NAS vs RAID Box vs External Drives vs Cloud Storage

[agladstone]

Thanks! Someone I know actually recommended to me that I just use either RAID 0 or JBOD and then backup everything to off the grid external drives or the cloud on a regular basis (vs a Radi 5,6, or 10), does this seem wise? 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

On 8/12/2017 at 8:20 PM, foodfiend said:

Well, while not full-proof, RAID in a NAS can be configured according to the level of paranoia one has... RAID 6 can survive a double drive failure...

I know but one has to draw the line somewhere and I do have another redundant NAS plus a HDD backup.

 

Redundant, as in this post. 

[foodfiend]

3 hours ago, agladstone said:

Thanks! Someone I know actually recommended to me that I just use either RAID 0 or JBOD and then backup everything to off the grid external drives or the cloud on a regular basis (vs a Radi 5,6, or 10), does this seem wise? 

 

It depends on what you are comfortable with, and what you prefer to do if a single HDD in the array fails. In both RAID 0 and JBOD, you will have to replace the failed HDD, and then re-copy all the data from your external drives or the cloud. Remember that you would also have to re-rip the CDs that you put on the RAID 0/JBOD, but have yet to back-up. With RAID 5/6/10, the rebuild of the system is automatic (even though the risk of another failure is high at this stage - then again the risks of that drive failing would probably be similar when you rebuild your RAID 0/JBOD).

[unbalanced output]

Back to the topic. For music streaming and storage, I went with the 416play. I'm not considering it as an option for backup though. For long term backup, I would prefer a 'cold' storage (physical and/or cloud offline) option. The advantage of physical backup is the price in the long term - costs you once, but the data can be kept for 30+ years. It is not very convenient, however if you stop to think which cloud service would give you peace of mind for this long?

 

[foodfiend]

1 hour ago, unbalanced output said:

Back to the topic. For music streaming and storage, I went with the 416play. I'm not considering it as an option for backup though. For long term backup, I would prefer a 'cold' storage (physical and/or cloud offline) option. The advantage of physical backup is the price in the long term - costs you once, but the data can be kept for 30+ years. It is not very convenient, however if you stop to think which cloud service would give you peace of mind for this long?

 

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for NAS, and that is the beauty of it. Depending on your storage needs, a DS416play could be more than sufficient to hold all the data you have. Using 10 TB HDDs, you could potentially yield 30 TB of storage on RAID 5 or SHR 1, which is more than many casual users will ever need.

 

However, if you already have 15 TB worth of music, and add movies to the list, you know you will start running into space constraints with 30 TB. This is where the DS916+ offers a more flexible solution, which allows you to start with the 30 TB of storage on RAID 5 and then expand the volume when needed using the DX-unit.

[unbalanced output]

@foodfiend, I was referring to the OP with regards to backup. Aside from a possible RAID as an immediate 'hot' backup, @agladstone wanted an option to keep a second backup for his music. That's something very wise to do, but I wouldn't add a second NAS layer. I'd either go with remote (cloud) or a cold backup. 

[foodfiend]

@unbalanced output: I am wondering why you think the cloud solution is in anyway better than a second NAS? Cloud storage also fails (though their large amounts of data stored probably means that the probability hitting your data is slim). Just as recently as February 2017, Amazon Cloud experienced a major outage.

 

Backblaze, another provider, declares that they use RAID 6 in their storage pods, so what makes you think their implementation of RAID 6 would be better than your NAS running RAID 6? Drive choice? Supposed climate control in their operating environment? Use of UPS?

 

While cold backup is an alternative, do consider that you have to mount your backup once in a while to check media health (many forget that). HDDs can die in storage, and tapes can rot.

 

Not trying to be all doom and gloom, but one just has to be clear about what one is getting oneself into...

[unbalanced output]

I'm not particular keen on cloud backup. It's just that NAS is not really a solution for backup since it is always online. There are better, cheaper and more reliable (even though less convenient) options. 

[foodfiend]

2 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

I'm not particular keen on cloud backup. It's just that NAS is not really a solution for backup since it is always online. There are better, cheaper and more reliable (even though less convenient) options. 

You needn't keep your back-up NAS online 24/7, but turn it on periodically for the back-up function.

[unbalanced output]

If you're serious about long term backup, HDDs are a poor idea. You'll still have to replace them every few years due to the chance of mechanical failures. Don't forget that over long periods of time the HDDs the magnetization also decays, which mean that data naturally gets corrupted over time. So yeah disconnecting the HDD has its limitations. 

 

I currently use offline HDDs as backup; I've just brought two old HDDs online for checking and replacing. One of them has over 30000 hours in it! It used to be a 'hot' drive before. I noticed that small number of bad sectors appeared on each drive after ~2 years. 

 

Some interesting numbers on HDD reliability here (mind that those are mostly new, high usage drives):

 

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/

 

 

[agladstone]

So we're all doomed ?

Seems like a NAS in RAID 5 or Raid 6, cold backup HDD's and a 3rd Cloud backup would be the best solution at this time? (So 3 copies - NAS/RAID, Cold HDD, Cloud)??

It also seems like it may be a wise investment to go with WD Gold HDD's in the NAS vs WD Reds?

They're supposed to be enterprise level and made to last longer and I think they may even be faster? 

Eventually, in 4-5 years, I'll bet we have 8TB SSD's available for the same price as we have 8TB HDD's, and that should help w/ longer term storage too. 

[foodfiend]

@agladstone It's not all doom and gloom! First, consider what level of protection you need. Many survive well with their onsite NAS (in RAID 5 or 6) and an external co-located back-up. Best practice is to have an off-site back-up in case of a fire, flood or a similar problem at your primary site. You may choose to say that this is highly unlikely, and go without the off-site back-up.

 

When you look at HDDs, do consider the noise they generate when idle and when they are accessing data. Faster drives (7200 rpm) usually run warmer than the slower (5400 or 5900 rpm) drives. Consider where you are placing the NAS, and the ambient temperature, and consider whether the 7200 rpm drives may end up too hot (above 50 Celsius or 122 Fahrenheit) - especially if it is hidden in a cabinet. High temperatures can compromise the lifetime of a HDD.

 

Not sure how much further SSD prices will fall. They have remained quite stable of late, although capacities have gone up, while sizing has fallen. Only time will tell if 8TB SSDs actually become available at the price of 8TB HDDs today.

[agladstone]

Thanks! I really meant more than equal price, just in general the availability of 8TB SSD's, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they exist. 

[foodfiend]

@agladstone Samsung's 850 EVO 4TB SSD has been available for some time now. Pair them in a two-bay DAS and you have 8TB. WD and other vendors have also announced 6TB and 8TB SSDs. The HGST 8TB SSD uses PCIe 3.0 and NVMe connections.

 

Meanwhile, Samsung already has a 16TB SSD out on sale for the enterprise market. The PM1633a uses the SAS (SCSI) interface and comes in a 2.5" enclosure.

[agladstone]

23 hours ago, foodfiend said:

@agladstone Samsung's 850 EVO 4TB SSD has been available for some time now. Pair them in a two-bay DAS and you have 8TB. WD and other vendors have also announced 6TB and 8TB SSDs. The HGST 8TB SSD uses PCIe 3.0 and NVMe connections.

 

Meanwhile, Samsung already has a 16TB SSD out on sale for the enterprise market. The PM1633a uses the SAS (SCSI) interface and comes in a 2.5" enclosure.

Interesting! I'll have to take a look, my suspicion is that these are all probably quite expensive at the moment? I suspect that a NAS with SSD's would have much better longevity?

[foodfiend]

@agladstone The Samsung 850 EVO 4TB SSD retails for just under US$1600 on Amazon. This is the one that is in the consumer end of the market, with a 2.5" HDD footprint, and SATA III connection. The higher-end Samsung 850 PRO 4TB SSD has been delayed due to NAND shortages.

 

From what I recall, the PM1633a is about US$6k for the 8TB unit, and US$10k for the 16TB one. Not quite consumer-based pricing. And they use SAS-SCSI interfacing.

 

The Samsung 850 EVO line has a 5-year warrantee, and the 850 PRO doubles that! Besides, the unit would run virtually silently, except for fan noise.

[agladstone]

19 hours ago, foodfiend said:

@agladstone The Samsung 850 EVO 4TB SSD retails for just under US$1600 on Amazon. This is the one that is in the consumer end of the market, with a 2.5" HDD footprint, and SATA III connection. The higher-end Samsung 850 PRO 4TB SSD has been delayed due to NAND shortages.

 

From what I recall, the PM1633a is about US$6k for the 8TB unit, and US$10k for the 16TB one. Not quite consumer-based pricing. And they use SAS-SCSI interfacing.

 

The Samsung 850 EVO line has a 5-year warrantee, and the 850 PRO doubles that! Besides, the unit would run virtually silently, except for fan noise.

Seems the large (4TB and above) SSD's are not yet really "affordable" options:( - I can buy 8TB WD RED HDD's for $179 each (or less sometimes on sale), so considering they should last at least about 3 yrs each, I could even be proactive and just replace them every 2 years or so, and that would still give me 16-18 years worth of longevity AND twice the amount of storage space (8TB vs 4TB) for the same price (or 33 years worth if going TB vs TB :)) 

[foodfiend]

@agladstone The current SSDs on the market that offer more than 4 TB storage are all targeted at the enterprise market, and are far from being consumer drives. Their interfaces give them away, since few consumer set-ups ever use SAS (SCSI), for example.

 

Meanwhile, the 4 TB Samsung 850 EVO has been on the market for about a year already (ages by today's timelines). Prices are of course, still much, much higher than the corresponding HDD. However, don't forget what SSDs real value proposition are - speed. Of course, it is of no concern in the audio market, since a HDD can easily delivery data at the required rate. The other thing that we may appreciate is that it runs silently, since it lacks moving parts.

[agladstone]

3 hours ago, foodfiend said:

@agladstone The current SSDs on the market that offer more than 4 TB storage are all targeted at the enterprise market, and are far from being consumer drives. Their interfaces give them away, since few consumer set-ups ever use SAS (SCSI), for example.

 

Meanwhile, the 4 TB Samsung 850 EVO has been on the market for about a year already (ages by today's timelines). Prices are of course, still much, much higher than the corresponding HDD. However, don't forget what SSDs real value proposition are - speed. Of course, it is of no concern in the audio market, since a HDD can easily delivery data at the required rate. The other thing that we may appreciate is that it runs silently, since it lacks moving parts.

No question, SSD's are superior to HDD's in every way with the quite important exception being price (particularly at the larger sizes 4TB and up), thus while they are surely ideal for a NAS, the cost is just too price prohibitive and it does It make good sense cost vs value at this time. It makes more sense (to me) to just use 8TB or 10TB HDD's in a NAS and be proactive about replacing them prior to them failing (my guess is that barring a "bad" drive, every 2 years may be a good cycle to swap out and replace your HDD's to play it safe. 

The only thing I'm now considering is if it makes sense (I think it actually may) to go with WD Gold HDD's vs WD Red HDD's? 

They are a little more money than the Reds (about 20% higher cost), but still much cheaper than SSD's and it seems like they're likely to last longer and built for more frequent use? 

Another curiosity of mine is, how about using 1 SSD in a NAS as a Cache ? I know that the Synology 916+ and 1517+ are capable to be configured to use one SSD as a Cache, would that be at all beneficial? 

[foodfiend]

@agladstone The main advantage in using a SSD cache in the DS916+ and DS1517+ is that of speed. Frankly, I do not see how it would benefit a NAS in an audio set-up.

 

As for the Red vs Gold, the Red is a 5400 rpm drive, while the Gold is a 7200 rpm one. WD Red is also targeted at NAS implementations with 8 HDDs or fewer, whereas the WD Gold is targeted at Data Centres. I am not sure if your implementation of NAS would be able to take advantage of what the WD Gold would offer though.

[agladstone]

1 hour ago, foodfiend said:

@agladstone The main advantage in using a SSD cache in the DS916+ and DS1517+ is that of speed. Frankly, I do not see how it would benefit a NAS in an audio set-up.

 

As for the Red vs Gold, the Red is a 5400 rpm drive, while the Gold is a 7200 rpm one. WD Red is also targeted at NAS implementations with 8 HDDs or fewer, whereas the WD Gold is targeted at Data Centres. I am not sure if your implementation of NAS would be able to take advantage of what the WD Gold would offer though.

Thanks again for your input and NAS knowledge! It's been very helpful in my decision making! In regards to the SSD Cache, would it increase the write speeds? That would actually be a big benefit to me personally as a continued to rip many CD's and purchase HDTracks albums weekly to add to the NAS and also I find I'm constantly re-tagging stored CD's that I ripped a long time ago before I really knew what I was doing, etc. 

[foodfiend]

@agladstone How many concurrent users will be using the NAS? Also, what will you be writing from? I suspect that your home network may be more of a bottleneck than the NAS proper.

[R1200CL]

On 14.8.2017 at 11:22 PM, agladstone said:

Thanks! Someone I know actually recommended to me that I just use either RAID 0 or JBOD and then backup everything to off the grid external drives or the cloud on a regular basis (vs a Radi 5,6, or 10), does this seem wise? 

 

 

Have a look at this cloud storage solution.  https://www.jottacloud.com/en/

No limit and cheap. 

 

And you need a backup in addition to local NAS. 

Also you may look at Qnap. 

 

If you start that cloud service, you can reuse some of your HD's. 

 

I suppose you aware of various Linux SW solutions and you can build your own, but that may not be an option for you or ?

[R1200CL]

On 15.8.2017 at 2:34 AM, foodfiend said:

With RAID 5/6/10, the rebuild of the system is automatic (even though the risk of another failure is high at this stage - then again the risks of that drive failing would probably be similar when you rebuild your RAID 0/JBOD).

 

This is a very important point. 

Rebuild could easily take between 24 to 48 hours. 

 

Also you probably purchase all the HD's at the same place and time, meaning you would have even I higher risk for failure, as those HD is likely from the same production batch. 

 

There is a site publishing which HD fails most. You may have a look at that information as well when purchasing HD's. 

 

Many HD's is worse than few. So in your case WD 8TB in Raid 6 is most likely the absolutely best and safest solution. 

 

If you're crazy enough, you can hire space in a data center ?

You would probably never have to worry again about enough space and losing data. 

It should then be possible to find a solution to stream direct from the data center to your streamer. 

 

I think this will most likely will be an future feature from Roon.

They may even support Jottacloud, as they are aware of that solution among others. 

 

So so if you're a Roon users, you may like to find out what they are up to for the next 12 months.

 Then your music will be available everywhere you are.

(Doeable today as well)

[foodfiend]

For arrays of 5 HDDs or fewer, you may find that RAID 6 is going overboard. In fact, RAID 5 with a redundancy can easily serve the NAS well (while having a back-up for the data). RAID 6 is more suited for larger arrays, such as an 8 to 10 HDD array.