New to NAS--Good place to start?

[chedrz]

Title pretty much says it. I've had bad luck with USB external hard drives over the years, so I'm investigating setting up a RAID 1 NAS solution. I currently don't have a lot of data, I think I'm sitting at just over 1TB total being used. If I put forth the time and effort I could probably spin up a home Linux server and do this all myself, but I'd rather not have to worry about that and just get an enclosure and disks, especially since I only need about 2-4TB for future growth.

Can anybody with some experience give a few pointers? From a few brief searches, it seems like Synology and QNAP are the major players. Any other solutions I should be considering? This will be holding home/personal data, so I'm not looking for a business-class solution. Ideally, I'd be looking for a 2-bay enclosure and probably dropping in a couple 3-4TB WD Red drives.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Do you _need_RAID? You still need to back it up to protect your data. Or would you be just as well off with a single-disk solution that you backup regularly?

 

[chedrz]

Do you _need_RAID? You still need to back it up to protect your data. Or would you be just as well off with a single-disk solution that you backup regularly?

Whatever storage solution I buy is going to serve as my backup, so I'd prefer RAID I think for peace of mind. I've even considered something like a WD MyBook Duo and converting it to RAID 1, although I'm not sure how convenient that would be if a drive failed.

 

[Cerb]

Maybe Buffalo, too. But, Synology is probably your best choice. Get one that can take 4 drives, and you can do RAID 1/10, or 5. With 2 bays, you can't easily have much growth, being totally dependent on when new drive sizes become available and reasonably priced.

RAID 1/10 (a RAID 10 with 1 stripe is a RAID 1) is convenient when a drive fails: pop out the old drive, pop in the new one. That's also part of what makes NAS boxes easier, compared to all software solutions.

 

[thedosbox]

Second the recommendation for Synology. I've been happy with my DS213+ as it's small, quiet, and draws hardly any power. The browser-based UI is very slick, and there are a good range of packages available to add functionality.

Regardless of what you get, ensure you stay on top of OS upgrades in case of any security holes (less of an issue if you don't open up access to the internet).

 

[Carson Dyle]

Whatever storage solution I buy is going to serve as my backup, so I'd prefer RAID I think for peace of mind.

This won't be your primary data storage, just backup for that storage?

In that case, I'd say you _really_ have little need for RAID. Your backup, of course, needn't be online like a NAS, but it also can't hurt. I would use a single-drive file server (at which point there's little need for a RAID-capable NAS), which you can build very cheeply from a mini-ITX Atom/Celeron motherboard, case and a single 3-4TB drive. I would then backup that system to an external HDD. You'd then have two levels of backup instead of just the single level that a NAS with RAID1 would give you, and it will likely be cheaper.

 

[smitbret]

Whatever storage solution I buy is going to serve as my backup, so I'd prefer RAID I think for peace of mind. I've even considered something like a WD MyBook Duo and converting it to RAID 1, although I'm not sure how convenient that would be if a drive failed.

I am unclear how to read this.

Are you saying you are counting on the RAID 1 redundancy to be your backup?
If so, you are making a BIG mistake.

RAID, at whatever level you choose (Except for RAID 0), is meant for maintaining system uptime. It should never be relied upon as a backup.

 

[Cerb]

Regardless of what you get, ensure you stay on top of OS upgrades in case of any security holes (less of an issue if you don't open up access to the internet).

In general, don't open the boxes to the internet. Forward only ports for file services you may use (like music streaming, or web file management), and make sure you have to perform a two-stage process to directly log in, such as remotely logging into a PC or other home server, then remote in to the NAS admin interface through that. Also, don't use them for VPN/gateway devices, even though they typically offer it, as security is not their forte (Synology had a big hole for weeks just last year, I think it was in their VPN implementation).

 

[chedrz]

I am unclear how to read this.

Are you saying you are counting on the RAID 1 redundancy to be your backup?
If so, you are making a BIG mistake.

RAID, at whatever level you choose (Except for RAID 0), is meant for maintaining system uptime. It should never be relied upon as a backup.

Let me clarify then. I'm planning to use the NAS to back up my PCs. I've used external hard drives before, but I've had bad luck with disk failure, so I want to take a different approach. I'd use the NAS to pull the data backups and have it running in RAID 1 for redundancy.

So the NAS will serve as my backup. Hope that clears up the picture.

 

[Cerb]

Whatever storage solution I buy is going to serve as my backup, so I'd prefer RAID I think for peace of mind. I've even considered something like a WD MyBook Duo and converting it to RAID 1, although I'm not sure how convenient that would be if a drive failed.

Considering the above reply to this...

RAID 1, 10, 5, and 6, can protect data on the NAS from detectable drive or drive controller related data errors. With common gear, they happen (with any, they happen, but the real-world difference in chance of any can be multiple orders of magnitude). With a turnkey NAS like a Synology, other error sources are not detected, much less correctable (but a Linux or FreeBSD software RAID, using ZFS or BTRFS, is its own can of worms, as is MS' ReFS--good, but not remotely turn-key).

The added drives in RAID do not make for a backup. At all. I've personally seen more cases of data destruction via software than hardware, and RAID can only protect against a limited amount of hardware errors (even ZFS and BTRFS are not fool-proof). The NAS itself can be a backup, as in having a copy on the NAS and on your scattered PCs, but RAID has nothing to do with that.

What RAID mainly can save you from is downtime, which means wasting nights and weekends, from having to rebuild the data on the NAS in the event of an HDD failure. For home use, the continued operation of the server tends to be secondary.

I've even considered something like a WD MyBook Duo and converting it to RAID 1, although I'm not sure how convenient that would be if a drive failed.

You could do that, but if you find anything you might want to do other than read a CIFS share, you are likely to find it wanting. Just skimming a few reviews and some user reviews, the My Book Duo looks about like I'd expect.

The home user Synology boxes benefit from having the same software base as their SMB counterparts. Meanwhile, consumer companies like WD, Seagate, Netgear, Trendnet, etc., are going more for price points and marketing bullet points than value. Buffalo should be fine, but they tend to lack a lot in terms of features for your money (in part just due to the likes of Synology and QNAP having a big software and market head-start, and there not being high profit margins). QNAP's UIs tend to be glitchy, and their support lacking, in my limited experience with them. Drobo make good products, but generally are a bad fit, as they focus on business and "prosumer" markets, so tend to be missing a lot of features you might want (you don't want any of them now, but use a NAS for awhile, and you probably will ).

 

[Noo]

After running a NAS for about 2-3 weeks now, I've come to realize how useless RAID is. I think raid is only useful if you want 100% uptime. As far as using it as a "backup," well it won't save your bacon if you accidentally delete a whole folder worth of stuff. The folder will be deleted on BOTH drives.

 

[gea]

Your data seems quite worthless if you want to skip a raid as it is the first protection.
In general, you need a bundle of technlogies to keep data safe:

I would expect a average annual failure rate of new desktop disks between 5-10%
that grows over years A raid protects against such a failure.

This does not help on a disaster like a stolen server, fire or overvoltage. To protect against, you need external backups.
If you want to protect data against silent data errors, you need a filesystem with redundancy and checksums.
If you want to protect data against viruses, sabotage or accidentally deleted files and folders that you discover days or weeks, you need read only snapshots, longterm snapshot (-> Windows previous versions)

Another aspect is file system corruption and/or raid corruption on a powerloss during raid. A raidcontroller with cache and BBU can help to protect againt the raid write hole problem or dataloss due a disk write cache. You can avoid these problems with software raid and CopyOnWrite filesystems.

Mostly you use a ZFS filer with external backup pool or a second filer on a different location that can give such a protection.

 

[chedrz]

Your data seems quite worthless.

Depends on your definition of worthless. While my data may not be as "valuable" as the date of a financial institution or retail chain, it would still take considerable time to replace, and obviously some personal data (photos, home videos, personal documents, etc) is irreplaceable.

So based on what I'm seeing, it looks like my best option is still the old external hard drive. Guess I may look at something I can attach to my router so it's pretty hassle-free. Thanks for the input everyone.

 

[Jeff7181]

Depends on your definition of worthless. While my data may not be as "valuable" as the date of a financial institution or retail chain, it would still take considerable time to replace, and obviously some personal data (photos, home videos, personal documents, etc) is irreplaceable.

So based on what I'm seeing, it looks like my best option is still the old external hard drive. Guess I may look at something I can attach to my router so it's pretty hassle-free. Thanks for the input everyone.

Have you thought about cloud backup services? I use SpiderOak - I subscribe to their unlimited plan which I got for $120 per year. I currently have 1.3 TB backed up to their cloud and I'm sending more every day.

I like SpiderOak better than the others because they have a true zero-knowledge policy. When using their application, all they get from you is encrypted blocks. They do not hold a key to decrypt your data, so it's not possible, even under court order, for them to decrypt your data and turn it over to authorities. They can hand over your encrypted data, but that's about as secure as you can get in terms of putting your data in the cloud. Also, if their network/system is compromised, the attacker will just get encrypted data.

You also have the option to point SpiderOak at a local location where it will keep a copy of your data for faster restores, assuming that medium doesn't get ruined, and if it does, all your data is still in the cloud.

SpiderOak allows an unlimited number of devices and supports Windows, Linux, OS X, Android and iOS.

 

[smitbret]

Let me clarify then. I'm planning to use the NAS to back up my PCs. I've used external hard drives before, but I've had bad luck with disk failure, so I want to take a different approach. I'd use the NAS to pull the data backups and have it running in RAID 1 for redundancy.

So the NAS will serve as my backup. Hope that clears up the picture.

I would just recommend getting a cheap Windows or Linux (if you're familiar with it) build and then just run your File System as JBOD or Pooled.

If the NAS is just the backup, then any form of RAID is pretty much pointless. RAID is intended to provide uptime in the event of a HDD failure and doesn't have much use in a systemt that is just used to backup other devices.

Even if you are paranoid, RAID 1 is complete overkill as mirroring would be more expensive than other options like RAID 5 or 6.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I'm in the same boat as the OP and just started looking into this. I basically want to back up my storage drive on my desktop but also want the capability to auto-upload my photos/files from my phone to back up on there as well.

What would be best for what I want? I was looking more into the two bay, RAID-1 stuff.

 

[Jeff7181]

I'm in the same boat as the OP and just started looking into this. I basically want to back up my storage drive on my desktop but also want the capability to auto-upload my photos/files from my phone to back up on there as well.

What would be best for what I want? I was looking more into the two bay, RAID-1 stuff.

With your phone, you're better off using Google's auto upload if you have Android, iCloud if you have an iPhone, or Skydrive if you have a Windows Phone. I don't know what, if anything the Blackberry has in terms of automatically uploading photos, but Google+ will do it on any device.

As far as backing up your storage drive that's in your desktop, there are lots of options listed in this thread, just read through it. Just about everything has been covered.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

With your phone, you're better off using Google's auto upload if you have Android, iCloud if you have an iPhone, or Skydrive if you have a Windows Phone. I don't know what, if anything the Blackberry has in terms of automatically uploading photos, but Google+ will do it on any device.

As far as backing up your storage drive that's in your desktop, there are lots of options listed in this thread, just read through it. Just about everything has been covered.

I actually use SkyDrive right now on my iPhone for backups. I saw that the WesternDigital NAS offerings have SkyDrive/Drive/iCloud capability so that looked interesting to me.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Where having a backup server on your home network makes the most sense is when you have multiple computers/devices to backup. Then they can all be backed up to that central server. It's convenient, saves you from either having multiple external drives, or else from running around the house with a single external drive to backup everything.

For a single PC, I'm not sure it's that much more convenient than just using an external drive. Or, at least, not enough to justify the cost.

 

[SammichPG]

After running a NAS for about 2-3 weeks now, I've come to realize how useless RAID is. I think raid is only useful if you want 100% uptime. As far as using it as a "backup," well it won't save your bacon if you accidentally delete a whole folder worth of stuff. The folder will be deleted on BOTH drives.

raidz with snapshops

 

[imaheadcase]

Don't do raid, at all. Just get Ubuntu server, use ZFS and get a couple 4TB WD Red drives. Just use crashplan to upload to cloud for important stuff. I just do everything because its easier, 40tb to cloud, 40tb on server, cloning on a few drives.

I was considering Synology, or some other fancy setup. But I wanted a server that I can use as backup, plus run all the apps i want. Synology and others are limited on if you want to run a media server as well. Plus you save a ton, my biggest expense was the hardrives, and its faster than synology now.

 

[taltamir]

Start with NAS4Free, boot it from a usb flash drive.
Use zfs mirroring (raid1) only.

Also, for mere backups i would recommend you use backblaze

 

[Zargon]

After running a NAS for about 2-3 weeks now, I've come to realize how useless RAID is. I think raid is only useful if you want 100% uptime. As far as using it as a "backup," well it won't save your bacon if you accidentally delete a whole folder worth of stuff. The folder will be deleted on BOTH drives.

yes its totally useless, it doesn't offer any performance benefits at all :hmm:

 

[imaheadcase]

yes its totally useless, it doesn't offer any performance benefits at all :hmm:

No one cares about performance on a server that hosts files that is limited by a network connection anyways.

 

[Zargon]

No one cares about performance on a server that hosts files that is limited by a network connection anyways.

probably limited by the crappy hardware in the nas box before the network connection

my statement was as arbitrary as the person I was replying too, who was complaining that RAID doesn't save you from user error


nothing saves you from user error