NAS recommendation

[L&LD]

Ok then i understand. So just to be sure, i could just put in 4 x 3TB and run Raid 10 and have everything on this array?
Later i'm thinking adding additional 2 x 3TB when the need for more space arises. OR is it better to have a 2x TB as Raid 1 as a standalone array for playing with VM and other stuff. This was i dont wear out the other disks when playing with VM, running backup programs and such. Am i thinking correctly even ?
I been using Drobo FS which is pretty dumb and dont let me play with these fun stuff so i'm a bit noob in this area. Actually started reading the QNAP manual now but so far it don't give me much of the answers, just showing how the QNAP works in general.

Yes, you can use just part of the drive bays and expand that as you need.

I do think it is better to have the NAS os on a 2x RAID1 array though. Separate from data and drive redundant too (if either drive fails, you will still have a working NAS. Many, many customers have thanked me for talking them into this for their 4 bay or larger NAS'). You can also store your VM's that you're just 'playing' with (so that they don't get copied to your backups, unnecessarily).

The hdd's will wear out whether you use them or not.

Go ahead and use them. But I would suggest they sleep/spin down only once or twice a day or alternately, run continuously instead rather than spin up/down dozens of times during a normal day as or when they get accessed. This is the 'parameter' that eventually kills drives (stop/start), not the fact that they are spinning or kept spinning.

 

[vampyren]

Thanks for the tips, i will be doing as you suggest, i like the idea of having the archive left alone as well
So it will be
2x3TB (maybe 2TB) raid 1 för playing around
4x 3TB Raid 10 for archive and work
cant wait ...

 

[sfx2000]

The hdd's will wear out whether you use them or not.

Go ahead and use them. But I would suggest they sleep/spin down only once or twice a day or alternately, run continuously instead rather than spin up/down dozens of times during a normal day as or when they get accessed. This is the 'parameter' that eventually kills drives (stop/start), not the fact that they are spinning or kept spinning.

Completely agree - HDD have a service life, and some may die early, but most will run long enough to be obsolete - key thing is to keep them relatively cool, and keep the start/stop cycles to a minimum, as a weak drive will typically fail on the spin up...

 

[vampyren]

Hopefully with the price trend of SSD's becoming cheaper we will be able to replace the mechanical HD's with SSD's in a near future....One can hope

 

[kng]

I received my nas today, now I have to buy the disks. I wanted to buy HGST (but not sure if the model found on the market is compatible, it is not on the list) or WD Red Pro but these are not available currently at distributors (I'm speaking about 6 TB version). So, now I'm thinking to Seagate ST6000VN0001 although, initially I said I will stay away from those. I want 7200 rpm drives, with 128 MB cache. Any thought on the Seagate model?

 

[mythink]

QNAP TS-453 Pro
QNAP TVS671

QNAP is the way to go. I bought a Pro series years ago for one of my employers and it's working like a charm. Currently at my work we got a bunch of synology well I tell you this. Synology even in their enterprise level equipment I don't like them one bit only e-mail support and they take for ever to respond and I have found multiple issues and have solved the issue many times before they get back to me.

QNAP was able to call in to get some pre-sales I was looking at the TS-453 Pro Only issue is a bit short on bays and and Memory. I want need to run 2 VM's and Need Performance so here is good details want to impart.

if you want to do SSD Cache 1 drive gives you Read, 2 SSD gives you Read/Write cache. 2nd the SSD drive need to be on the HEAD Unit i.e. if you get a X500 or X800 expansion your SSD can go their for SSD Cache.

Also if you want to run more than one VM get Quad core Processor and 16GB Ram minimum.
So I will be ordering the QNAP TVS-671-i5-8G and get the 16GB upgrade kit (need to pull 2x4GB and add 2x8GB) and installing 4x8TB Seagate Enterprise (5yr warranty) and 2 Samsung SSD not sure on the size yet leaning on 2x512GB. I have 43GB Raid 5 system with 800GB SSD at work going to see if SSD gets completely used up if not will go with 500GB or 256GB.

 

[stevech]

I received my nas today, now I have to buy the disks. I wanted to buy HGST (but not sure if the model found on the market is compatible, it is not on the list) or WD Red Pro but these are not available currently at distributors (I'm speaking about 6 TB version). So, now I'm thinking to Seagate ST6000VN0001 although, initially I said I will stay away from those. I want 7200 rpm drives, with 128 MB cache. Any thought on the Seagate model?

Being conservative, I'd back off from 6TB to 4 or so. Too new, maybe risky at that density. I've used desktop PC grade (WD, Seagate) and WD Red. Can't say Red is better other than maybe warranty. Some say these have "better" firmware.
I recall that WD bought HGST.

#1 issue: backup plan for NAS?

 

[kng]

Being conservative, I'd back off from 6TB to 4 or so. Too new, maybe risky at that density. I've used desktop PC grade (WD, Seagate) and WD Red. Can't say Red is better other than maybe warranty. Some say these have "better" firmware.
I recall that WD bought HGST.

#1 issue: backup plan for NAS?

I have 2 or 3 external hard drives on which I'm manually copying the most important files (photos and movies from my holiday). My work is also saved in box.com, where I have a corporate account and unlimited storage. I didn't had time to try an automatic syncronization between qnap and box.com, but I don't think that it's possible.

I upgraded the NAS to 16 GB of RAM, it works perfect, after the upgrade I consider it to be a little bit quieter. I must admit, those disks are a little bit loud, although, in specifications they seemed to be quiet.

Indeed, a TVS x71 would be much better, specially for the virtualization feature which I'm using it daily. I also connected to network cables to my nas, one dedicated for the virtual machines (eth4) and one dedicated to nas/local use.

 

[RMerlin]

Being conservative, I'd back off from 6TB to 4 or so. Too new, maybe risky at that density. I've used desktop PC grade (WD, Seagate) and WD Red. Can't say Red is better other than maybe warranty. Some say these have "better" firmware.

I know there's TLER in these firmware which can help in a RAID configuration. I wouldn't be surprised if they also favored IO performance versus linear throughput. That kind of thing would probably only really matter in an heavily used business environment. For home or small LAN usages, I doubt there would be any real-life difference in performance. But that's just speculation.

 

[stevech]

I just look at what it takes them to get the bit density for 6TB on those platters. And bleeding edge prices.

 

[kamina]

It's not about RAID configuration, just about what the drive responds if it can't read a sector, and how fast it does so.

But I believe the main reason huge drives are being discouraged is basic math.

Each drive has a specific value of errors when reading bits and for consumer (generally includes NAS drives) it's something like 10E14 which means about 11TB of data. You don't want bit read errors while rebuilding a RAID array, and since the specs are the same for small and big drives it means bigger are riskier.

On the other hand this is the promise from the manufacturer, the bigger drives could be better and the quality on the whole could be improving but manufacturers still use the numbers to diffrenciate enterprise and consumer product lines... Hard to say really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stevech]

when the 9TB or 12TB per drive comes out and is stable. Take a chance on the 6TB (then cheaper) drive!

I've read about WD, Seagate, et al and how they each have the best technique for bits per linear inch along the circumference. Despite the shortened track length on the inner tracks.

It's hard.

 

[sfx2000]

I just look at what it takes them to get the bit density for 6TB on those platters. And bleeding edge prices.

I agree - it's amazing what the spinning rust vendors are doing, but the bit density values they're hitting is a bit scary...

 

[stevech]

I wonder if they are now using multi-level magnetism per data cell much as MLC NAND flash does with 4 level sensing now, though a very high coding rate ECC is needed with 2- and 4- level NAND, esp. the latter.

Whatever happened to the promised breakthrough cubical hologram media promised 25 years ago?

 

[Shabbir Rao]

Are you thinking of using any third party back software along with the NAS?

 

[stevech]

Are you thinking of using any third party back software along with the NAS?

Not me. The standard and approved add-ins are more than adequate for me.