On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 23:26:30 -0800
TomasK <[email protected]> dijo:
>+ 1 on reliability and life expectancy of Synology NAS - have bunch of
>DS41x and DS91x+ - no J models - they do not support btrfs and some
>applications I use.
>
>Case in point:
>I recently (December) decommissioned still perfectly (slow-ish) working
>DS411 - almost 9 years 24/7 on and still receiving regular OS updates.
>
>If you use ordinary raid (not the synology flexRaid) you can connect
>the disks to your PC and mount the raid using standard mdadm on linux,
>Synology describes the process on their web. If you do not have
>internal SATA bays use USB-->SATA dongles.
>
>You should definitely:
>a) check the NAS logs and event logs for past issues, warning updates,
>failures, etc.
>b) you should check the NAS disk smart data for disk failures, sector
>realocations, etc.
>c) you should definitely not use RAID0 - please do not argue/explain.
> If you must have the combined all disk capacity without redundancy -
>get newer NAS which supports BTRFS and use JBOD config. That way you
>will know about disk/data errors and you will likely not loose all
>data, should there be any sort of disk/write error.
Thanks for the opinion on Synology, echoing what Ron said. I think I'll
continue using it, and just replace the disks. I must say, though, that
the recent failure was disturbing. The Synology has just sat across the
room for many years and always just worked. Was the recent failure due
to the Synology or the disks, or was it maybe just from a temporary
power spike? The Synology, as well as everything else - even the
stereo - is connected to one of two massive UPS devices, so I doubt it
was a power issue. (The other UPS runs my laptop.)
Looking further in the web page for my Synology there is a tab for
Info > Storage, which says (for both drives):
WD8001FFWX-68J1UNO 22C Healthy Storage Pool
I don't know what 'Storage Pool' means exactly, but I know that they
are in RAID0. I'm pretty sure that I did that with the Synology web
page when I set it up about four years ago, although I might have done
it with mdadm. I know the two 8TB drives are seen as one 16TB, which
the Synology calls Volume 1. And the connection is ethernet. The house
is wired with Cat6 cable with a 24 port switch, with most rooms having
multiple outlets, and all my devices are rated for gigabit. I did the
wiring myself while remodeling. Doing an incremental backup with my
rsync script usually takes a few minutes, although when I created my
new 31TB Thunderbolt 3 device and copied the Synology to it the
transfer took hours. But time is irrelevant - it's just for backup.
I looked all over in the Synology web page, but I couldn't find
any logs. It appears I needed to set that up, but didn't, so there are
no logs.
Now, the Synology says the drives are both healthy, but they are
approaching the four year mark, so replacing them might be a good idea
anyway. I've done a bit of shopping, and there are drives out there up
to 18TB, but I thought I'd probably settle for 14-16TB, so 28TB or 32TB
in RAID0 is plenty big enough for a long time.
I know RAID0 has no redundancy, but I don't need redundancy. The whole
Synology device is redundancy for my 31TB TB3 enclosure. What is wrong
with RAID0?
My current plan is to buy a couple of 14-16TB spinning disks. Longevity
and reliability are what I'm after, not speed. What is the opinion of
everyone here about the relative quality of hard drives - brands,
models, etc.? WD offers Red and Red Pro drives, but what's the
difference? Over the years I've had a lot of bad experiences with
Seagate, so I'd like to avoid them. Any drives to avoid?
_______________________________________________
PLUG: https://pdxlinux.org
PLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
