Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice
-
@scottalanmiller okay, that's awesome. So curious about your thoughts on "backups"... let's say you got 15TB of data you want to do backups on. Are you building a separate RAID array for backups? How does it's use change your thinking on build specs and setup? Do you use different RAID options?
-
@markl said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller okay, that's awesome. So curious about your thoughts on "backups"... let's say you got 15TB of data you want to do backups on. Are you building a separate RAID array for backups?
That would depend, if it is backups from somewhere else, which seems to be your description, then I'd keep it all on a single array. Splitting up your array will significantly diminish your performance and options at this size. It'll be much less flexible. This way you have one strong RAID. That your backups and unrelated home data are on the same array doesn't create any additional risk.
-
Now if you need to backup the primary data that resides on this device, that would need to go to a completely different device.
-
@markl said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
How does it's use change your thinking on build specs and setup? Do you use different RAID options?
Production data tends to be on RAID 10, archival and backup data on RAID 6 (or RAID 7 in rare cases.) RAID 6 is less safe and less performant than RAID 10, but for backups this is normally of trivial concern. The speed of taking the backup is not normally a huge deal (especially if it is a remote backup) and the speed loss on RAID 6 is all in the writes, not in the reads, so a RAID 6 will restore just as fast as a RAID 10. RAID 6 is riskier, but that doesn't mean risky. Just not "as safe."
The big reasons you would go to RAID 10 here over RAID 6 is that RAID 6 can experience extreme periods of unavailability during a recovery from a drive loss. If you have one drive fail and you replace it, you won't go "down" and you won't lose data, but your system might be effectively offline or slow to the point of useless while it recovers. This can last for days or even weeks. So if your system having that risk is of concern you would lean to RAID 10. But that's only in the situation where you have been saved from a disk failure, so often you put up with some inconvenience during this time because the RAID has already saved your bacon.
RAID 10 with 8 bays (or any size) you lose 50% of your disk capacity.
RAID 6 with 8 drives you lose 25% of your disk capacity. So in this case, your total usable size would be 50% larger with RAID 6 than with RAID 10.If you went to a larger array, like 10 or 12 disks, RAID 6 gets riskier, but the wasted space gets smaller.
-
@scottalanmiller wow, even in that explanation is seems like RAID 10 over RAID 6... except I suppose because you can better leverage your total diskspace. Is that the primary motivation?
So to summarize:
RAID 6 = Good backup solution due to higher use of available disks in the array (although consider 10 depending on the size of the array... larger array pushes you to RAID 10)
RAID 10 = Good for production use -- high availability... faster disk failure recovery, etc...
RAID 0 = For total high performance (we leverage this in our business for specific uses)... requires duplicate array for any form of redundancy/availability... -
@markl said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller wow, even in that explanation is seems like RAID 10 over RAID 6... except I suppose because you can better leverage your total diskspace. Is that the primary motivation?
Correct, the sole motivation for RAID 6 is that you can get more capacity at lower cost and quite often, that is a really big motivator. Speed and reliability, once you have "enough" might not be worth losing additional money over. And with moderately sized arrays, the capacity benefits of RAID 6 can be quite significant. Like in a 12 disk array.
-
@markl said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
So to summarize:
RAID 6 = Good backup solution due to higher use of available disks in the array (although consider 10 depending on the size of the array... larger array pushes you to RAID 10)
RAID 10 = Good for production use -- high availability... faster disk failure recovery, etc...Some additional high level guidelines...
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2015/03/practical-raid-choices-for-spindle-based-arrays/
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/choosing-a-raid-level-by-drive-count/ -
@markl said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
RAID 0 = For total high performance (we leverage this in our business for specific uses)... requires duplicate array for any form of redundancy/availability...
If you have a duplicate array, then it's really RAID 01.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@markl said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller wow, even in that explanation is seems like RAID 10 over RAID 6... except I suppose because you can better leverage your total diskspace. Is that the primary motivation?
Correct, the sole motivation for RAID 6 is that you can get more capacity at lower cost and quite often, that is a really big motivator. Speed and reliability, once you have "enough" might not be worth losing additional money over. And with moderately sized arrays, the capacity benefits of RAID 6 can be quite significant. Like in a 12 disk array.
In what scenario would you personally use a raid 6 @scottalanmiller? Double parity is a huge penalty for cheap redundancy. Low capacity low iops server that only sort of matters?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@markl said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller wow, even in that explanation is seems like RAID 10 over RAID 6... except I suppose because you can better leverage your total diskspace. Is that the primary motivation?
Correct, the sole motivation for RAID 6 is that you can get more capacity at lower cost and quite often, that is a really big motivator. Speed and reliability, once you have "enough" might not be worth losing additional money over. And with moderately sized arrays, the capacity benefits of RAID 6 can be quite significant. Like in a 12 disk array.
In what scenario would you personally use a raid 6 @scottalanmiller? Double parity is a huge penalty for cheap redundancy. Low capacity low iops server that only sort of matters?
Any scenario where it meets the minimum requirement and the driver is lowering the cost of capacity. I'd almost always use it in backup and archival storage where I've not moved on to RAIN.
-
The Netgear ReadyNAS line has three desktop models that will take eight drives- I don't know if this would help any..
- RN628X - 130tb
- RN528X - 130tb
- RN428 - 80tb
I have a ReadyNAS 4 bay, runs great, little maintenance - thought I suppose I could / should do more with it. It mainly just sits as I am slow working on the project of moving my media over to it.
-
@gjacobse said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
RN628X
Diskless, that unit is $2,082.27. That's limited to eight bays. Going with an enterprise server, like an R510, would be under half that price with far more power and flexibility. And not limited to SATA.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@gjacobse said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
RN628X
Diskless, that unit is $2,082.27. That's limited to eight bays. Going with an enterprise server, like an R510, would be under half that price with far more power and flexibility. And not limited to SATA.
Good point
-
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@gjacobse said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
RN628X
Diskless, that unit is $2,082.27. That's limited to eight bays. Going with an enterprise server, like an R510, would be under half that price with far more power and flexibility. And not limited to SATA.
I just did a quick Xbyte for this. Really beefy processors (for the class) plus 6TB usable RAID 10 array for $3,000.
-
@coliver said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@gjacobse said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
RN628X
Diskless, that unit is $2,082.27. That's limited to eight bays. Going with an enterprise server, like an R510, would be under half that price with far more power and flexibility. And not limited to SATA.
I just did a quick Xbyte for this. Really beefy processors (for the class) plus 6TB usable RAID 10 array for $3,000.
With SAS drives?
-
You don't need really beefy processors nor dual processors. Look at smaller, single procs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@coliver said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@gjacobse said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
RN628X
Diskless, that unit is $2,082.27. That's limited to eight bays. Going with an enterprise server, like an R510, would be under half that price with far more power and flexibility. And not limited to SATA.
I just did a quick Xbyte for this. Really beefy processors (for the class) plus 6TB usable RAID 10 array for $3,000.
With SAS drives?
No, SATA. SAS would have bumped up the price a bit.
-
@coliver said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@coliver said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@gjacobse said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
RN628X
Diskless, that unit is $2,082.27. That's limited to eight bays. Going with an enterprise server, like an R510, would be under half that price with far more power and flexibility. And not limited to SATA.
I just did a quick Xbyte for this. Really beefy processors (for the class) plus 6TB usable RAID 10 array for $3,000.
With SAS drives?
No, SATA. SAS would have bumped up the price a bit.
That's odd. normally it's the same or cheaper.
-
@scottalanmiller
If @markl decides to use a server like R510, would you recommend installing a hypervisor and then setup a VM has a NAS server? -
@black3dynamite said in Project: Home/SMB NAS Setup -- Need ur advice:
@scottalanmiller
If @markl decides to use a server like R510, would you recommend installing a hypervisor and then setup a VM has a NAS server?Always virtualize. This isn't a special case.
