[jonKranked]

Who is using one? I have been thinking about investing in one. I already have several spare hard drives sitting around (around 1TB total) so that's not an issue. I'm fairly new to these, so any input would be great. I mostly want it to just be a place to store music/movies/photos so Liz and I can access it from wherever we want, and also get stuff on the TV via PS3. I've read that some are setup to stream iTunes audio as well. Is this worthwhile? Other than that, things to look for / avoid?

 

[binary visions]

NAS devices are great if you want to locate the box in a closet or if your main computer is often shut down or in some kind of flux (i.e. you're like me and often screw with your main computer until something breaks, or reinstall operating systems, or whatever).

If your main computer is pretty stable, though, it's by far the easiest/cheapest route to just create a network share off of your computer.

If you want a dedicated NAS setup, though, you have some options but keep in mind that this is an area where you get what you pay for. If you buy a dirt cheap NAS cage, you're going to be rewarded with slow transfer rates and sometimes flaky behavior.

Some thoughts:

- If you have a spare computer lying around and a place to put it, something like FreeNAS is going to be a great solution. Keep in mind that these little dedicated NAS boxes you buy have an embedded processor, memory and such. Even an old P3 box will be faster, so FreeNAS is a pretty robust system if you can get past the size of an old computer, and the fact that it'll generally be noisier than a NAS box. Unless you want to build a purpose-specific system that's small and quiet, which is definitely doable for not much money.

- If you like tinkering, check out http://www.nslu2-linux.org/ and buy a compatible NAS device. It allows a linux kernel to be loaded onto the device, like third party firmware on routers.

- Not sure why you're referring to it as a NAS router, if it's a misuse of terminology, or if you're talking about buying a new router that supports USB attached devices. If the latter is the case, that usually is not a true NAS. It typically requires a piece of software to be loaded on all machines that want to access it.

 

[jonKranked]

BV, thanks for the info. Sorry for confusion on the terminology, these are fairly new to me.

The reason I'm looking into one of these is because I currently do not have a workstation/desktop pc. At home its been only laptop for me for at nearly 2 years. I don't really have a need for desktop PC at the moment (nor do I have the parts for one anymore). It'd be nice to have, but I have no real need for it at the moment, plus lack of space.

I'm looking for a cage system (I think that's the right term - so the system but w/ empty drive bays, I have drives I would use). Budget is around $450 +/-. I've done some searching, and this models stand out:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822102026

The reviews I've seen are generally positive. The common complaints I saw about the Thecus are small ram (only 256mb, but I've read it can be upgraded), and poor web interface. Web interface isn't a big one for me - primary use would be over my home network.

There's a QNAP model (SS-439 Pro) which is more or less comparable; it comes with 1gig of ram, but all 4 bays are 2.5" not 3.5". Again, reviews I've seen for this are generally positive.

The third model I'm looking at (all on NewEgg, btw) is the Synology DS409

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822108030

4 bays (3.5"), again only 256mb ram (not sure if its upgradeable). Generally positive reviews.


At this price point, I'd be fine with upgrading the ram. I don't need an extensive feature set of a NAS that costs >$1g, this is just for home use. Do you think this would be worthwhile for this pricepoint? Would I be better off investing in slightly more expensive unit? Or would I be better off building a barebones pc with the drives I currently have and loading it with FreeNAS?

 

[binary visions]

$450?

I'd build a little mini ITX system and load FreeNAS on it just because that's me and I like to have things customized. But for that price there are lots of decent systems. Probably Google a few reviews before you settle on one (I've used several Buffalo systems and they've always been fine) but in that range I think you'll find a lot of solid, business-class systems.

 

[jonKranked]

BV, thanks for the info. Good to know that my price range is in the ballpark for what I want to get. I've heard good reviews about Buffalo stuff as well, so I will definitely check them out.

 

[Transcend]

I have a couple of QNAPs that I use for backup and network purposes. Writing can be a bit slow at times, but overall, very happy with them.

They also feed my xbox and other computers for movies, music etc.

 

[jonKranked]

Fras, that's pretty much all I need it for (backup, and serving media files around the apt). Do you run your setup RAIDed? If so, what level?

 

[syadasti]

I like the SS-439Pro if you can afford it - you can fill er up with WD Blue 400 or 500GB drives - the atom platform + mobile drives = very low power consumption / heat. Provantage has a great deal on them:

http://www.provantage.com/qnap-ss-439-pro~7IEIT00V.htm

If you are on a budget, Acer has the AH340 Windows Home Server which also runs on the Atom platform with beefier specs and 3.5" drives instead, comes with a 1TB WD Green drive stock (in July they were on special at Newegg with a free extra 1TB Green drive so you got 2 drives for less than $400 - awesome deal). It has folder replication across drives (no need for matching and they can be external), but no RAID options. I've never used it personally but its supposedly a modified version of Win 2003 which is a decent server OS:

http://www.nextwarehouse.com/item/?821824_g10e

 

[splat]

- Not sure why you're referring to it as a NAS router, if it's a misuse of terminology,

Yes and No. I have a Netgear NAS device. that Has the ability to try to be everything. Including a router, DHCP server, Wins Server, DNS server and of course a NAS. I'm only using it as a low end NAS.

I'm sure I wouldn't trust it to do all those things.

 

[jonKranked]

I like the SS-439Pro if you can afford it - you can fill er up with WD Blue 400 or 500GB drives - the atom platform + mobile drives = very low power consumption / heat. Provantage has a great deal on them:

http://www.provantage.com/qnap-ss-439-pro~7IEIT00V.htm

If you are on a budget, Acer has the AH340 Windows Home Server which also runs on the Atom platform with beefier specs and 3.5" drives instead, comes with a 1TB WD Green drive stock (in July they were on special at Newegg with a free extra 1TB Green drive so you got 2 drives for less than $400 - awesome deal). It has folder replication across drives (no need for matching and they can be external), but no RAID options. I've never used it personally but its supposedly a modified version of Win 2003 which is a decent server OS:

http://www.nextwarehouse.com/item/?821824_g10e

The SS-439 is pretty much spot on to what I want to spend and it's hardware specs, but the fact that it only supports 2.5" drives and not 3.5" kinda kills it for me. I've got nearly 1Tb of storage in 3.5" drives at the moment. Granted, it does have 3 USB ports that I could plug external enclosures into, so if all else fails I could make it work. But one of the reasons I'm looking into this is because I wanna have it as a standalone unit without a bunch of other stuff plugged into it.

Ultimately (read:when prices drop enough) I want to get large capacity drives (>= 1Tb) and have it set up as a RAID array. But in the meantime I intend to use the drives I have.

 

[syadasti]

You could get AH340 if you aren't doing RAID and it does not require matching drives. If you don't like WHS you could install freeNAS on it too. AH340 is still cheaper than DIY of a similar spec.

 

[jonKranked]

You could get AH340 if you aren't doing RAID and it does not require matching drives. If you don't like WHS you could install freeNAS on it too. AH340 is still cheaper than DIY of a similar spec.

Definitely a good piece of equipment for the price. I'm not ruling it out, but lack of RAID support is a big negative for me.

 

[jonKranked]

While we're on the subject, I figure I should ask about RAIDs also. I'm familiar with high level arrays (5,6), but I've never actually built or setup this configuration. Anyone have experiences they can share? I'm aware of the general benefits (redundancy, protection from drive failures - 1 drive for raid 5, 2 for raid 6) and drawbacks (necessity for "age staggering" of drives to increase improbability of simultaneous failure, reduced performance in event of failed drive). Also, just to be clear, do these levels (5 & 6) require drives to be of identical spec (capacity, speed, etc) in order properly function, or is this only the recommended configuration to maximize capacity/performance?

 

[syadasti]

Definitely a good piece of equipment for the price. I'm not ruling it out, but lack of RAID support is a big negative for me.

Software RAID works fine if you switch to another OS and the folder replication in WHS offers data security too.

 

[syadasti]

While we're on the subject, I figure I should ask about RAIDs also. I'm familiar with high level arrays (5,6), but I've never actually built or setup this configuration. Anyone have experiences they can share? I'm aware of the general benefits (redundancy, protection from drive failures - 1 drive for raid 5, 2 for raid 6) and drawbacks (necessity for "age staggering" of drives to increase improbability of simultaneous failure, reduced performance in event of failed drive). Also, just to be clear, do these levels (5 & 6) require drives to be of identical spec (capacity, speed, etc) in order properly function, or is this only the recommended configuration to maximize capacity/performance?

RAID 5 has decent performance but the security isn't that great if you are only running 3-4 drives. RAID 10 has better performance (and much better than RAID 5 performance during degraded performance in a drive failure scenario) than RAID 6 and is ideal for quad drives.

In the past you usually needed identical drives though some newer controllers and software raid don't require it.

A good thing to keep in mind with RAID setups with a small number of drives (and note that rebuilding RAID arrays, especially these days with huge HDD takes many many hours):

When a drive fails it is vital to act immediately. RAID drives have an eerie habit of all failing around the same time, especially when they are identical models purchased together and put into service at the same time. Even drives from different manufacturers sometimes fail at nearly the same time… probably because they all experience the same environmental factors (power events, same number of power downs, the same janitor banging the vacuum into the server every night, etc.)

 

[jonKranked]

RAID 5 has decent performance but the security isn't that great if you are only running 3-4 drives. RAID 10 has better performance (and much better than RAID 5 performance during degraded performance in a drive failure scenario) than RAID 6 and is ideal for quad drives.

Not familiar with RAID 10, but I will def look into it.

In the past you usually needed identical drives though some newer controllers and software raid don't require it.

A good thing to keep in mind with RAID setups with a small number of drives (and note that rebuilding RAID arrays, especially these days with huge HDD takes many many hours):

When a drive fails it is vital to act immediately. RAID drives have an eerie habit of all failing around the same time, especially when they are identical models purchased together and put into service at the same time. Even drives from different manufacturers sometimes fail at nearly the same time… probably because they all experience the same environmental factors (power events, same number of power downs, the same janitor banging the vacuum into the server every night, etc.)

That was why I made my comment about "age staggering"; ie buying identical drives at different times, using them by varying amounts to give them some service hours (maybe a hundred or so?) to try and prevent them from failing at the same time.

 

[syadasti]

Not familiar with RAID 10, but I will def look into it.

http://miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

 

[Silver]

Do you need RAID?

Remember, if you're not backing up offsite you're not safe.

 

[jonKranked]

http://miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

Thanks!

Do you need RAID?

Remember, if you're not backing up offsite you're not safe.

To me, the question isn't "Why RAID?", its "Why not RAID?" I have well over a decade's worth of personal photos and family type stuff (including some home videos of relatives who are no longer with us), tons of music (which includes some high quality rips of vinyl LP's long out of print from bands that are long defunct), and other stuff along those lines. For the sheer quantity of data, backing up to physical media (cd/dvd) is time and space intensive, not to mention backup discs (cd's, dvd's) are still volatile and would have to be replicated probably every other decade (just to be on the safe side).

Are RAID's the end all be all of data security? Not by a long shot. But its a cost effective, relatively inexpensive*, and space efficient solution for data security/redundancy.

*Compared to what a hard drive recovery can cost, and when compared against a system (with the same hardware) that does not have disk redundancy.

 

[syadasti]

But you really don't need RAID. You don't have offsite which is important and you only need data security, not high availability so folder replication across drives in WHS is good enough.

 

[jonKranked]

But you really don't need RAID. You don't have offsite which is important and you only need data security, not high availability so folder replication across drives in WHS is good enough.

So what you're saying is I should scour cl for an old tape drive?

 

[jonKranked]

All joking aside, what are the benefits and downsides to folder replication (especially when compared to a drive array)? Is it fundamentally the same as a software based raid? . I'm not that familiar with folder rep.

If both provide essentially the same level of data security, then what good is folder replication without offsite storage? Do you consider offline storage to be comprable to offsite storage?

 

[syadasti]

Folder replication and software RAID are not the same thing.

Offline storage is not the same level of data security as offsite storage.

Use teh google for detail lazy arse...

 

[binary visions]

Folder replication is simply picking and choosing what files/folders you keep replicated on multiple drives. It can be more efficient than RAID since you don't replicate unnecessary data.

Why would offline storage be the same as offsite? If you have a flood or a fire or a robbery, how much good is your offline storage going to do you?

 

[jonKranked]

Folder replication and software RAID are not the same thing.

Offline storage is not the same level of data security as offsite storage.

Use teh google for detail lazy arse...

you mean this?

Folder replication is simply picking and choosing what files/folders you keep replicated on multiple drives. It can be more efficient than RAID since you don't replicate unnecessary data.

Why would offline storage be the same as offsite? If you have a flood or a fire or a robbery, how much good is your offline storage going to do you?

Thanks for the quick and dirty.

I understand the difference between offsite and offline, I just wanted to clarify. In event of a fire, yea, it would suck to lose the info, but something tells me if that were to happen I would be more focused on other things.

<smarmy comment> Putting myself into the mind of a robber, if I broke into somebody's house, I wouldn't be thinking, "hey! I need this guy's redundant data! Where's his offline storage?!"</smarmy comment>


Don't let my asshattery fool you, I do appreciate all the info and insight you guys have provided.

 

[Silver]

What if your house burns down?

I have a single bay Synology NAS that everything backs up to. That NAS is backed up once a week and the backup is at my mother in law's place. That means my data is in three places, and two sites. One of these days I'm going to get motivated and put another 1 bay Synology NAS at her place, and have it rsync every night.

 

[jonKranked]

What if your house burns down?

In event of a fire, yea, it would suck to lose the info, but something tells me if that were to happen I would be more focused on other things.

I do get the point you are trying to make. The data I'm backing up isn't business related data, or in any way related to my work/livelihood. Would it suck to lose it in a fire? Absolutely. Would it be the thing I'd be most worried about in the event of a fire? Definitely not.

I'm looking at it from the perspective that some data security/redundancy is better than none (which is basically where I'm currently situated). I'm not looking into networked storage solely as redundant backup; what I primarily want is a centralized location for all my files, so I can access them from whatever computer I (or Liz) want in the apartment, as all as via my PS3 (and as such my tv). Adding data security/redundancy is something else I want to achieve, and if I can achieve both with a single piece of equipment, all the better.

 

[binary visions]

<smarmy comment> Putting myself into the mind of a robber, if I broke into somebody's house, I wouldn't be thinking, "hey! I need this guy's redundant data! Where's his offline storage?!"</smarmy comment>

Neither would I. On the other hand, I was robbed 2 years ago and they took my external drive that I had in a closet because it looks like electronics. They also took a friggin' $10 phone.

They also took a wireless mouse, but left the uniquely paired receiver. Thieves aren't smart, they'll take your redundant data just as fast as they'll take anything else with a wire.

BTW, offline is better than nothing. Your whole RAID will get cooked if you get a strong enough power surge.

The RAID is good, don't get me wrong. It's just that it gives people a level of security that doesn't exist. If there's a leak in your roof and all of your electronics die, or smoke damage because of a trash can fire, it may not be the first thing you look for... but I sure as hell would be looking for my family photos after all the repairs were finished.

 

[jonKranked]

Neither would I. On the other hand, I was robbed 2 years ago and they took my external drive that I had in a closet because it looks like electronics. They also took a friggin' $10 phone.

They also took a wireless mouse, but left the uniquely paired receiver. Thieves aren't smart, they'll take your redundant data just as fast as they'll take anything else with a wire.

Most robberies aren't substantially more than crimes of opportunity; once they're in, if they see something they think is valuable and they have the means to remove it, its gone.

Unless you have some seriously high profile dataz, and the robbers know it, they probably aren't after your data so much as the equipment it's stored on. It still sucks though because either way its lost data.

BTW, offline is better than nothing. Your whole RAID will get cooked if you get a strong enough power surge.

The RAID is good, don't get me wrong. It's just that it gives people a level of security that doesn't exist. If there's a leak in your roof and all of your electronics die, or smoke damage because of a trash can fire, it may not be the first thing you look for... but I sure as hell would be looking for my family photos after all the repairs were finished.

I know that disk arrays aren't the end all be all of data backup. I spent my first two years of college in CS and IT before transferring to packaging, so I've got a reasonable understanding of the basics. All I expect from a RAID is a level of protection against normal equipment failure, not things like theft, fires, water damage, etc.

 

[nelsonjm]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822155003&Tpk=dns323

You can hack it to run a chroot linux env. 500Mhz arm processor, mirror raid, pretty cheap. It's not the fastest in terms of network transfers or too quiet, but I've been happy with mine.

Oh yea, out of the box it has some nice features too, like a bit torrent client.

 

[jonKranked]

Thanks, but I'm actually looking for something with at least 4 drive bays.

 

[Transcend]

I have a couple of QNAPs that I use for backup and network purposes. Writing can be a bit slow at times, but overall, very happy with them.

They also feed my xbox and other computers for movies, music etc.

I don't use raid, it's pointless to me. I have my data backed up in 3 places, one is offsite, and is done weekly via an external drive.

I like the qnap because it's easy to run, fairly powerful and can run a whole slew of applications and protocols, including AFP (apple networking stuff). It'sa little faster than samba for what I need.

I also use it occasionally to run bittorents on directly, and it serves both video and music to my Xbox as well as runs an itunes server for my various machines and iphone.