Are you looking for speed or resiliency in the case of multiple simultaneous drive failures?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:49 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > Any reason to go raid 6 vs raid 10? > > > > ------------------------------ > 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] <[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 <https://quotewizard.com/> > [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 > > >
