DS414 vs DS415play

[Tablo]

So I want to centralize all my media in a NAS, using four of these HGST http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=ATVPDKIKX0DER 4TB drives.
I've done some research and it seems Synology is the way to go for me, and they have robust Windows Phone support for their apps so that's a bonus

The DS414 and DS415play are similarly priced, there's only a 70~ dollar difference between the two. One has a Marvell Armada XP chipset, one Intel Evansport. I don't need the dual NICs of the DS414, don't really need media transcoding on the DS415play, but it may be neat to have I suppose.
I would assume the Intel SoC has better performance in the OS, even if it isn't Silvermont...

Any insight? I know the latter isn't really on the market quite yet, but I kinda want to get one soon so I'm not sure if I want to wait to get more user feedback on the play model.

In terms of the RAID situation, I'm probably going to do SHR, maybe even the 2 disk redundant variant (SHR-2) since I only have 4 TB of media as of now, so 8TB total usable is probably enough for a good while.

 

[stevech]

So I want to centralize all my media in a NAS, using four of these HGST http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=ATVPDKIKX0DER 4TB drives.
I've done some research and it seems Synology is the way to go for me, and they have robust Windows Phone support for their apps so that's a bonus

The DS414 and DS415play are similarly priced, there's only a 70~ dollar difference between the two. One has a Marvell Armada XP chipset, one Intel Evansport. I don't need the dual NICs of the DS414, don't really need media transcoding on the DS415play, but it may be neat to have I suppose.
I would assume the Intel SoC has better performance in the OS, even if it isn't Silvermont...

Any insight? I know the latter isn't really on the market quite yet, but I kinda want to get one soon so I'm not sure if I want to wait to get more user feedback on the play model.

In terms of the RAID situation, I'm probably going to do SHR, maybe even the 2 disk redundant variant (SHR-2) since I only have 4 TB of media as of now, so 8TB total usable is probably enough for a good while.

what's the backup strategy?

 

[Tablo]

what's the backup strategy?

Good question, so far I have two USB 3.0 WD external drives.
One 3TB, One 4TB. So far they're both redundant save for the extra TB of stuff that the 3TB can't store.

The plan is I get my 4 bay NAS. And I'll have about 4 TB~ on it right away.
That 4TB will be backed up on the 4 TB I am currently using as the main drive for that media, the 3 TB, will be emptied, and used to store subsequent stuff that I send to the NAS.

So essentially my protection is SHR/SHR-2, which if I understand correctly is similar to RAID 5/6 respectively, except SHR is somehow dynamic.

Then if all fails in the NAS, hopefully the two external drives live long enough to restore that data. I'll put them somewhere safe sealed in a Ziploc in a box or something.

 

[stevech]

I studied SHR and decided that for my 2 bay, it was not a good way to go for me. I went with two volumes and Time (Machine) backup from one to the other volume, plus USB3 backup of VIP files, plus SD card backup of VVIP files.

 

[Tablo]

Well SHR for a 2 bay, might as well go RAID 1 right?
I toyed with just going for a 2 bay NAS, and just backing up on the USB drives. but then I have no in-NAS redundancy at all, it would be nice because I would save a lot of money by going DS2414play + 2x4TB drives and just relying on those USB HDDs as backups, but I don't trust them much, even if the enclosure stuff fails I'm out of luck, I can't just pull out the HDD and use it in a PC...

 

[stevech]

Well SHR for a 2 bay, might as well go RAID 1 right?
I toyed with just going for a 2 bay NAS, and just backing up on the USB drives. but then I have no in-NAS redundancy at all, it would be nice because I would save a lot of money by going DS2414play + 2x4TB drives and just relying on those USB HDDs as backups, but I don't trust them much, even if the enclosure stuff fails I'm out of luck, I can't just pull out the HDD and use it in a PC...

RAID 1 - definitely not for me. Because there's no protection from file system corruption or human error (oops, I hosed up/deleted those files).
RAID1, RAID5, IMO, for small NASes, was relevant many years ago when drive failure was far more likely. Today, an external backup is your safety net. /end opinion.

In mine, with two independent volumes, one being a versioning backup using NAS software, I can pull a drive and read it on a Windows PC using freeware, or native on a Linux PC. This presumes that the USB3 drive for backup doesn't have what you want.

4TB to me seems more risky than I'd go with. But call me paranoid and cheap.

 

[Tablo]

That makes sense, I think I'm still leaning towards a 4 bay NAS though, the 6 TB drives out are very pricey, the cheapest being the WD RED at 300$, and that doesn't have a vibration detector thingy. And in a 2 bay NAS with 1 drive devoted to a backup of sorts, that only gives me an extra like 1.8~TB usable, considering I already have the capacity of a full 4TB drive filled.

I think that SHR (RAID 5) with four drives, and external backups is the most realistic option for me. Assuming the SHR setup is stable and works as it should.

Also I think 4 TB drives are relatively mature enough, of course that is based on nothing lol. It's not like they're a bad value. ( though a four bay nas in SHR with 4x3 TB drives is 200$ cheaper... hmmm)

 

[stevech]

The way I saw it, SHR is like JBOD in terms of risk.
I preferred two independent file systems on two volumes.
One is heavily used. The other volume is the time version and other backups of the first volume. To me, this is conservative, combined with the USB3 backup.

 

[Tablo]

The way I saw it, SHR is like JBOD in terms of risk.
I preferred two independent file systems on two volumes.
One is heavily used. The other volume is the time version and other backups of the first volume. To me, this is conservative, combined with the USB3 backup.

Not really in the context of a 4 bay nas, if 1 fails u lose nothing, even if you have three drives worth of data!

If you were only referring to a two bay system, then I can see what you're getting at.

Atm I'm leaning most towards the DS415play with 4x3TB Hitachi Drives, these ones: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HHAJU7K/?tag=snbforums-20

In SHR (which is raid 5 in that config), and backed up on those two aforementioned external drives. I think I can have a degree of confidence in that setup.

 

[AcostaJA]

If you get an 4 Bay NAS, the best is you configure it as SHR with 2 redundant disks, so any 2 disk may dead in any combination and your data still safe.

Never miss external backup, no matter how safe Is SHR you may lost everything due inundation, fire burglar, or the most common thread: an stupid experiment...

I have an ds414slim loaded with 4 1tb, 2 tb available are by long shot what I need.

Of course if you require media transcoding feature, the ds415play will help but beware not all media file may be transcoded by ds415play, further since it runs on an x86 platform you don't have available as many 3rd party apps as with the ARM platform, as BtSync (which I consider a must have for everyone).

 

[AcostaJA]

Don't rely on raid 5 or SHR with only a single hdd redundant, experience said it's inconvenience coz once drives ages the probability of near or close successive failure increases so raid 5 gives you false security sensation.

 

[AcostaJA]

The way I saw it, SHR is like JBOD in terms of risk.
I preferred two independent file systems on two volumes.
One is heavily used. The other volume is the time version and other backups of the first volume. To me, this is conservative, combined with the USB3 backup.

No, you're wrong, SHR it's Moreless an RaidZ / RaidZ2 file system without the copy on write *performance penalty*, storage maybe configured as jbod but not handled as jbod but as a raid 6/5.

 

[philmiami]

I would say use mirroring RAID 10
I just read this, and RAID-Z is not a standard form of NAS file system architecture
RAID-Z


This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2014) RAID-Z is not actually a kind of RAID, but a higher-level software technology that implements an integrated redundancy scheme in the ZFS file system similar to RAID 5. RAID-Z is a data-protection technology featured by ZFS in order to reduce the block overhead in mirroring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels

 

[AcostaJA]

I would say use mirroring RAID 10
I just read this, and RAID-Z is not a standard form of NAS file system architecture
RAID-Z


This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2014) RAID-Z is not actually a kind of RAID, but a higher-level software technology that implements an integrated redundancy scheme in the ZFS file system similar to RAID 5. RAID-Z is a data-protection technology featured by ZFS in order to reduce the block overhead in mirroring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels

RaidZ Not available on home NAS, would be great but requires very expensive hardware.

In a 4 Bay Nas Raid 6 is safer than raid 10,period since it protects against any 2 combination of drive failures, raid 10 sure outperform Raid 6 but certain hdd failure combination can't be survived, I. E. If 1&2 spawn and 3&4 mirror then, a dual failure at 1 and 4 can't be recovered.

 

[philmiami]

I agree on RAID 6 but also RAID 10 can.
Just depends on usage, environment,etc. There are many contributing factors as to which RAID to us, back ups of data for off site,etc.
Just depends on if you want to say,"I should'a,would'a,could'a" or want to be fault tolerant like the hardness of a diamond.
It just depends on the user.
Just throwing ideas out....
RAID 6RAID 6 comprises block-level striping with double distributed parity. Double parity provides fault tolerance up to two failed drives. This makes larger RAID groups more practical, especially for high-availability systems, as large-capacity drives take longer to restore. As with RAID 5, a single drive failure results in reduced performance of the entire array until the failed drive has been replaced.[9] With a RAID 6 array, using drives from multiple sources and manufacturers, it is possible to mitigate most of the problems associated with RAID 5. The larger the drive capacities and the larger the array size, the more important it becomes to choose RAID 6 instead of RAID 5.[21] RAID 10 also minimizes these problems.[2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

also
Why RAID 6 stops working in 2019

Summary: Three years ago I warned that RAID 5 would stop working in 2009. Sure enough, no enterprise storage vendor now recommends RAID 5. Now it's RAID 6, which protects against 2 drive failures. But in 2019 even RAID 6 won't protect your data. Here's why.


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805

 

[AcostaJA]

I agree on RAID 6 but also RAID 10 can.
Just depends on usage, environment,etc.

also
Why RAID 6 stops working in 2019

Summary: Three years ago I warned that RAID 5 would stop working in 2009. Sure enough, no enterprise storage vendor now recommends RAID 5. Now it's RAID 6, which protects against 2 drive failures. But in 2019 even RAID 6 won't protect your data. Here's why.


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805

1st no, no way raid 10 could reach raid 6 safety period , raid 10 actually it's just as safe as raid 5 but faster.

The reasons why raid 6... OK that's why developers create RaidZ2, Btrfs, copy on write etc.

 

[philmiami]

1st no, no way raid 10 could reach raid 6 safety period , raid 10 actually it's just as safe as raid 5 but faster.

The reasons why raid 6... OK that's why developers create RaidZ2, Btrfs, copy on write etc.

RAID-Z is not actually a kind of RAID, but a higher-level software technology that implements an integrated redundancy scheme in the ZFS file system similar to RAID 5. RAID-Z is a data-protection technology featured by ZFS in order to reduce the block overhead in mirroring.

 

[AcostaJA]

RAID-Z is not actually a kind of RAID, but a higher-level software technology that implements an integrated redundancy scheme in the ZFS file system similar to RAID 5. RAID-Z is a data-protection technology featured by ZFS in order to reduce the block overhead in mirroring.

That's not the official definition of Raid Z (you have Raid Z2, Z3... Upto Z5), yes raid actually not a hw level raid, it's an very superior scheme, it's main purposes are data integrity and failure recovery, actually it's the State Of Art on data storage, at least until Btrfs reaches stable release.

RAIDZ Implement the redundancy, ZFS Implement the data protection (every chunck of data have its md5 checksum verified before write, and no chunck is added to the file block until it's verified. So an file integrity is detectable at every chunck or block of data, plus every block of data has multiple redundant parity images (also having checksum and copy on write before added to the file table).

Of course this is the kind of data integrity and protection required for a Human Genoma , or large account records from major stores or bureaus.

For mortals like us, for now (and next 5yr) raid 6 is more than adequate for our needs.

A 4 Bay RaidZ2 capable Nas cost empty about 1100$, and includes no ram, you must add 1GB of ECC RAM for each TB of data, plus Storage Class HDD, a 8 TB available system raises easy to 2000$.

Of course all this worth nothing without periodical backups, safe stored on another building than where the NAS serves, or inside a water/fire/earthquake-proof safe.

 

[Tablo]

Wow very cool discussion, keep it coming!
Yeah I mean evidently zfs and btrfs are superior, but it'll cost a lot more to build a small avoton based NAS, and unfortunately I can't afford that. I think RAID 6/SHR-2 is the way to go for me, that'll give me 3.6 TB to expand into until I upgrade to larger HDDs or something in the future.

In terms of the ARM app thing you mentioned, that is actually relevant to the DS414 vs DS415play discussion I wanted to have! Could you expound on that?

I figure the x86 model is more powerful, so I won't see slowdowns in the OS and it'll just be plain better than the Marvell Armada chip. I don't have a ton of insight into NAS specs so please someone chime in. The media transcoding isn't a critical need of mine.

 

[stevech]

I don't have a ton of insight into NAS specs so please someone chime in. The media transcoding isn't a critical need of mine.

For me, performance in file serving is about the same for an $x investment in Synology, QNAP or Thecus (others omitted by intent).
So the discriminator is features and applications in the NAS. In mine, the biggie is Time Backup which does file versioning too.
And the photo and music servers in the NAS coupled with the iPad and Android clients for these, that are NAS-specific and actually work well, as compared to the DLNA hodge-podge.