|
3 1tb drives? do you just have really low storage requirements?
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
NAS4Free is also worth a look. Same basic concept as FreeNAS, but different implementation. Both have their advantages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Regular Linux with ZFS?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:3 1tb drives? do you just have really low storage requirements? I just needed a couple drives so I could set up a lab NAS. I saw no reason to spend several hundred dollars on larger drives and put them through unnecessary wear and tear when my needs are so small at the time (and the only reason I got the WD Reds was because I was actually getting them pretty cheap, plus I liked the idea of a long MTBF).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
There's already an update out for FreeNAS. That was my first experience using the new update system, and holy poo poo it's fast. Updates used to take me like 15-20+ mins generally. This one was literally the time to download + the time to reboot. It was way faster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Let me know if this is beyond the scope of the thread. But I'll give it a go anyway. In a small office I work in we currently have a 'dumb' nas (a 2 bay zyxel box) and for the task it was bought for its been fine. But we could do with some sort of syncing with another small office and for working from home access, then that can double as off site backup. Total data is in the 100s of GBs and daily bandwidth in the 100s of MBs, so a cloud based system would actually work just fine, but some of the guys would prefer to keep all the files locally (in each of the remote locations) and keep the data out of the consumer cloud. Do any consumer NASs offer remote replication of any sort? This would probably be the preferred option, as I'd imagine this would be easier for them to manage if ever I wasn't there to do it? Second option, does freenas or similar offer a remote sync feature built in? Over SSH or VPN or similar? The main office has realllllly slow internet, but the initial seed can be done locally. Bonus if a replica sync can also happen on a roaming laptop that might need file access while offline and away from any nas/server network. New data to then sync on reconnect. Thanks e:vvvv We'd really be looking to have a full replica nas at 2 or 3 sites (which are then accessed locally as if its the central server, so 2-3 way sync). Automatic backups could then be done from each to an external drive. Do synology, qnap etc do this or is it more select a few folders to sync and hope for the best? ee: I see btsync can be installed on the current NAS box. I've never used it, but I know a bit about it. Would this be a bad idea? I'd obviously do some test runs, before deploying it for real, but I wont bother doing that if you'd recommend against it from the get go? If it's not such a bad idea, how would I go about selling something with 'bittorrent' in its name to people who'd prefer not to use a consumer cloud systems? MeKeV fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Synology boxes have the capability of doing folder sync and a Dropbox-like feature for PCs. Be careful treating a folder sync like a backup though, it won't protect you against people overwriting stuff unless you're really quick and act as soon as it happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/12/seagate-ships-8tb-shingled-hard-drive/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
And just like that I pause on pulling the trigger on 6x 6TB Reds to see how these shake out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Specifically labelled as archival drives. I wonder if that means they have a lower listed MTBF and aren't designed for a large number of power on hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
G-Prime posted:Specifically labelled as archival drives. I wonder if that means they have a lower listed MTBF and aren't designed for a large number of power on hours. I would expect the opposite, actually. The enterprise use case is for people who want data storage prices at a cost per GB in the same ballpark as tape, but without having to wait for an autoloader. Having the drives sit around shut down wouldn't help that much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
G-Prime posted:Specifically labelled as archival drives. I wonder if that means they have a lower listed MTBF and aren't designed for a large number of power on hours. The MTBF on the Seagates is 800k vs the Red's 1M, so yeah, 20% lower, but scarier is the difference in load/unload cycles: 300k for the Seagates vs 600k for the Reds. http://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/product-content/hdd-fam/seagate-archive-hdd/en-us/docs/archive-hdd-dS1834-3-1411us.pdf vs http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-800002.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
The Synology CloudStation app is super buggy and broke on the last major OS update a month ago, no fix yet. Would not rely on for business until Synology get their act together. CloudSync I have no experience of. btsync is still 'beta'; it works simply for me to replicate PC My Documents to Synology (and then backup to CrashPlan cloud from there) but haven't tried it in a more trying setting. Synology NAS can also use rsync to backup directly between servers (backup, not replicate) which might be of use to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
"It is slower than many recent SSDs (it has a read speed of 150MB/s, whereas the SSDs in this list of best models for 2014 have an average speed of 550MB/s), so it's probably best to pair it up with one." The writer should be fired for this sentence alone. devilmouse posted:The MTBF on the Seagates is 800k vs the Red's 1M, so yeah, 20% lower, but scarier is the difference in load/unload cycles: 300k for the Seagates vs 600k for the Reds. I've had it for 15 days and it has 248 load cycles. It's also rated for 300k cycles, so that's an estimated lifetime of almost 50 years. Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
devilmouse posted:The MTBF on the Seagates is 800k vs the Red's 1M, so yeah, 20% lower, but scarier is the difference in load/unload cycles: 300k for the Seagates vs 600k for the Reds. Just found that data sheet myself. I'm very intrigued here. MTBF is still plenty high to make it through the warranty period, and a 3 year warranty is actually amazing. The load/unload cycle count is unfortunate if it spins down automatically like WD Greens do, but other than that it seems solid. If you don't care a ton about I/O throughput, these look kinda amazing for the price. I really feel like there has to be some sort of catch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Maybe spindown is defeatable like on greens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Even if it isn't directly, you could write a small script that could defeat it easily just by periodically writing a small amount of data to the drive. Or if it's a Linux NAS, could use something like wdantiparkd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Fry's seems to be doing a 4x 3TB WD Red for $389.96 deal. http://www.frys.com/product/8351387 from: https://slickdeals.net/f/7504982-fry-s-4x-3tb-western-digital-red-drives-389-free-shipping?v=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
I have an old laptop I want to turn into a quick NAS. I'm thinking about the following setup:
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
G-Prime posted:I really feel like there has to be some sort of catch. Still, for the vast majority of people who want monstrous storage, it seems like a good option. e; If you're talking about stuffing a bunch of them in a NAS, Seagate recommends against it, saying you're better off with their NAS drives, which offer "better vibration protection and error recovery control." Who knows if that first point is just useless market segmentation feature-pointing, though. DrDork fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
DrDork posted:The biggest catch I can see is simply that it's really new tech: it's great that they've got a 3 year warranty on it, but it's going to be hard to know whether Seagate got SMR to work correctly on the first go, or if you're going to be doing multiple RMA's for each drive. Seagate has been selling shingled drives (unlabeled as such) for a few years now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:I have an old laptop I want to turn into a quick NAS. I'm thinking about the following setup: The whole thing is a glaring issue! If the foundation of your NAS is a laptop and external enclosures I think it's time to go back to the drawing board. What are your needs and what is your budget?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
fletcher posted:The whole thing is a glaring issue! If the foundation of your NAS is a laptop and external enclosures I think it's time to go back to the drawing board. Welp! For needs: I wanted to see if I could bring this laptop back to life and use it as a general home server for storing/serving content, mostly in the form of streaming video over the network. It's a fairly beefy laptop (i7, etc). I know external enclosures aren't great, what kind of issues do you think I'll suffer from them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
What is the deal with "archive" HDDs as US$260 for 8TB is pretty impressive? edit: \/\/\/ oops, 
MrMoo fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:What is the deal with "archive" HDDs as US$260 for 8TB is pretty impressive? There's a bit of discussion about this if you go back a couple posts. The only thing I have to add is I thought these were meant to target the same segment as the new Western Digital Ae Drives (cold storage) but I have no idea what the price point on Ae drives are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Chuu posted:There's a bit of discussion about this if you go back a couple posts. The only thing I have to add is I thought these were meant to target the same segment as the new Western Digital Ae Drives (cold storage) but I have no idea what the price point on Ae drives are. Due to the shingling, they also have a really really loving awful copy-modify-write issue. If you're not streaming data to it one time, prepare your anus, because poo poo is about to slow to a crawl.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
So its perfect for log storage, backups and similar. I have 10GB compressed data dumps per day that might be too tedious to pull in from tape for monthly access and this would be suitable alternative. I would presume these should replace the "security video" line of drives? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UFUfv9n420 Western Digital Ae drives are concerning because they explicitly state poor read side: quote:The WD Ae is best suited for cold storage, backup and data archiving where data is stored on disk but rarely if almost never read again yet may be critical at some future point, prime examples being legal data or photo backups. MrMoo fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:Due to the shingling, they also have a really really loving awful copy-modify-write issue. If you're not streaming data to it one time, prepare your anus, because poo poo is about to slow to a crawl. Shouldn't a copy on write filesystem like ZFS mitigate a lot of that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
fletcher posted:The whole thing is a glaring issue! If the foundation of your NAS is a laptop and external enclosures I think it's time to go back to the drawing board. What's more of an issue? A laptop or external drives?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Shouldn't a copy on write filesystem like ZFS mitigate a lot of that? That said, unless you're doing writes smaller than the physical sector size, read-modify-write shouldn't be an issue? Or do these drives have bigger sectors than 4KB? --edit: Reading up on SMR, it's a crap-shoot for any filesystem. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:What's more of an issue? A laptop or external drives? External drives is probably the bigger problem since your transfer speeds to those disks will be limited more by the SATA to USB adapters inside the enclosures more than anything else. Laptops also aren't amazing for running 24/7 due to the tiny fans that tend to wear out and get clogged with dust within a couple of years. With low CPU use it may not be too bad, however. That said, it will probably work fine with those caveats. It's a weird build but it makes use of existing stuff and saves money for some inconvenience, which is a fair trade off as long as you know what you're getting into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:--edit: Reading up on SMR, it's a crap-shoot for any filesystem. Wont the flash optimized log file systems work well, like Samsung's F2FS?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
If I have to guess, I suppose every two tracks are overlaid in that shingles crap. If you write stuff sequentially, I'd figure the firmware manages to write out everything optimally. That's however not how filesystems work, because metadata needs to be updated. If you rewrite a sector, you have to read the adjacent one and rewrite both due to the shingling crap. Anything that'll introduce random accesses will be causing that. ZFS is pretty heavy on metadata updates (when they happen), so it'll be punching holes all over the place due to COW. Same for data updates. Both which will make things pretty fragmented quickly and cause random writes regardless. That'll cause those read-modify-write issues in the hardware aplenty. Not sure how F2FS works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Lenovo TS440 for $299.99 It has the E3-1225v3. For those of you looking to do NAS4Free or FreeNAS. I've been looking at upgrading my NAS from it's current configuration to something that will give me a little more space, plus I want to do iSCSI for my HTPC and Desktop and have that separate from my main share. How is iSCSI on ZFS? Can I expect decent performance? Or would I be better off just mapping the disks directly? Also does anyone here have any experience with the new 6TB Reds? Do they work pretty well? Have you had to replace any yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Is BTRFS an option? All I see mentioned is ZFS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
I've been teetering on bugger all HDD space for almost a year now. I'm constantly shuffling stuff and upgrading my 2TB drives for 3 or 4TB drives but i've almost reached the end of my tether. The idea of paying ~$280 for a NAS (I'm probably just gonna get a consumer/ready made thing) and buying 4 large HDD's loving sucks. It's so much money to spend and it's not even a new shiny toy to play with but I think it needs to be done. It will just be store movies/shows on, and probably be the media hub that I stream from to other computers/TVs. After all of these years, I've never used a RAID and I think it will stay that way. I was thinking about a RAID 5 set up, but now Wikipedia tells me that RAID 5 is not advised. Although I might go ahead and do it because it's not exactly "critical" data, it would just suck a bit if I lost it. I was thinking of getting this. Does Netgear exist in the States? Even if it doesn't, does anything there scream out "don't buy me" from a hardware perspective? If I do go ahead with a RAID setup, can I start with two drives and just add more in the coming months or does the technology not really work like that? How does RAID 1 work with more than two drives? Do I need an even number of drives for it to work and it just groups them into pairs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
For people who don't want to do DIY NAS, I typically suggest Synology. It might be a bit more expensive, but DSM offers so many features - and there's the live demo that you can play around with. RAID1 is only mirroring one disk onto the other. In a 4-bay NAS box, I would recommend RAID6 above RAID1+0, but you'll probably want to read up on the RAID levels. BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
theWalrus posted:Is BTRFS an option? All I see mentioned is ZFS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
Good god, the Synology backup app is so pissing me off right now. I'm trying to back some poo poo up to a usb hdd directly connected to the unit. Which basically works fine. But the disk won't go to sleep, like, ever. Thinking this may be caused by the cheap enclosure, I swap it out for another one. Which also doesn't allow the disk to fall asleep. No problem, I've got a couple more to try. Oh, what's this? Suddenly the drive gets another identifier. Guess some of those USB-to-SATA chips are more generic than others. I'll just edit the backup job for a new destination then. ... aaand nope, that's not possible. Set up a new backup job, necessitating me to select all source folders again. Nope, can't use that name/folder name because it's in use by another backup job. Cancel creation. Delete the old job and destination. Try again. Nope, folder name still supposedly in use by another job. Imagine a new folder name, rename the old folder to that. This lets me create the job. Fine. Let's run a backup job. And it's like, dude, there's all these files that are identical to what I'm supposed to backup in my destination folder, but since this is a new job, I'm going to copy the 300GB over USB 2.0 again anyway for the hell of it.  10% in, and this is probably not Synology's fault, either the disk overheats or the power supply for the enclosure I ended up with craps out and the disk isn't unmounted properly. Not that I've ever had problems with either that disk or the enclosure on a Windows computer, but whatever. This causes some folders to be inaccessible, saying I might not have rights to access them. Can't even delete them. So formatting it is, then. I'm so sick and tired of all this. I've been trying to set this up for the last couple of days and sure, part of what's complicating it is the old crap I'm using, but can't point a backup job to a different destination? Or a new job to an old destination? What the hell, man. And what's up with the identifying the drive by the bridge chipset? I'd get the convenience for them of that if it weren't for the three first that I've tried not identifying uniquely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
theWalrus posted:Is BTRFS an option? All I see mentioned is ZFS. BTRFS RAID1 and the tools to support it have been considered stable for a while now, so there shouldn't be any issues using it. The RAID5/6 support is much more recent and the tools for working with RAID5/6 BTRFS volumes are even newer (device scrub/replace was only added a few weeks ago), so you would probably want to steer clear as it isn't really "battle tested" yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:21
|
|
