Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have been offer Synology - DS411+II & Seagate 2TB SATA III Mod. ST2000DM001 - 7200 RPM 64MB for 1,300US$ in Spain.

Any other models/configuration that would cost less?

I need 6TB for storage.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Synology - DS411+II & Seagate 2TB SATA III Mod. ST2000DM001

 

What is the '+II' good for? You seem to be able to obtain the Synology 411 (without the '+II') with 8 TB gross capacity from 750 EUR. Other contenders for this market segment are QNAP, Buffalo and Thecus (with comparable prices). If you go for a 4+1 configuration with 1.5 TB drives you might save a bit on storage, but I fear that enclosures will get more expensive.

 

I would not advise to use ST2000DM001 in a NAS, it is a desktop drive. If you can obtain it (shortage of supply), look for something like WD20EFRX - a bit slower, but suitable for 24 hour operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, What do you mean it is a desktop HD? What kind is the WD20EFRX?

 

Desktop drives are made to be used in a typical desktop environment with approximately eight hours of operation per day. In contrast, enterprise drives are rated for 24/7 operation, and in consequence have a higher MTBF. They are intended for use as server direct attached storage or in medium sized NAS systems. The price of an enterprise drive is approx. 2 times higher than the same capacity in a desktop version.

 

WD20EFRX and other comparable drives are targeted for SOHO NAS systems, support 24/7 operation, are slightly more expensive than the typical desktop drives, and are optimized for low energy consumption and low emission (noise, temperature). On the downside, they are slightly slower than desktop or enterprise drives (which should not matter in this environment, because speed is mostly determined by the NAS O/S, available buffer memory and the network).

 

I was having an eye on this drive myself, but switched to Hitachi, because WD had problems to deliver this model for the last 1.5 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as Western Digital now has a significantly higher overall failure rate than Seagate and Samsung it probably wouldn't matter that much anyway. There was this Google research publication some years ago, showing 24/7 operation does NOT result in an increased failure rate with desktop harddrives. ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own four Seagate ST2000DM001 drives (all external USB 3.0, Medion HDDrive 2 GO). To tell you the truth, RAID arrays do not offer any real advantages for music storage. If the power supply unit pops, chances are you'll lose more than one drive at once and that's when even a RAID 1 won't always save you. I manually spin down my USB drives using software called USB Safely Remove each time when I plan to not access them for extended periods of time. Similarly, I manually spin down my older eSATA drives using revoSleep (freeware). Doing this solves two problems in one go; it keeps my Windows 7 from randomly spinning up my drives when they're not in use and it makes 100 percent sure I don't have to worry about the '24/7 thing'. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you use the same HD as I mentioned in the beginning. I'm not talking about RAID 1 but rather RAID 5.

BTW, if you use four Seagate ST2000DM001 drives, what enclosure(s) are you using?

Thanks for you reply ad help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not talking about RAID 1 but rather RAID 5.

I know. My point was that RAID 1 is safer than RAID 5, yet even RAID 1 does not protect the data against the risk of a virus / trojan / hacker attack, user / software error, SATA controller / power supply failure and what have you.

BTW, if you use four Seagate ST2000DM001 drives, what enclosure(s) are you using?

They're Medion HDDrive 2 GO external harddrives, but I can tell what's inside them by just looking at the serial number of the actual harddrive itself, which is printed on the label at the bottom of the enclosure, and the model number that's reported by various software (e.g. HDDScan for Windows v3.3 freeware, which BTW can also be used to change the APM value of the drive / drives if necessary, i.e. similar to what HDAPM can do for Mac users). They're USB 3.0 so in fact they use the same bandwidth as the SATA 3 interface of the Seagate ST2000DM001-9YN164 that's inside them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention, they were fairly cheap (125 € each) at Aldi, but unfortunately, Aldi only sells them a few times per year. I also own four 1.5 TB external harddrives, all of which are Medion also, all from Aldi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I own four Seagate ST2000DM001 drives (all external USB 3.0, Medion HDDrive 2 GO). To tell you the truth, RAID arrays do not offer any real advantages for music storage. If the power supply unit pops, chances are you'll lose more than one drive at once and that's when even a RAID 1 won't always save you.

 

Well, there is the advantage that it's (often) easier to manage a single (logical) drive of 4-6 TB than 3/4 2TB drvies. Also for some people the ability to access the files using different computers / players is also important.

 

In actual fact some RAID arrangements can actually survive more than one drive dying - though generally not if the actual drive enclosure dies. Different RAID methodologies actually exist for different purposes.

 

Eloise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's often that much easier to manage a single large logical drive versus multiple smaller ones. I just add them to the Media Library in foobar2000 and be done with it.

My files are accessible on all of my computers, by all player software, through the HomeGroup feature of Windows 7 (as it enables printer and file sharing to be set up). Adding the drives to a RAID array does not in any way make the music files more accessible (well... as the saying goes, to every rule there can be found an exception, but for music storage the vast majority of people don't need RAID). One has to very carefully outweigh the pros and cons of each possible solution, and the purpose of RAID is not to interpret it as being a replacement for a reliable backup plan.

Well, there is the advantage that it's (often) easier to manage a single (logical) drive of 4-6 TB than 3/4 2TB drvies. Also for some people the ability to access the files using different computers / players is also important.

 

In actual fact some RAID arrangements can actually survive more than one drive dying - though generally not if the actual drive enclosure dies. Different RAID methodologies actually exist for different purposes.

 

Eloise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's often that much easier to manage a single large logical drive versus multiple smaller ones. I just add them to the Media Library in foobar2000 and be done with it.

On this aspect I hope you will agree to differ with me...

 

My files are accessible on all of my computers, by all player software, through the HomeGroup feature of Windows 7 (as it enables printer and file sharing to be set up). Adding the drives to a RAID array does not in any way make the music files more accessible (well... as the saying goes, to every rule there can be found an exception, but for music storage the vast majority of people don't need RAID).

My personal experience is that relying on Windows file sharing (unless you are implementing a dedicated Windows server) is a poor substitute for a dedicated NAS or other server hardware. There is (for many people) the inconvinience that having to have your general purpose computer turned on to enable sharing, the fact that Windows tends to require rebooting periodically and the generally high power consumption of a GP Windows computer vs. dedicated NAS hardware. In addition, many people prefer to use a NAS even in a simple low capacity (<2GB say) situation as it allows the spinning disks to be removed totally from the listening room more easily than if you are connecting via USB.

 

Having said all that you are correct, Windows operating system allows file sharing and much more - again it's only an opinion of mine that a NAS is a better option IF you require these options.

 

One has to very carefully outweigh the pros and cons of each possible solution, and the purpose of RAID is not to interpret it as being a replacement for a reliable backup plan.

I quite agree that each option has pros and cons - yet your earlier post stated there was no advantage to RAID for music storage. I offered several advantages of a NAS utilising RAID (slight difference there) without you weighing the pros and cons for the OP. You are correct, the purpose of a RAID is not as a reliable backup plan, its purpose is to provide large storage with some degree of protection from hardware faults and providing high availability in the result of a hardware fault.

 

Now whether music playback is critical enough to require five 9s (99.999% uptime) relibility is arguable...

 

Eloise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS to above: many people are looking to reduce the services, etc running on their primary music playback server so wouldn't want file sharing running.

 

USB drive connection also (IIRC) has higher processing requirements to networking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eloise,

 

I think you are forgetting that cost is the important factor here (the OP asked for a cheaper alternative to a RAID capable NAS). A cheap NAS doesn't have all that many drive bays, so that's also why.

I don't mind leaving my laptop turned on for file sharing because I am typically always doing something on it anyway (I have my big flatscreen TV plugged into its HDMI and I use a very comfy wireless keyboard and mouse combo to control both my laptop and my netbook).

I generally never reboot Windows 7 except after a major update that requires it, and even then it can usually wait till I am done listening to my music collection for five minutes (or if it can't, I can still copy a few songs onto my netbook that's hooked up to my DAC so that the laptop can reboot while the netbook still continues to play music).

High power consumption is not necessarily an issue anymore with modern PC hardware. For this reason, I have been planning to build my own HTPC to replace my aging dual core laptop. External harddrives can also be moved outside the listening room if there is a separate PC there, and I plan to place a big tower PC there with lots of interior space for internal harddrives. Each time after I will have added an additional internal harddrive to it, I will stop using one of my external harddrives for my music playback and start using that external harddrive as a backup medium (in other words, it will be a scalable solution also).

My backup storage will be kept safely unplugged from everything because most of my music files are unique vinyl transfers that are worth several dozens of times more to me than all of the computer hardware that I own, so that's why even RAID 1 (aka "the Cadillac of RAID" :D ) is not quite safe enough for me, unfortunately. In the event of a corrupted RAID 5 array, slow rebuild times can also be off putting TBH. Decent RAID controller hardware is expensive. I never said going for a NAS is pointless, though (even though I still prefer a big tower PC instead). Just that RAID is generally not recommended for music storage (big difference between RAID and NAS :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal experience is that relying on Windows file sharing (unless you are implementing a dedicated Windows server) is a poor substitute for a dedicated NAS or other server hardware.

 

From my personal experience, I would clearly prefer a SAN to a NAS. Dedicated fibre connections, much better suited low-level protocols (not SMB or NFS), more reliable hardware, ... :-)

 

You are correct, the purpose of a RAID is not as a reliable backup plan, its purpose is to provide large storage with some degree of protection from hardware faults and providing high availability in the result of a hardware fault.

 

I would rephrase that positively to "The purpose of a RAID is to reduce the probability that the backup has to be used." For home use, I think a simple RAID 10 / 01 configuration (mirror of stripes / stripe of mirrors) has a pretty good price-performance ratio. Speed is double a single hard disk, one hard disk can fail no matter what, and in 2/3 of the cases, two hard disk can fail without need to go and get the backup.

 

That said, imho everything should be backed up at least as often as it changes (for rather stable things like photo or music libraries) or at least daily (most other things).

 

Cheers,

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tagging, adding a Frontal Cover, or converting to FLAC is much, much complicated if we have over 2TB. It takes forever to get 2TB of Classical Music into Foobar. Just to "clean" up the files and have the genre "Classical," ewhy bother distinguishing? It's unmanageable.

Now, to get USB Drives is crazy and I think NAS is much better. Thinking now of getting Synology 413J of 12x2TB in RAID 1. It's more expensive than buying a Seagate Black Armor or something similar but it's safer. That's my simple opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why ask questions if you already appear to know the answers.

Tagging, adding a Frontal Cover, or converting to FLAC is much, much complicated if we have over 2TB. It takes forever to get 2TB of Classical Music into Foobar. Just to "clean" up the files and have the genre "Classical," ewhy bother distinguishing? It's unmanageable.

Now, to get USB Drives is crazy and I think NAS is much better. Thinking now of getting Synology 413J of 12x2TB in RAID 1. It's more expensive than buying a Seagate Black Armor or something similar but it's safer. That's my simple opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why ask questions if you already appear to know the answers.

 

I don't have the answer, unless you know for sure that's the case. I've never used more than 1TB, so I don't have any experience regarding the issue at hand. I do know I wish to connect via Ethernet, and not via USB. If I were to manage a radio station I would buy many redundant and large drives but I don't. The question has more to do with "optimization" of speed, manageability, price/uit, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, I own a total of 17 TB external harddrive storage space (1 x 1 TB + 4 x 1.5 TB + 5 x 2 TB, my fifth 2 TB drive is actually a Seagate ST2000DL003). Some of it can use either eSATA or USB, some of it requires USB. All of it is accessible on my netbook PC over UTP (100 Mbps ethernet, cat 5e cables). The read speed of a single one of my Seagate ST2000DM001 harddrives, over USB 3.0, is about 160 Mbps. In other words, it's fast enough to run two radio stations.

Manageability is not a problem, you can install multiple instances of foobar2000 with different settings on a single PC (for example, one instance using Faces and another using CUI). You can even use foobar2000 as a player only, i.e. use a different software package for library management, tagging, etcetera, even though IMO it isn't always necessary.

Having a separate PC for storage can be a good thing if you want to, for example, perform additional background tasks, such as loudness scanning (ReplayGain scanner, R128GAIN,...) or Dynamic Range analysis (DR Meter), or even Condusiv Technologies Diskeeper 12, just to name a few of the many possibilities here. It's just a more flexible, more universal solution than NAS, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a more expensive one.

Like I said, it really depends on what kind of extra features you are looking for.

 

I don't have the answer, unless you know for sure that's the case. I've never used more than 1TB, so I don't have any experience regarding the issue at hand. I do know I wish to connect via Ethernet, and not via USB. If I were to manage a radio station I would buy many redundant and large drives but I don't. The question has more to do with "optimization" of speed, manageability, price/uit, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eloise,

 

I think you are forgetting that cost is the important factor here (the OP asked for a cheaper alternative to a RAID capable NAS). A cheap NAS doesn't have all that many drive bays, so that's also why.

I don't mind leaving my laptop turned on for file sharing because I am typically always doing something on it anyway (I have my big flatscreen TV plugged into its HDMI and I use a very comfy wireless keyboard and mouse combo to control both my laptop and my netbook).

I generally never reboot Windows 7 except after a major update that requires it, and even then it can usually wait till I am done listening to my music collection for five minutes (or if it can't, I can still copy a few songs onto my netbook that's hooked up to my DAC so that the laptop can reboot while the netbook still continues to play music).

High power consumption is not necessarily an issue anymore with modern PC hardware. For this reason, I have been planning to build my own HTPC to replace my aging dual core laptop. External harddrives can also be moved outside the listening room if there is a separate PC there, and I plan to place a big tower PC there with lots of interior space for internal harddrives. Each time after I will have added an additional internal harddrive to it, I will stop using one of my external harddrives for my music playback and start using that external harddrive as a backup medium (in other words, it will be a scalable solution also).

My backup storage will be kept safely unplugged from everything because most of my music files are unique vinyl transfers that are worth several dozens of times more to me than all of the computer hardware that I own, so that's why even RAID 1 (aka "the Cadillac of RAID" :D ) is not quite safe enough for me, unfortunately. In the event of a corrupted RAID 5 array, slow rebuild times can also be off putting TBH. Decent RAID controller hardware is expensive. I never said going for a NAS is pointless, though (even though I still prefer a big tower PC instead). Just that RAID is generally not recommended for music storage (big difference between RAID and NAS :) ).

 

If you were to get a Synology, would you get one without any kind of RAID?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×