SHA vs CIFS Cluster vs Shared Folder Sync

[shortcut3d]

I'm going to have two identically configured DS1813+, 4GB, 8x4TB. The second NAS will be for backup. There are several options and I wanted to get input on which method I should use SHA or CIFS Scale-Out Cluster or Shared Folder Sync or Network Backup. Pros and cons of each.

 

[stevech]

I'm going to have two identically configured DS1813+, 4GB, 8x4TB. The second NAS will be for backup. There are several options and I wanted to get input on which method I should use SHA or CIFS Scale-Out Cluster or Shared Folder Sync or Network Backup. Pros and cons of each.

Isn't a second full scale NAS overkill unless you are a bug bux commercial operation?

 

[shortcut3d]

I'm coming from a lower end DS214+ and DX513 combination for my backup. The DS214+ was purchased as a standalone Surveillance Station box, but the processor and network load turned out to be much less than expected. In the end, the setup cost the same as getting a second DS1813+ and was overly complicated.

I've already setup the second DS1813, reconfigured all my LACP LAGs, patched the two diskstations together, moved over SS, and restored config and shares to a new RAID 6 volume. Now I'm just waiting on the 16th and last 4TB Seagate NAS drive to arrive. So I'm ready to do SHA.

Back to my question. Which is the better back solution: SHA, shared folder sync, network back?

CIFS appears to only work on xs or xs+ systems. -1 So it out.

SHA covers iSCSI. +1

Network backup handles deleted files, but I could simply turn on the recycle bin feature on all shares. Split 1/1?

What am I missing?

 

[mervincm]

Do you have to worry about open files causing you a problem? I don't have syn to syn experience, but in past tasks, were were thought we were replicating everything to a backup site, we found-out in the verification phase that open files were being ignored. We handled that with a primitive dump, then copy, but I would add how it handles open/locked files to your consideration list.