Review: 24 TB add-on to your router for $99.78 (+disks)

[ml70]

One dock like this adds 4 pcs 6 TB (or smaller) sata disks via usb 3 or esata to any device, including a router. I have 16 TB connected to my Asus RT-AC66U right now. Works very well considering the price.

Note that your router's Linux kernel version needs to be at least 2.6.28 in order to support the ext4 filesystem to make a filesystem greater than 16 TB, otherwise you'll be limited to ext3 with 16 TB max (in theory you'll be able to split 24 TB into two 12 TB filesystems, but someone needs to try this out in practice).

Formatting may be a challenge with tiny ram, i needed to add a 512 MB swapfile before success. RAID modes supported are 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, single large disk, each disk as separate (port multiplier). There's also a copy mode where a single disk is shown to your host, and anything written there is also copied to the other disks (1+3 copy of same data).

The device also supports a password through hdparm or included Windows application which can also be used to set the RAID level, or just use DIP switches in the back of the unit, no software necessary.

Note that accessing a password protected RAID array is a little tricky, this far i've only been successful with the dock disconnected from USB while router boots (this may be Asus specific issue too), then connecting usb cable, unlock with hdparm --security-unlock password /dev/sdX, then partprobe /dev/sdX to refresh the now unlocked partition table.

All in all very good value for money but watch our for the quality, my first unit's power supply broke in a week and the power cable came with chinese slanted prongs socket, and getting it replaced took a month, not worth the time despite DX refunding the sending cost to my account. So unless you're really tight on money, consider buying two (or more!) at the same time, all in all it's really exceptional value.

Performance is good enough for home network on all RAID levels, your router will be the bottleneck, although it's hard to see if there's any performance gain running RAID 10 compared to bare naked disk. This most definitely is not a competitor for a full fledged NAS, but something i'd term good enough. Even if your router has only usb 2, it still turns your router into a massive streaming NAS.

And if you have a NAS already, this is exactly what you need to back it up

http://www.dx.com/p/maiwo-k305a-4-slot-usb3-0-esata-raid-hard-disk-base-black-3tb-max-236759

 

[stevech]

not what I'd choose. It's just a drive bay with USB and eSATA.

 

[ml70]

not what I'd choose. It's just a drive bay with USB and eSATA.

...with RAID.

Sure you can blow any amount on money on a NAS box but they still cost approx. $100 per drive bay, meaning at least $400 for a comparable amount of storage. While your smart router can already handle ordinary NAS box extended functions like torrent, media streaming, etc.

The only things a router will not do are transcoding and encryption, however even many entry level NAS boxes have a tough time with these, i hear.

 

[htismaqe]

...with RAID.

Sure you can blow any amount on money on a NAS box but they still cost approx. $100 per drive bay, meaning at least $400 for a comparable amount of storage. While your smart router can already handle ordinary NAS box extended functions like torrent, media streaming, etc.

The only things a router will not do are transcoding and encryption, however even many entry level NAS boxes have a tough time with these, i hear.

Most router NAS packages can't correctly handle user permissions, which is a basic fundamental thing. Some stock packages, like Netgear, don't even support user permissions - it's either "admin" or "guest".

 

[azazel1024]

Most router NAS packages can't correctly handle user permissions, which is a basic fundamental thing. Some stock packages, like Netgear, don't even support user permissions - it's either "admin" or "guest".

And the performance delta is HUGE compared to most NAS. Better to get an inexpensive single disk NAS with that enclosure for only $100-150 more for much better performance. Or a lower end router that'll probably work nearly as well wirelessly and routing, but is stripped of a lot of the extra features and storage performance and just get a real 4 bay NAS. Saves $100 with not getting that enclosure (and one less point of failure as you aren't also running an enclosure with probably the cheapest electronics possible in it) and might save $50-200 off the cost of a high end router with extra features and storage performance.

Total cost delta might be only $100-200 higher to get the 4 bay NAS instead. Then you'll have a lot more features, much better performance, possibly better reliability (and Synology and Thecus, oh and QNAP from what I have heard have very good support and good warranties).

Compared to the $500-600 cost of the hard drives, an extra $100-200 isn't all that much extra money to do it right. If you were talking $100-200 extra and the cost of the drives was somehow only $100-200, I'd say that is a huge difference. An extra maybe 33% on top isn't much of a premium.

 

[ml70]

Most router NAS packages can't correctly handle user permissions, which is a basic fundamental thing. Some stock packages, like Netgear, don't even support user permissions - it's either "admin" or "guest".

Asus seems to do well enough but it'd be advisable not to stash your pr0n collection on the family server, anyway

Really, talking about "performance delta" here is way missing the point. Either you spend $100 to gain ability to add massive storage, or don't. It should be self-evident there's not going to be massive performance with that price.

The point is that it's good enough for home use, streaming music, watching films, doing backups once a week or less (on different days for each device, to not overload the router).

And it's good enough to back up your actual NAS on (direct usb3 or esata connection), because a NAS is not a backup.

 

[htismaqe]

The point is that it's good enough for home use, streaming music, watching films

Sure, I agree.

doing backups once a week or less (on different days for each device, to not overload the router).

I don't agree. I've seen too many router NAS devices fail, especially if you're trying to use NTFS for the filesystem.

It's not just that the permissions are stripped down, it's that they often don't follow clear Linux conventions, leading to data corruption, permissions scrambling, and even the loss of entire volumes.

I would never trust backing up my most valuable data on something that's marginally reliable.

And it's good enough to back up your actual NAS on (direct usb3 or esata connection), because a NAS is not a backup.

Absolutely agree if you have a NAS that large.

 

[azazel1024]

I still can't help coming back to "pay to play" that if you are talking about THAT much data, it must have taken a lot of time and effort to build it up. Whether it is illegal torrenting, or legit bluray ripping or something (or work files, say video production artist or videographer or something), it cost SOMETHING to build up the data needed to justify 24TB of storage.

I would want to ensure that it was well backed up, which means unfortunately spending a little bit more money on reliable hardware to back it up with.

24TB is probably too much to do offsite backups, but I'd consider doing that as well if at all possible. My brother and I do not have nearly as much data, but we are in discussions to colocate each other's data as a backup. We have a secure FTP link up already, it's just that both of us need more storage capacity before we can host any of the data from the other, even the "core" stuff (like family pictures).

I know if I had spent hundreds of hours of "work" producing or acquiring that data I'd be willing to invest at least hundreds of dollars to protect it. My free time is worth a lot less than my hourly wage, but I think it at least warrants a few bucks an hour to "protect" my investment of time to ensure I don't lose it all, let alone if any of that data represents priceless/irreplaceable data.

Money is SUPER tight for me right now, but that is why I am replacing the drives in my server right now, because one of the 2TB drives is starting to error out, leaving me with only 1 known good copy of everything sitting on my desktop (a second good copy of the most irreplaceable stuff is on a USB drive as it represents a lot less data, only a few hundred GBs instead of a couple of TBs when you include my other media, backed up applications, etc). As soon as money is even slightly less of an issue, I am going to go ahead and replace the drives in my desktop too, even though they are running like champs, they are also 4-5 years old (1TB Samsung F1s) and also running out of space (80% utilized for my RAID0 array and secondary 500GB drive). Then I need to get a new external USB drive so that I can actually backup EVERYTHING. A decent 4TB USB3 drive should cover everything, at least for another couple of years (total data is only ~1.9TiB right now) and once that approaches capacity, I can pull the drive out of the enclosure and slap a second drive with it in to a 2 disk USB enclosure in JBOD.

Also need to either colocate the irreplaceable stuff on my brother's server, or else get a good BR burner and burn some disks and stuff them in my safe deposit box.

I'd be really upset if I lost the hundreds of hours of work over the years I've put in to ripping my, CDs, DVD and BR collections, transcoding and tagging it all. I'd cry if I lost priceless family photos from my wedding, kid's births, etc.

 

[stevech]

I'd be really upset if I lost the hundreds of hours of work over the years I've put in to ripping my, CDs, DVD and BR collections, transcoding and tagging it all. I'd cry if I lost priceless family photos from my wedding, kid's births, etc.

I can't imagine how an consumer end user can accumulate 24TB of data. Not disk capacity - but data.

 

[htismaqe]

I can't imagine how an consumer end user can accumulate 24TB of data. Not disk capacity - but data.

I have a buddy who has about 17TB. If he ever gets caught, he's going to prison for life.

 

[ml70]

I can't imagine how an consumer end user can accumulate 24TB of data. Not disk capacity - but data.

Full usenet feed reached 10 TB/day in 2011... Lesser amounts will result in enabling automatic downloading of an RSS feed for torrents, like for all those Linux ISO image collections.

 

[stevech]

Full usenet feed reached 10 TB/day in 2011... Lesser amounts will result in enabling automatic downloading of an RSS feed for torrents, like for all those Linux ISO image collections.

And, as the question was... a consumer with 50Mbps or less service doesn't do well with the hypothetical full Usenet feed.

 

[azazel1024]

I can't imagine how an consumer end user can accumulate 24TB of data. Not disk capacity - but data.

If I did full disk rips instead of transcodes I'd probably be up around that mark. My BR rips are generally 2-8GB in size instead of 20-50GB. I am utilizing around 1.2TB for my various rips. So figure a 10:1 compression factor, that works out to around 12TB. Granted, that is not 24TB and a fair amount of my stuff is older DVDs (so really probably closer to 7-8TB). That said, I also have friends who have an even larger BR/DVD library than I do and if they ripped it all without transcoding they'd probably be up in the low 20TB range.

I'd say that is an extreme anomaly though, but I CAN see how someone could manage that without simply pirating the entire universe or doing something else extreme.

I know some self employeed videographers and photographers who have in the 15-50TB range of storage, because it is litterally their life's work that they are storing from every client ever.

PS You thought storage was expensive, try 40TB of primary storage, backup and offsite storage that a couple of those guys do to completely cover their butts. They spend probably $3-4k a year just on data storage and redundancy.

 

[sfx2000]

I know some self employeed videographers and photographers who have in the 15-50TB range of storage, because it is litterally their life's work that they are storing from every client ever.

PS You thought storage was expensive, try 40TB of primary storage, backup and offsite storage that a couple of those guys do to completely cover their butts. They spend probably $3-4k a year just on data storage and redundancy.

Well, when you get into that realm of performance - that is where USB3 starts to fall apart - the Areca ARC-8050 is interesting, as it is Thunderbolt (which is not Mac specific)...

 

[azazel1024]

And at that cost too...yeah, I'd look beyond USB3 to thunderbolt as well.

Now USB3.1 maybe...Of course I don't even know if Intel is going to add it to the Skylake chipset (I really hope they do).

For my performance needs though, USB3 is just dandy. External is solely incremental back-ups and "offline" and by offline I just mean I am probably not sitting around twiddling my thumbs wasting time for it to complete. That and an external enclosure I'd personally configure it in JBOD, and the individual performance of any given HDD is going to be well below the maximum performance of USB3.

Now in my machines, RAID0 on the HDDs very well might exceed what USB3 can realistically deliver (maybe), but at the same time it is mostly over the network performance which matters, which is 2Gbps...so again, USB3 would even be sufficient (Not that I'd setup primary storage through an external enclosure for desktop or server).

 

[ml70]

And, as the question was... a consumer with 50Mbps or less service doesn't do well with the hypothetical full Usenet feed.

Helpful folks at Asus included NZBget in their Download Master, to help saturate that 50 Mbps with what they primarily need/want That's 13-15 TB per month for someone who automates it (or clicks 24/7).

 

[azazel1024]

But could you or would you ever utilize all of that data? I'll admit, most of my family photos and videos I'll probably NEVER take a second look at after I've pulled them off my camera (especially the ones I don't edit up the RAW file and export a JPEG). That said, there is an intrinsic value to them and I don't know if I will ever want to take a second look at them (or my wife, or my kid's or if I have them, Grandkids, years from now).

In terms of movies, only so much time in the day. Unless you actually have zero employment and have a movie fetish, I am assuming you are maybe watching 4hrs of movies a day. Maybe 8 if no family and spending all your down time watching them. Even at ~50Mbps of a very high quality BR rip, you'd have to be watching video 24/7/365 to keep up with a 50Mbps "constant" pull down of videos.

Heck my wife and I just sat down and culled our collection with a more realistic eye towards what movies we are likely to ever watch again and made a nice donation box (and also deleted them off the server). Wasn't even close to the majority, but still roughly 20% of our movie collection culled. Now if I can just get her to do the same with our TV collection...

By my math, figuring 100 minutes average run time, we have something like 800hrs of movies (not including TV shows) from years of collecting stuff (some of it going pre-meeting each other DVDs from >10 years ago). Realistically, even culled, I'd bet there are probably at least a small handful of movies in there that my wife and I, or our kids will possibly never watch...but at least there is a decent chance we will someday.

I don't know about >1400hrs of video (just 2 months of downloads of BR quality video), or even significantly more (assuming a lot of it isn't full fat BR rips).

Each to his own though. I know plenty of people who are digital horders. An acquintance who shall not be named probably has ~4TB worth of games just sitting around on their server. I'd guess when you include all of the various older arcade games, older games in general, etc they are probably looking at >2000 games. I'd be shocked if they will ever play more than a tithe of that in their life...but they like having it and the option.

 

[htismaqe]

Truth on the intrinsic value of family photos/videos with one (somewhat sad) caveat:

I have thousands of photos that, like you, I thought I would never view again. Then 4 years ago, my father-in-law died. We had to shuffle through all those old digital photos for wallboards, memory slideshows, and all the other stuff that a modern, multimedia-ready funeral requires.

But yes, for the most part, the GBs worth of photos I will never look at again but they're still quite possibly the most important data on my entire NAS.

As for data usage in general, I'm an extreme audiophile. Between vinyl and CD, I have about 2000 albums. I've ripped every single one of them to Apple Lossless, which is a quite large file format in terms of disk space usage. My entire collection is still only about 750GB.

 

[azazel1024]

Yeah I figure some day I, or my wife, or my kids are going to end up going through a lot of it eventually. Whether it is for similar, a parent or grandparent who died, spouse, child, one of us and our kids are going through it, what have you.

I still remember when my grandparents died and I/my parents/aunts/uncles/cousins poured over old slides and pictures in boxes that my Grandparents had taken.

I figure most of the pictures are going to at least get glanced at some day. I just hope NO year soon.

 

[StephenBB81]

I can't imagine how an consumer end user can accumulate 24TB of data. Not disk capacity - but data.

Remember when people couldn't imagine needing a 1TB of storage?
or why any consume would need 64bit to address 4GB of RAM+?


with 4K video and Silly products like GoPro people will be amassing HUGE amounts of video data.