Getting the best out of a ds214SE and Existing Hardware

[McGyro]

This is going to be a long question.
I purchased a DS214SE (+ 2x 4TB red drives) some 8 months ago with a vague view to improving my home system and to take advantage of remote file access synching across the internet when working away from home. To date I havent really used it other than for simple backup because I'm not sute hoe to best integrate it.
First my home system:

• Work PC used for work at home; i7, 12GB RAM, 256GB SSD holding Win7 + program files, 1TB HDD holding data files. Currently I have about 100GB on the SSD and 200GB on the HDD
  
• 1TB external USB HDD used exclusively for backup WorkPC; plugged into Work PC
• Asus AC66U router used for home network; wife, 2 teenagers, my Macbook Air, plus visitor all with own computers,.
  
• 3TB Transcend USB NAS plugged direct into the AC66U holding media (movies, videos, music) for access/streaming by all home users. About 1.2TB used at present. No backup. Struggles with streaming sometimes.
  
• ds214SE not really doing anything useful at present.

My original intention had been to set up the 214SE in Raid O configuration, backing up the work PC, family users, and possibly the Transcend NAS, with remote file access and synching so I can access my work files and synch selected work files via the internet using my macbook air. The 1TB backup external drive would be disconnected or put to archive use.

However several associates who are more computer savvy than me said this was not very clever and I should use Raid 1, using the ds214SE as a proper server. I cant understand why because this would, in effect, halve my backup capability (8TB down to 4) and leave me with redundant drives (1TB external + 1TB HDD in PC). In addition all my data file traffic would then have to travel via the network.

I'd appreciate any experience-based recommendations on how best to arrange and configure things.
Experience-based because I'd like to get it right first time, and struggle with reconfiguring.

I selected the ds214SE for its synching capability and low price.

Thanks

 

[L&LD]

I agree about forgetting about RAID0. And I suggest to forget about RAID1 too with only a two drive setup.

Use each disk on it's own and have one backup the other (I recommend manually instead of automatically, see below).

You will still need an external backup drive which would be ideally rotated offsite too for the most complete backup strategy (using two of these externals would be even better, trade them once a week and they'll have alternating week backups).

With the process above, you will have your data on at least 3 physical drives at the expense of how much data you have backed up, of course.

RAID0 splits your data across two (or more) drives - if one fails, all data is lost.

RAID1 is a real-time copy of one drive to another - if one fails, the other should still work (theoretically). The reality is though, if one drive fails, the other is soon to follow (leaving you with a false sense of security). In addition, user error (deleting / changing important files) will be immediately reflected on the other drive - so the idea of a 'backup' with RAID1 is really misleading.

Having the drives operate independently (one backing up the other manually) in your 2 Bay NAS is the best tradeoff you can make. Even at the cost of halving your capacity.

 

[McGyro]

Thanks for your reply. This is what I dont understand; with Raid O I would have one complete set of (PC)master files on my PC and one complete backup on my Synology. The other network computers would have their master files on their respective hard drives. If a PC fails, install Synology Raid O backup in new PC , if Synology fails, continue on PC and get new Synology Whats the point of having two backups on the Synology; it only seems to cover failure of a backup drive and doesnt cover failure of the Synology unit itself? A physical disaster will kill the Synology and both its disks, so having one Synology disk backing up the other appears to insure against a very limited series of failures.
Fortnightly disk rotation isn't going to happen; I would go for Amazon Glacier or similar for second level backup, or a second remote Synology. I can see the point of using Raid 1 if I was using the Synology as a serious server, but there seems no point as I have good storage on my PC.
The one thing I'm not sure of is if I can access the backed up files on the Synology for internet access, transfer and synching. ; this is where I can see a problem. As my master files will be on my PC, would need I remote access to the PC via the Synology?

 

[stevech]

I agree - RAID of any type is not prudent, per me, for a 2 bay NAS.
I use two volumes, for many reasons.

 

[sfx2000]

I agree - RAID of any type is not prudent, per me, for a 2 bay NAS.
I use two volumes, for many reasons.

Any NAS, while backing up your other devices - it needs to be backed up as well...

We say over in the Wireless Group that a Router is not a NAS, and I'll extend it here saying that a standalone NAS is not a backup...

Have a plan... NAS's tend to be common repo's of data, which makes backing them up on a regular basis even more important...

 

[McGyro]

Any NAS, while backing up your other devices - it needs to be backed up as well...

We say over in the Wireless Group that a Router is not a NAS, and I'll extend it here saying that a standalone NAS is not a backup...

Have a plan... NAS's tend to be common repo's of data, which makes backing them up on a regular basis even more important...

Thanks for the view. However I dont understand why a NAS (Synology), if it is used for backup needs a backup. To extrapolate to the ridiculous, using only NAS devices for backup would never work because the last NAS would still require a backup. Whats wrong with holding the master files on my PC and backups on the Synology? My concern was how I remote access and synch using Synology when the masters are on my PC. Redundancy level is a value judgement and I'm quite happy with master plus backup; cant see the need for master plus backup plus backup of backup. If I was going to the latter, remote cloud storage is more appealing to me at it removes locality risk at cost of trusting someone else with my data. However as I'm new to this I expect your view is the correct one, but I would like to know what is wrong with what I am proposing. That way I wont repeat my mistake.

 

[sfx2000]

Thanks for the view. However I dont understand why a NAS (Synology), if it is used for backup needs a backup. To extrapolate to the ridiculous, using only NAS devices for backup would never work because the last NAS would still require a backup.

Everyone is different - I use my NAS to back up "working data", so it's not a total backup on all of my machines - so I back it up once in a while...

Case in point - I had to do an emergency evacuation related to a brush fire across the street - took almost 10 minutes for the NAS to shut-down - cleaning up it's file systems, shutting down applications, etc... and believe me, those were a tense few minutes before I could unplug it and move it to my car...

I have a backup of it, but I back up the NAS about once a week, so I would have lost, at the time, 4 days worth of work...

 

[stevech]

Yeah, many enterprises use NASes (or other shared storage), to store most or all user data. Policy: no data on desktop PCs.
This is especially true for large companies that have, or are now, going to virtual PCs or full time remote desktops, so that no data is on the desktop, and now, no enterprise software is on the desktop.