto the new drive is going to put additional stress on the other drives (they're all working much harder than normal during the rebuild), so the risk of a second drive failing becomes elevated. Then you're screwed.
If you go to RAID6 then losing the first drive means you still have some protection if another drive happens to croak during the rebuild. Or if you do something dumb like pull a working drive instead of the broken one.
However if drive failures are correlated (bad PSU, dodgy SATA controller, mains spike, bad batch, bad firmware) then you're screwed anyway.
Theo
On 2025-01-23, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In uk.d-i-y The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
Indeed.
The question is what you're going to do when the first RAID1 drive fails.
If you keep a spare drive around, you might just plug it in (or keep it as a >> hot spare). If you don't, you may have to order a drive and wait for it to >> be delivered - at that point you have no protection from another drive
failing.
The subsequent problem is that rebuilding onto the new drive is going to put >> additional stress on the other drives (they're all working much harder than >> normal during the rebuild), so the risk of a second drive failing becomes
elevated. Then you're screwed.
This risk can be reduced by the drices having different "hours" of use. Old one dies and the second one can handle the rebuild.
This risk can be reduced by the drices having different "hours" of use. >>Old
one dies and the second one can handle the rebuild.
Just be a little rougher with the drives when initially installing from
new from the same factory batch, you will spread out the time of their >demise.
Don't have to be extreme with a hammer, just stick them one at a time in a >nondescript cardboard box and boot that from one side of the workshop to
the other.
Just as the delivery driver would do ...
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 03:06:30 +0000, Gordon wrote:
<snip>
RAID is not a backup as the saying goes, which is correct. RAID is a >>Redundant Arrays of Independent Disks. <snip>
Anyone else old enough to remember when this was a Redundant Array of >Inexpensive Discs?
When the MTBF of a bunch of discs (JBOD?) was so low that you could almost >guarantee a failure at a short interval when you went above a small number
of discs?
So you needed to be able to swap out the failing discs without the system >crashing.
This gave you high availability without having to pay sky high prices for >specialised disc drives with a very high MTBF.
Reliability of drives these days means that sites don't generally have the >same issue.
Ah, memories.
RAID is not a backup as the saying goes, which is correct. RAID is a Redundant Arrays of Independent Disks. <snip>
Anyone else old enough to remember when this was a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs?
On 28/01/2025 16:55, David wrote:
Anyone else old enough to remember when this was a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs?
Eee when I were a lad it were a Random Array of Inexpensive Disks (or possibly Discs ... "disc" as a spelling rather died when "diskettes"
were invented, because "discette" was so obviously NOT the way we wanted
to spell it). It was just a way of stringing together a lot of
affordable disks to make one volume so big disks of that size would be distinctly unaffordable (if they were even available).
Nowadays I believe the preferred reading is Redundant Array of
Independent *Drives* ... because not all drives are disks.
I remember reading somewhere (in about 1980) that CP/M-80 had
successfully been used on an 80MB disk, and wondering how anyone had
managed to afford such a massive device. These days you can get a 1TB micro-SD card for less than I paid for my first 5.25" floppy drive.
Well, 'disk' is the American spelling for a round flat thing, and
'disc' is the British spelling.
Although with HDD I think it's still the case that you can buy 2xN
TB for less than the price of a 2N TB, in the largest drive sizes
anyway.
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2025 16:55, David wrote:
Anyone else old enough to remember when this was a Redundant Array of
Inexpensive Discs?
Eee when I were a lad it were a Random Array of Inexpensive Disks (or
possibly Discs ... "disc" as a spelling rather died when "diskettes"
were invented, because "discette" was so obviously NOT the way we wanted
to spell it). It was just a way of stringing together a lot of
affordable disks to make one volume so big disks of that size would be
distinctly unaffordable (if they were even available).
Well, 'disk' is the American spelling for a round flat thing, and 'disc' is the British spelling. I never recall hearing a British person talking about a diskette, they were always floppy discs, but maybe I lived a sheltered existence. What counted as a 'diskette' - every size was always smaller
than the size before?
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 23/01/2025 14:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:Surely for backup systems speed doesn't really matter does it? At
Final step in my storage re-vamp I think.
I have a QNAP TS451+ NAS and 4 x Seagate IronWolf 4 TB (spinners).
I am going to use the QNAP as the final backup in a chain of backups and >>> to stream files to my Nvidia Shield TV Show, as a straightforward file
share not DLNA.
I could go for RAID 1 which means that one drive can fail in a pair of 2. >>> Alternatively RAID 6 means two drives can fail in the group of 4.
Statistics leave me cold. Either route gives me 8 TB of space and the
ability to recover from two drives failing. I want reliability rather
than speed, the network will be the limiting speed factor.
Anybody give me the pros and cons for each route please before my brain
explodes :-)
Both give you the same single write speed and double read speed, plus
the same capacity. However, RAID 6 gives you recovery from the failure
of ANY two drives, while RAID 1 can't recover from a double drive
failure of same pair.
least not for small 'home' systems. My backups run overnight and even
if they took an hour (which they don't) it wouldn't matter in the
slightest.
On the other hand, if you suffer a hardware failure, RAID 1 drives willIn general I avoid RAID, it seems to add complexity (and thus
likely be readable, individually, in any machine, while RAID 6 may
require at least two drives and the *SAME* model RAID controller or
software.
likelihood of failure) without actually gaining much. I simply
duplicate my important backups to different drives in different pieces
of hardware (which are also in different buildings). If any one
backup fails completely I still have the other backup and of course
the original.
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
On 23/01/2025 15:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
If you really want disaster recovery you need your data in two places.
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside drawer.
The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot to destroy
both buildings.
On 31/01/2025 in message <vnio9f$3i33o$1@dont-email.me> SteveW wrote:
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside drawer. >>The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot to destroy >>both buildings.
Back in the '90s, I worked for an Engineering company. They backed up
their computers to their other offices. That meant that they had backups
on four different CONTINENTS. About as safe as is possible.
Enter Putin stage left and Trump stage right....
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside drawer.
The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot to destroy
both buildings.
Back in the '90s, I worked for an Engineering company. They backed up
their computers to their other offices. That meant that they had backups
on four different CONTINENTS. About as safe as is possible.
On 31/01/2025 in message <vnio9f$3i33o$1@dont-email.me> SteveW wrote:
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside
drawer. The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot to
destroy both buildings.
Back in the '90s, I worked for an Engineering company. They backed up
their computers to their other offices. That meant that they had
backups on four different CONTINENTS. About as safe as is possible.
Enter Putin stage left and Trump stage right....
On 23/01/2025 15:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
If you really want disaster recovery you need your data in two places.
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside drawer.
The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot to destroy
both buildings.
On 31/01/2025 13:41, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2025 15:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up
on another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
If you really want disaster recovery you need your data in two
places.
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside
drawer. The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot
to destroy both buildings.
It doesn't matter what solution to data back up is proposed someone
will always come along & say "But what if ......"
On 31/01/2025 13:41, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2025 15:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
If you really want disaster recovery you need your data in two places.
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside drawer.
The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot to destroy
both buildings.
It doesn't matter what solution to data back up is proposed someone will always come along & say "But what if ......"
On 31/01/2025 13:41, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2025 15:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up on
another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
If you really want disaster recovery you need your data in two places.
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside drawer.
The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot to destroy
both buildings.
It doesn't matter what solution to data back up is proposed someone will >always come along & say "But what if ......"
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 09:29:34 +0000
wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 31/01/2025 13:41, Vir Campestris wrote:This has been around for a good many years:
On 23/01/2025 15:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think its time for the old adage.
RAID is not a backup solution, It is an *availability* solution
If you want to *preserve* data against drive failure, back it up
on another drive.
If you want it *available* with a drive failure, use RAID. And be
prepared for it being unreadable if a controller fails.
If you really want disaster recovery you need your data in two
places.
I keep a backup of my important stuff in a drive in my bedside
drawer. The machine lives in my garden office. It would take a lot
to destroy both buildings.
It doesn't matter what solution to data back up is proposed someone
will always come along & say "But what if ......"
http://www.taobackup.com/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:01:48 |
| Calls: | 9,766 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,747 |
| Messages: | 6,186,254 |