The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Image backup solution for MF

Zerimar

Member
As we all know MF takes of quite a bit of space if you shoot regularly..

Curious as to what methods of file storage some of you use.. RAID, NAS, archival drives, etc... I am about to have my 20TB of drives filled (Down to the last 1TB left) and am looking into getting a new storage solution..

The Synology NAS looks nice, and I like that files can be accessed anywhere. Are they realistically fast enough to edit off of?

RAID seems to be the best solution for direct connection to a computer (running a maxed rMBP) but what raid setup is ideal? 0,1,5, etc..?

I currently run paired drives, which I carbon copy clone and store the clone off site. This is less ideal as I am not backing drives up as regularly as I'd like.

I like the idea of instantly having the photos copied to more than one drive and easily managed.

If this is the wrong section to ask in, I'd like to ask a moderator to move it to the right section. Thank you!
 

Ken_R

New member
Hi, the post-production facility that is in the same building where I have my studio uses LTO tape media. LTO 6's have a 2.5 TB (native) and 6.25 TB (Compressed) capacity per tape. It is reasonably fast and quite reliable. Each LTO Tape is $110. But the recorder/player is not cheap.

I personally use a hard drive docking station and just keep buying hard drives as I need them That way I do not need to keep buying external hard drives (and deal with their associated cables and power supplies)
 
Last edited:

shlomi

Member
Hi,


NAS is the right solution.
Tapes can be very dangerous and are suitable for organizations where there's a person whose job inculdes managing the tapes, and even then when you need them they may very well turn out bad.

Synology is the best NAS firm IMO.

NAS contains RAID inside - you seem to be confused about this - don't use RAID inside your computer, use a proper NAS box - NAS has tremendous advtantages in protecting your data over a RAID inside your desktop machine.
The best RAID configuration for SOHO is 10 - where every drive is mirrored separately.
That way you avoid the long loop of parity rebuilding in RAID 5/6 which can and will create many problems after a drive fails - you rebuild only from one parity drive.
If you use a good Gigabit switch (like SG-200) then the access speed will be more than sufficient for photo editing - I use my NAS for all my data needs, and it's very good.
You can also hook up your NAS directly to your computer without network and that way you get the protection advantages and high speed but no access from other machines.
It is also possible to put it on a 10Gbe switch for higher speed access.

You must put your NAS on a dedicated UPS.
You must connect the UPS communication line to the NAS and define to the NAS to shut down when there is a power failure.
You should put your NAS behind a firewall router and define the firewall properly.
Allowing remote access to your NAS makes it easier for hackers to ransom your data - think if you really need that access.
NAS's are specifically targeted by ransom hackers and you want all the protection you can get.

You can't rely only on one NAS - you must have at least one backup for it.
Also it would be a very good idea to have an offsite backup in case of fire or burglary.
Offsite backup is slower than onsite backup because of your internet uplink speed.
If you have only one backup, have it offsite.
Don't rely on manual backups because nobody has the discipline to do them every day or week for years.
I think one onsite and one offsite backup is a good plan - but most would say it is overkill.
The Synology NAS operating system contains all the backup programs you might need, you just need to activate them. Set it up to upload the difference every night - best use site-to-site VPN through firewalls on both ends - that way the remote access of the backup will not be used for malice.
The backup NAS can be RAID 5 to save money.
If your internet uplink is sufficient, then you can also use cloud backup - I would recommend this only as a second backup.


You MUST use only proper drives for your NAS.
I recommend, in this order:
1. WD RE
2. WD SE
3. WD Red
Note that RE and SE are too noisy for your study or living room - they must be placed in a closet or something.

If you're planning to use your old drives, then don't even bother with the NAS, you will only create problems for yourself.
I went through this last year and it was a very expensive and time consuming ordeal, but now I feel my data is finally properly protected against accident and attacks.

I know this may seem a bit extreme - but once you go NAS then you put all your eggs in one basket - you want to make sure this basket is well protected. I've known photographers who put their entire catalogs into NAS or desktop RAID without properly understanding it, and lost all of it. Keeping it in regular drives docked in your workstation, means you run a real risk of losing a large chunk of your catalog. Looking at your work it seems worth the effort to keep it safe.
 
Last edited:

Zerimar

Member
Thanks for the reply Shlomi,

I am familiar with RAID (was looking into the OWC Thunderbay IV) and was referring to a direct thunderbolt connection to my mac, a NAS sounds like the better option.

I am strongly considering the Synology DS1815+ enclosure to start with. I would add a secondary one when funds allow (just upgraded my digital back) and have it do the offsite sync.. that sounds like a relatively low maintenance regular backup with a good amount of redundancy.

Are the WD RE drives that much better than the Red? I saw there's 6TB offerings for the Red, but only 4 for the RE. Obviously redundancy and reliability are always the better option.

Would I be able to set up 4 drives to start with the DS1815+ in a Raid 10? I am all for data backup. I currently backup all my important Tiffs to Cloud Dropbox (have the 1tb) and then store archival drives off site in addition to what I have here. I mainly want an easier and more reassuring way of keeping everything safe.
 

shlomi

Member
You might want to consider DS2015, which has 10GBe which you might want later.
1815 is also very good.

As far as drives, the error probability calculations are mindboggling, but to simplify it, the chance for an error in RE is 10 times lower than SE, which is 10 times lower than Red. I think it's worth the money and noise. Essentially Red is a pretty good consumer drive, while SE and RE are enterprise grade.

You can set up 4 drives in RAID 10 which will leave you with only 2 drives for data.
If you are not setting up a backup NAS from the start, then I would say RAID 10 is crucial.

IMO the only realiable backup is one that you set up once and then it runs automatically in perpetuity. I have that with Synology. Uploading to dropbox is not a sufficient solution IMO. Synology can backup automatically to cloud services such as Glacier.
 

AaronK

New member
Shlomi is right on the mark, in my opinion. I have used Synology NAS products exclusively for years as the repository for all my images, and they have been absolutely wonderful. The firmware is kept up to date, and even the DS1010+ I bought many years ago now supports 4TB and larger drives. I have 2-5 bay units, one backs up to the other using the built in folder sync feature. I find the built in Synology Hybrid Raid (1 disk fault tolerance) is sufficient for my needs, with the second NAS backup. I have had 1 disk in each box fail and lost nothing.

To the answer of "is it fast enough to edit from?", in my experience, absolutely. You could install an SSD locally, work through a session in COP, and then move the folder to the NAS for safe keeping. But I've been
entirely happy with the speed for direct access. Amazon is offering "unlimited photo storage" with Prime accounts now, I haven't explored that as another repository option.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
NAS has it's place, but network speeds are substantially slower than direct connect, especially direct connect TB raid.

Some discussion about this in this thread not long ago (along with some other subjects). http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...-question-medium-format-photography-only.html

I opt for ThunderBolt raid 0's that are cloned to others, raid 5 just doesn't seem to be worth the loss of storage. Great for when you need to have 0 downtime, but rebuilds are extremely slow and odds are pretty high a second drive will fail in the process.
 

AaronK

New member
What model drives were they?
Did you have a UPS with comms?
Both drives that failed were older Seagate drives. I have been running Western Digital drives and not had any issues. On one of the replacements I decided to get a Hitachi drive, to see how they go; so far no issues there either.

WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
HDN724040ALE640
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD20EVDS-63T3B0

The other box has these drives, all of various vintages:

WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
ST31500341AS
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD40EFRX-68WT0N0

Looks like I have one more Seagate to fail :ROTFL: Not really its fault, using it like this.

I do use a UPS with USB comms to the primary unit. No comm on the backup, but still running a UPS.

Note that the mix of drive sizes I'm using has made it impossible to fully expand the array to cover all the potential storage - I don't mind, as my approach is that as the older drives fail I'll replace with larger ones and eventually increase the size of the array. I still have over 1 TB of free space so I'm not worrying about that for now.
 

AaronK

New member
NAS has it's place, but network speeds are substantially slower than direct connect, especially direct connect TB raid.

Some discussion about this in this thread not long ago (along with some other subjects). http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...-question-medium-format-photography-only.html

I opt for ThunderBolt raid 0's that are cloned to others, raid 5 just doesn't seem to be worth the loss of storage. Great for when you need to have 0 downtime, but rebuilds are extremely slow and odds are pretty high a second drive will fail in the process.
Direct connect will be faster, but I have Photoshop using a (directly connected) SSD for its scratch disk, so once the image opens I don't use the NAS again until I save back to it. A typical 500 MB file opens or saves back in less than 10 seconds, even with the pedestrian drives I'm using. Gigabit ethernet isn't too shabby, but as you and I agree, not as fast as a direct connection.
 

shlomi

Member
Both drives that failed were older Seagate drives. I have been running Western Digital drives and not had any issues. On one of the replacements I decided to get a Hitachi drive, to see how they go; so far no issues there either.

WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
HDN724040ALE640
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD20EVDS-63T3B0

The other box has these drives, all of various vintages:

WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
ST31500341AS
WD20EVDS-63T3B0
WD40EFRX-68WT0N0

Looks like I have one more Seagate to fail :ROTFL: Not really its fault, using it like this.

I do use a UPS with USB comms to the primary unit. No comm on the backup, but still running a UPS.

Note that the mix of drive sizes I'm using has made it impossible to fully expand the array to cover all the potential storage - I don't mind, as my approach is that as the older drives fail I'll replace with larger ones and eventually increase the size of the array. I still have over 1 TB of free space so I'm not worrying about that for now.
I'm using WD enterprise drives and I have the hope they will run 10 years with no problems.

I've had many problems with Seagate drives, in fact I can say that pretty much every seagate drive I've had had problems. I swore many times to never again use Seagate, but after the last time I will remember.

I've also had problems with WD green drives, and even with blacks.
That is what prompted me to the NAS solution with enterprise drives.
I do have a pretty good feel about when to expect a disaster using normal drives in normal setting - I am interested in more information about fails under NAS that is properly structured and maintained.

You say your backup NAS is under the same UPS without comms. That means that it is not protected against power outages. Also it means it is close to the main NAS meaning it has similar vulnerabilities to fire and burglary. I would recommend placing the backup NAS as far away from the main one as possible, on a separate UPS. UPS costs $100 and you need a 20m ethernet cable and you're done.

I sold all my older drives on ebay and am running 100% new drives - enterprise on production NAS and Reds on backup NAS's. I believe any rebuild puts unnecessary stress on your NAS and introduces a chance for data loss, so you want to avoid them as much as possible.
 

shlomi

Member
NAS has it's place, but network speeds are substantially slower than direct connect, especially direct connect TB raid.

Some discussion about this in this thread not long ago (along with some other subjects). http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...-question-medium-format-photography-only.html

I opt for ThunderBolt raid 0's that are cloned to others, raid 5 just doesn't seem to be worth the loss of storage. Great for when you need to have 0 downtime, but rebuilds are extremely slow and odds are pretty high a second drive will fail in the process.
After having done extensive research on the subject and having substanbtial professional technical background, I can say that NAS does have its place, and that place it is front and center. It is the only truly viable solution, and implemented properly it can reduce data loss probability to very close to zero.

I've seen that discussion thread you referred to, but since it is about Macs, I can't comment on it.

I can tell you this:

- If super speed is so important to you, you can get that with NAS in two ways - direct connect or 10GBe network. Both are vastly superior to RAID with no NAS box.

- Using RAID 0 is asking for trouble. It is significantly less safe than just drives in your desktop.

- RAID 5 is not an approriate configuration for your production NAS. It is no wonder that you've excperienced disasters with that, and had you done the research you would know that this is to be expected. Using RAID 10 the risk of rebuild problems are all but eliminated.

- It is also critical which NAS firm you are using - LaCie for instance is not an acceptable one. IMO and after extenbsive research, the only acceptable ones are Synology and QNAP. Drobo a distant third. Also critical to use enterprise drives and connected UPS. At least one backup NAS should exist doubling your production NAS.

The software on a proper NAS box offers many data safety and security options, and one should make himself well acquainted with those options and make sure all of them are optimized for his needs.

I will no go on again about a firewall, but it is another component that can't be skipped.

If you use ALL of these measures and don't skip on ANY of the critical components, you can expect an extremely low probability of data loss. If an error does occur, you are still running, and rebuiliding time is very short (RAID 10 not 5). In the extremely unlikely event of rebuild fail or total box fail, you still have your backup NAS (there you can run RAID 5).

I would like very much to hear from someone who'se done EVERYTHING right and still experenced data loss. So far all the testimonies I've encountered were about people who did at least one thing wrong.
 

AaronK

New member
I'm using WD enterprise drives and I have the hope they will run 10 years with no problems.

I've had many problems with Seagate drives, in fact I can say that pretty much every seagate drive I've had had problems. I swore many times to never again use Seagate, but after the last time I will remember.

I've also had problems with WD green drives, and even with blacks.
That is what prompted me to the NAS solution with enterprise drives.
I do have a pretty good feel about when to expect a disaster using normal drives in normal setting - I am interested in more information about fails under NAS that is properly structured and maintained.

You say your backup NAS is under the same UPS without comms. That means that it is not protected against power outages. Also it means it is close to the main NAS meaning it has similar vulnerabilities to fire and burglary. I would recommend placing the backup NAS as far away from the main one as possible, on a separate UPS. UPS costs $100 and you need a 20m ethernet cable and you're done.

I sold all my older drives on ebay and am running 100% new drives - enterprise on production NAS and Reds on backup NAS's. I believe any rebuild puts unnecessary stress on your NAS and introduces a chance for data loss, so you want to avoid them as much as possible.
Actually, my backup is on a separate UPS and physically separated from the primary. I use a wifi extender to connect back to the main system, folder sync is all I can use the backup for.
 

shlomi

Member
Actually, my backup is on a separate UPS and physically separated from the primary. I use a wifi extender to connect back to the main system, folder sync is all I can use the backup for.
If it's a separate UPS, then why not USB connect it to the unit?
With wifi connection you are kind of wasting the backup unit.
I guess it is difficult to run wires through some houses, but if you do then you can have everything doubled.
You don't need anything other than folder sync to back up all of your data.
 

AaronK

New member
If it's a separate UPS, then why not USB connect it to the unit?
With wifi connection you are kind of wasting the backup unit.
I guess it is difficult to run wires through some houses, but if you do then you can have everything doubled.
You don't need anything other than folder sync to back up all of your data.
Folder sync works fine over wifi. Once set the Synology OS prevents using the folders on the backup NAS (they are read only), so it's doing everything it's supposed to.

As for the USB UPS, it's because it's old and I haven't bothered.
 

Mr.Gale

Member
I have a 20TB Drobo for in house back-up and I use Backblaze (https://www.backblaze.com/) for cloud backup. It takes Backblaze a long time for the initial backup but it runs in the background. The good thing is it is only $50 a year for unlimited storage.
Mr.Gale
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
After having done extensive research on the subject and having substanbtial professional technical background, I can say that NAS does have its place, and that place it is front and center. It is the only truly viable solution, and implemented properly it can reduce data loss probability to very close to zero.

I've seen that discussion thread you referred to, but since it is about Macs, I can't comment on it.

I can tell you this:

- If super speed is so important to you, you can get that with NAS in two ways - direct connect or 10GBe network. Both are vastly superior to RAID with no NAS box.

- Using RAID 0 is asking for trouble. It is significantly less safe than just drives in your desktop.

- RAID 5 is not an approriate configuration for your production NAS. It is no wonder that you've excperienced disasters with that, and had you done the research you would know that this is to be expected. Using RAID 10 the risk of rebuild problems are all but eliminated.

- It is also critical which NAS firm you are using - LaCie for instance is not an acceptable one. IMO and after extenbsive research, the only acceptable ones are Synology and QNAP. Drobo a distant third. Also critical to use enterprise drives and connected UPS. At least one backup NAS should exist doubling your production NAS.

The software on a proper NAS box offers many data safety and security options, and one should make himself well acquainted with those options and make sure all of them are optimized for his needs.

I will no go on again about a firewall, but it is another component that can't be skipped.

If you use ALL of these measures and don't skip on ANY of the critical components, you can expect an extremely low probability of data loss. If an error does occur, you are still running, and rebuiliding time is very short (RAID 10 not 5). In the extremely unlikely event of rebuild fail or total box fail, you still have your backup NAS (there you can run RAID 5).

I would like very much to hear from someone who'se done EVERYTHING right and still experenced data loss. So far all the testimonies I've encountered were about people who did at least one thing wrong.
I guess my question is what's the difference between NAS and a direct connect box ... to me it's simply the method of connection and that's it. The NAS itself still has to be configured and by nature doesn't really offer any more security than direct connect devices other than it could be in a different location. Its still a raid 5, 6 or 10 device of some type, just like a direct connect raid would be and all of those issues remain. Yes perhaps better made than many and with some nice utilities, but it's still just a raid that's connected to a network instead of directly to a computer.

the challenge with any backup solution is maintaining the reliability of the backup and having enough redundancy to not fail in a catastrophic situation. This usually means a series of backups all on systems that are designed to be as reliable as possible, knowing that at some point in time some will fail and can be rebuilt before others fail.

To me Raid 10 really doesn't offer much more than cloning 2 raid 0's other than it's automatic and instant so failure means 0 downtime. It does have risks in that writing something mistakenly to the drive will get immediately copied to the mirror backup, where as a nightly clone process which archives changed or deleted files offers a way to get something back ... maybe not that important but perhaps occasionally useful. Of course the trade off there is failure of the main raid before the daily backup could mean loss of data. One thought is a raid 10 that is cloned nightly to another raid would be something to consider ... offering advantages of each method.

Any reliable backup strategy is more about how data is stored redundantly and how the hardware is monitored and maintained because the data will need to be rewritten to new devices (hard drives etc) over time. This really does mean more than one redundant copy.

In some circumstances a well maintained and properly backed up NAS by a sysadmin is a great option and great solution, but in a single user environment I just can't see it adds any value. I have a synology and a Drobo NAS at my store, I do it for collaboration and the need to share image files with various output devices, but oddly the 7 year old windows server I was trying to replace when I purchased those two devices is still a more reliable file sharing device than either NAS which seem to have trouble showing up for users or seem to randomly drop from the network - one issue is I'm still struggling with a network that must keep XP, 7, 8 and OS X all sharing files ( i probably still have a vista box running somehwere too).. No solution so far other than keeping that aging windows server running for files that absolutely must be available to any machine on the entire network.
 

shlomi

Member
I guess my question is what's the difference between NAS and a direct connect box ... to me it's simply the method of connection and that's it. The NAS itself still has to be configured and by nature doesn't really offer any more security than direct connect devices other than it could be in a different location. Its still a raid 5, 6 or 10 device of some type, just like a direct connect raid would be and all of those issues remain. Yes perhaps better made than many and with some nice utilities, but it's still just a raid that's connected to a network instead of directly to a computer.
You don't know what the differences are, but you assume they are insignificant - but they aren't. There are a lot of different types of boxes which offer different types of features. These features are not trinkets, they are crucial to perserve your data alive. You can take a Synology box and direct connect it and it still has most of its advantages.

These advatages include:
- Good quality heatsink that keeps active drives at 34c
- Software to monitor drive temperature
- Redundant fans
- Software to monitor the fans
- Software to monitor the entire system and alert you via email about any problem
- Software to periodically check each drive fix and notify autromatically
- Different ready to use backup plans
- Different ready to use remote access plans
- Control all access types to avoid abuse
And there are dozens more features that exist in an excellent data OS such as Synology in a way that is stable and very easy to use. These features along with the robust build make the difference between different boxes.

the challenge with any backup solution is maintaining the reliability of the backup and having enough redundancy to not fail in a catastrophic situation. This usually means a series of backups all on systems that are designed to be as reliable as possible, knowing that at some point in time some will fail and can be rebuilt before others fail.
In general yes, but a properly constructed main system will have very little chance of disaster. You do need 2-3 boxes each containing your entire data. If the main box is RAID 10 with enterprise drives, then a main total failure is extremely unlikely. Talk to me in a few years and I can give you more concrete data on how much enterprise drives fail in a proper enclosure. You do realize that a regular drive in a regular enclosure will have totally different statistics.

To me Raid 10 really doesn't offer much more than cloning 2 raid 0's other than it's automatic and instant so failure means 0 downtime. It does have risks in that writing something mistakenly to the drive will get immediately copied to the mirror backup, where as a nightly clone process which archives changed or deleted files offers a way to get something back ... maybe not that important but perhaps occasionally useful. Of course the trade off there is failure of the main raid before the daily backup could mean loss of data. One thought is a raid 10 that is cloned nightly to another raid would be something to consider ... offering advantages of each method.
You are looking at it wrong. RAID 10 is not comparable to two RAID 5 - it is comparable to one RAID 5. You still must have two enclosures at least. RAID 10 is the safest configuration from the small ones - RAID 50 or 60 are safer but these are not applicable to you. RAID 10 is safer, because when you rebuild you rebuild from one drive only. In RAID 5 or 6 when you rebuild, then you "resilver" the entire NAS. Meaning that every bit in the NAS gets read and written. This creates very heavy stress on the drives and often generates new problems and the famous double failure which loses you all your data. This does not happen with RAID 10 which rebuilds one drive from one drive - and not taking six days to do it. Again RAID 10 serves as one box - if you consider it as having two copies of your data, then your math is wrong. It's one copy with really good safety. You still need the second independent copy and there you can skimp on the cost and use RAID 5 or 6.

Any reliable backup strategy is more about how data is stored redundantly and how the hardware is monitored and maintained because the data will need to be rewritten to new devices (hard drives etc) over time. This really does mean more than one redundant copy.
Yes.

In some circumstances a well maintained and properly backed up NAS by a sysadmin is a great option and great solution
You don't need a sysadmin for that. You can do everything yourself. Follow my instructions here, invest a few thousand dollars and a couple of weeks of your time, and you're 99.99% protected. Just don't skip on some parts that you think are not important. The Synology system does the system administration for you. You just need to set it up once, and once a week look in on it to see all is well. It will let you know anyway when anything is amiss. That is hugely different from a Windows server which does require you to perform the sysadmin tasks. The Synology automatic administraion may not be sufficient for an actual enterprise, but it is very sufficient for SOHO.

but in a single user environment I just can't see it adds any value.
The value depends on how important your data is to you - how much is it worth to you that it is not lost. Differently from a camera, insurance money can't rebuild your data. Your camera system costs $50k - is it really so much to create a data preservation system that costs $8k but gives you real protection? It makes sense to me.

I have a synology and a Drobo NAS at my store, I do it for collaboration and the need to share image files with various output devices, but oddly the 7 year old windows server I was trying to replace when I purchased those two devices is still a more reliable file sharing device than either NAS which seem to have trouble showing up for users or seem to randomly drop from the network - one issue is I'm still struggling with a network that must keep XP, 7, 8 and OS X all sharing files ( i probably still have a vista box running somehwere too).. No solution so far other than keeping that aging windows server running for files that absolutely must be available to any machine on the entire network.
You present it as if having Synology means that you will have low stability. That is not really the case. How did you implement your Synology and your Drobo? Are they RAID 5? Are they Red or Enterpise drives? Are they on UPS with comms for each one? Why you are having trouble seeing the Synology - I do not know. I have zero problems accessing mine from different systems, not all Windows. If it is configured correctly, your NAS should have no problem appearing on your network 100% of the time. If you are using Macs, then this could be the problem - I don't know what goes on in the Apple universe, but I know they don't encourage connectivity to machines that were not sold by them.
 
Last edited:

shlomi

Member
Folder sync works fine over wifi. Once set the Synology OS prevents using the folders on the backup NAS (they are read only), so it's doing everything it's supposed to.

As for the USB UPS, it's because it's old and I haven't bothered.
I've never tried it - if the bandwidth is sufficient to transmit all your changes overnight then it's fine. There is a security risk running your data over the air, but that's just me. I've blocked my wireless network from accessing any of my data, for security reasons.

No USB means that a power outage longer than the battery can hold out which is typically 10-20 minutes - your drives will suffer unexpected shutdown.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
That’s a long reply, and seems to overcomplicate things.

A NAS is simply a high end raid box with it’s own processor and server firmware built in. You can buy raid boxes with all of the same features. what makes the NAS different is it is network accessible without a host computer.

All of the comments about NAS (drive type, temperature control etc etc) apply equally to any raid device, be it NAS or direct connect. You can buy cheap raid cabinets, you can buy cheap JBOD cabinents and use software solutions to create raids, or you can buy better designed and more feature full raid cabinets (dual power supplies, faster firmware parity algorithms, disk health monitoring, etc). But if you have no reason to share the information on the network then I can’t see what a NAS would add. And adding the network component in any strategy if unnecessary can also introduce issues that could be avoided with a simpler direct connect strategy, and just adds costs which may mean going cheaper in the overall strategy and not setting up enough redundancy and maintenance investments.

Protecting data is a strategy. It’s as much about procedure and methodology as it is about hardware. Choice of raid is about several factors ... speed, reliability, up time, rebuild times, etc. But raid has nothing to do with backup. There are many ways to create and build a backup strategy, but adding a NAS to the equation is mainly beneficial if 1) 1 device can backup multiple users or 2) the NAS can be kept at another physical location and then the backup can be handle via network. But many make the mistake of thinking the NAS is the backup just like they like having a raid 5 or raid 6 cabinet is “backup. So they don’t bother to actually implement a true backup strategy and backup the NAS or Raid.

The issues of raid 5’s failing during rebuilding is becoming more commonplace, so do you opt for raid 6? Or are you better of building a series of redundant less expensive raids. Ultimately the question is if I loose device A, where is my data protected and how safe is it while I repair/rebuild/replace device A. This usually means at least triple redundancy with at least one copy at a different physical location. That’s the starting point. ... I have 4 tiers of redundancy but I don’t have a lot invested in the devices themselves. but I’m pretty confident that if one of the devices in the chain fails, I can replace it and reclone it before the other 3 would fail. Probably 3 would be enough, but adding the 4th was easy because I already had an available cabinet.

I think NAS is great and useful, but the idea that it deserves a special place in a backup strategy for a single user system just doesn’t make sense to me.
 
Top