and that is why I will elect to use 6 discs in the array, and use the remaining 2 , to backup the critical data from the raid 6 array.
Jean-Paul Natola From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SHR vs Traditional RAID/RED drives Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 01:43:04 +0000 Just to add: My Synology DS2413+ got corrupted about a year ago and I effectively lost all of my data. At that time, I posed the question to Synology as to what they recommended when I set up the server again – SHR2 or RAID6. I was informed that while both options technically will work, they recommended RAID 6 over SHR2 for 7 or more hard drives for reliability. -Aakash Shah From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Button Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SHR vs Traditional RAID/RED drives My point is that you need to have a reasonable recovery concept (and frequently proven process) to deal with a hard drive failing – mirror or rebuildable striping And that should include the possibility that it may be the NAS housing that fails – possibly taking the drives with it. And the data on the still OK drives not being in a structure accessible by any other OS you have to hand. Yes – if you need speed striping etc. or maybe a large set of small drives ( 2¼” laptop ones maybe – TomsHardware did a project a long while ago comparing throughput on a large number of small drives vs a small number of large drives, and the conclusion was the small drives option was much faster, used a lot less power just needed more PSU and connection considerations - as in massed add-in drive controller boards. For those considering faster storage access – SSD is the easy way, alternatively go the volume way or ‘attach’ partitions of several drives as folders of an NTFS OS/filestore partition/drive. HOWEVER – do make sure that : 1) The PSU can manage the drives powering up at system startup. 2) The BIOS can manage the drives – maybe delay/sequenced power up at system startup. 3) The OS can manage that much MFT data being scanned etc. at startup. 4) There is sufficient real memory to manage the combined MFT data without massive paging of memory I have a win7 ultimate system that gets itself into knots if there are more than 2 2TB drives USB attached at startup. It happily runs with 5 drives attached if they are started up sequentially – as in wait for the windows explorer to sho a drive before connecting the next – and connecting means the interface cable, not just the power-brick JimB From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J- P Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:09 PM To: NT Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SHR vs Traditional RAID/RED drives My initial thought was raid 10 using 4tb (as thats what I use for servers) but I was reading about their SHR and it sounded interesting in that you can use different size drives and not lose any space The MEDIA data that is stored, is not "active" they do a job, transfer it there, after 6 months it gets erased. but I plan to use the additional storage for doing local server backups as well. (I do back up there servers off-site but its not realistic to pull 3TB over the wire). MY thought was 6 drives in raid10, then use the 2 remainig drives to copy what is deemed critical off the raid10 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:44:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] SHR vs Traditional RAID/RED drives From: [email protected] To: [email protected] The WD NAS drives are only rated for groups of up to 6 and aimed squarely at the consumer market. They're rated for something along the lines of 180TB/year and only an error rate of 1x10^14. The Red Pro drives are slightly better and built for 8-16 bay units backed by a 5 year warranty, have a 7.2K speed and a much better 1x10^15 error rate and warrantied for 550TB/year written, also dropping in capacity to 4TB. If data is critical then move to their WD RE series drives again a 550TB/year rating along with 7.2K spindle and 5 year warranty with an even better 1x10^16 error rate. If you need the density you pay for it in reliability currently, be prepared to keep multiple copies. You mentioned 'terabytes of data' - how hot/cold is it? Also if you're using anything above 1TB drives please don't use RAID5 you'll just be kicking yourself later :( Nathan Shelby Lead Systems Engineer – Quote Wizard [email protected] / 206-753-2626 Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:00 AM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all, I'm looking to drop one of these in at customer site, https://www.synology.com/en-us/products/DS1815+ I'm curious to know if anyone has elected to use their proprietary raid SHR/SHR2, and if so how it stacks up to traditional raid in terms of performance. And on a separate note , has anyone jumped onto the WD RED "NAS" drives yet? I like the idea of 6TB for 270.00, but not crazy about 54k speed or 3 yr warranty http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-3-5-inch-IntelliPower-WD60EFRX/dp/B00LO3KR96/ref=pd_bxgy_pc_text_y however , 226.00 for a 4TB 72k with a 5 year warranty does sit a little better http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LO3KRM8 any feedback is appreciated
