40 TB NAS storage recommendations...

scottalanmiller

@hobbit666 said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

ReadyNAS RN3220 has dual power supply's
http://www.netgear.com/business/products/storage/readynas/RN3220.aspx?cid=wmt_netgear_organic#tab-techspecs

Good to know that they've started adding those. The cost, I bet, makes it way higher than a much higher end SAM-SD, though.

sn

@scottalanmiller said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

If buying this type of gear in the US, only vendors that I will use are Synology or ReadyNAS, not QNAP.

What is the reason for not buying QNAP in the US?

scottalanmiller

@sn said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

@scottalanmiller said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

If buying this type of gear in the US, only vendors that I will use are Synology or ReadyNAS, not QNAP.

What is the reason for not buying QNAP in the US?

Support issues. QNAP doesn't offer any compelling value over Synology or ReadyNAS but has significant support issues including bad documentation (no engineering oversight, some of it has been caught being outright fake), lacking support in English - sometimes with none at all available, hardware replacement SLA of over two weeks with no data durability.

MattSpeller

Synology's 12 bay is pretty decent for our backups but I don't know what kind of IOPS it'll push or if that matters to you. It maxes our 1gig lan nicely.

scottalanmiller

Now I've heard that QNAP is addressing some of these issues. But they have a track record of massive support problems that are very concerning.

Also, their competitors aren't just famous for good support, but Synology, ReadyNAS, ioSafe and Drobo all take an effort to participate in the community here and in places like SW. That means that there is more support, information and options for working with them. QNAP completely ignores the communities. So no direct means of contact like all their major competitors have. It's a big deal knowing that someone like ioSafe will respond to a query here in like hours if not minutes. But QNAP has been asked for years to respond on SW and won't even look at it. Engaging their users is a huge deal for any vendor.

Francesco Provino

@sn said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

I have around 38 TB, less frequently used (say, once in a week) data, spread across a few machines.
Now I got the green signal to buy a NAS box to consolidate this data and would like to know what do you think of getting a QNAP or Synology or any other better box.

In terms of access requirement, i should be happy if it comes with

1-1Gbps LAN
2-Windows/Linux/OS X client support
3-RAID5/10 (please let us not discuss this further in this thread)
4-Rack (or tower)
5-Redundant power supply

This will be a standalone NAS, no plans for iSCSI.

Mmmh... for that capacity and access requirements, why not use S3-infrequent access or maybe also Glacier (for archival)? It could be cost effective… I've done some math, it's ~600$/month for S3 infrequent access and ~200$/month for full Glacier (maybe not good for the whole storage but ok for old backups and so on).

S3 - infrequent is 0,0125$/month/Gb and Glacier is 0,004$/month/Gb. I'm not associated with AWS in any way, I'm just doing something like that in my company (for smaller dataset).

scottalanmiller

@Francesco-Provino said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

@sn said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

I have around 38 TB, less frequently used (say, once in a week) data, spread across a few machines.
Now I got the green signal to buy a NAS box to consolidate this data and would like to know what do you think of getting a QNAP or Synology or any other better box.

In terms of access requirement, i should be happy if it comes with

1-1Gbps LAN
2-Windows/Linux/OS X client support
3-RAID5/10 (please let us not discuss this further in this thread)
4-Rack (or tower)
5-Redundant power supply

This will be a standalone NAS, no plans for iSCSI.

Mmmh... for that capacity and access requirements, why not use S3-infrequent access or maybe also Glacier (for archival)? It could be cost effective… I've done some math, it's ~600$/month for S3 infrequent access and ~200$/month for full Glacier (maybe not good for the whole storage but ok for old backups and so on).

S3 - infrequent is 0,0125$/month/Gb and Glacier is 0,004$/month/Gb. I'm not associated with AWS in any way, I'm just doing something like that in my company (for smaller dataset).

Or Backblaze B2 would be similar. Kind of in between the two. We use B2 for our backup / archival stuff as well.

Dashrender

Do you need any backups of this?

sn

Thanks all for your suggestions and recommendations..
I ended up buying the Synology Diskstation DS2015 with 8 x 8TB hard drives.
Now waiting for the shipment..:)

sn

@Francesco-Provino This data needs to be onsite due to the size of files and nature of usage, so cloud hosting is not an option.

Reid Cooper

@sn said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

Thanks all for your suggestions and recommendations..
I ended up buying the Synology Diskstation DS2015 with 8 x 8TB hard drives.
Now waiting for the shipment..:)

Nice unit. Going to use RAID 6, I assume?

StrongBad

What disks did you decide to use? 8TB are very large disks.

ntozier

@sn
I know that this is a little late, but we use Buffalo TeraStations here. The 7000 series have has dual power supplies. It comes in 24TB, 48TB, 96TB, and 120TB flavors. That's about the extent of my knowledge about them though.

While we do not use the 7000 series we have had good luck, and only one disk failure (knocks on wood) with our three (3) TerraStation 5400's. Support wasn't a terrible experience either.

note: when I say "we" I do not mean osTicket. I actually mean the company that I work for [which is a medium sized non-profit].

sn

@StrongBad I bought WD WD80EFZX 8TB Red 3.5” IntelliPower SATA3 NAS Hard Drive
In fact I didn't worry much about the disk spec. as this data is used rarely for reference purpose and I do have a copy of this data offsite.

sn

@ntozier Thanks!
I am based in Australia and probably that is why I never came across with this product when searching online.

Reid Cooper

@sn said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

@ntozier Thanks!
I am based in Australia and probably that is why I never came across with this product when searching online.

Buffalo is from Austin, Texas, I believe.

sn

@Reid-Cooper RAID 5 (SAM - please excuse me :))

Reid Cooper

@sn said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

@Reid-Cooper RAID 5 (SAM - please excuse me :))

Uh oh, you'd better start running now. I'll try to distract him.

scottalanmiller

@sn said in 40 TB NAS storage recommendations...:

@Reid-Cooper RAID 5 (SAM - please excuse me :))

You are kidding, I hope. With 40TB on WD Red (consumer, URE 10^14, 5400 RPM) the chances of RAID 5 saving your bacon approach zero. Even at 4TB RAID 5 is totally useless in that scenario. At ~4TB the chances of recovering a failed disk from URE risk alone is 50%. At 10x the size, 40TB has essentially no chance of recovery, and that is only from URE risk. Add in the risk that one of the seven remaining drives will fail during the long, slow resilvering process and the risk gets higher yet.

In ALL seriousness, RAID 0 is actually likely better at this size. You are passed the inflection point I believe where RAID 0 actually is less likely to lose data than RAID 5!!

scottalanmiller

Many year old article on why RAID 0 gets safer than RAID 5 at scale.

http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/05/when-no-redundancy-is-more-reliable/