home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
HTPC Projects
Hardware
Storage
Server Build - FreeNAS
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CyberSimian" data-source="post: 1152602" data-attributes="member: 141969"><p>Earlier this year a purchased a Synology NAS. I was in two minds before purchasing it, and I am still in two minds after purchasing it. The Synology provides a massive amount of storage, is compact, and is quiet (but not necessarily quiet enough for a listening/viewing room). The problem is what happens when something goes wrong.</p><p></p><p>I opted for two-disk redundancy (RAID 6). If a disk fails, it can take <strong>days</strong> to rebuild the array, during which the NAS has limited or zero availability for other purposes. And this is assuming things go as expected. From following the Synology fora for a month or two, it seems that the NAS can fail in a way that cannot be repaired, and then one is <s>buggered</s> in an unfortunate position. Part of the problem here is the complexity of extracting your data from a broken RAID setup, with possibly proprietary features. Note: I am not criticising Synology here -- these concerns apply to all makers of NAS systems.</p><p></p><p>If I were in the market again for a mass-storage system, I am not sure that I would buy a NAS, The appealing alternative is a <strong>drive pool</strong>, and I would probably opt for the "Stablebit" drive pool software (they are very responsive to users on their forum). The advantages that I see are:</p><p></p><p>(1) Provides a single "view" of the pooled disks, i.e. a single drive letter in Windows.</p><p>(2) Can use disks of different size.</p><p>(3) Can use SATA, PATA, or USB disks.</p><p>(4) Uses a bog-standard file-system (e.g. NTFS, possibly others).</p><p>(5) Can unplug a pool disk and access it as a simple NTFS disk (so not tied to proprietary data structures on the disk).</p><p>(6) Can retain two (or more!) copies of files, either the whole pool, or selected directories; duplication is done automatically by the software.</p><p>(7) Has disk-fitness monitoring software (separate product) that monitors disk status, and automatically copies files off failing disks onto other disks in the pool at the first sign of impending failure.</p><p>(8) Can expand the pool at any time by simply plugging in another disk and adding it to the pool.</p><p></p><p>I have never used drive pool software, so I may be seeing only the advantages, and not the disadvantages. However, I have so many odd disks laying around unused that I might set one up, to act as a backup for the NAS.</p><p></p><p>-- from CyberSimian in the UK</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CyberSimian, post: 1152602, member: 141969"] Earlier this year a purchased a Synology NAS. I was in two minds before purchasing it, and I am still in two minds after purchasing it. The Synology provides a massive amount of storage, is compact, and is quiet (but not necessarily quiet enough for a listening/viewing room). The problem is what happens when something goes wrong. I opted for two-disk redundancy (RAID 6). If a disk fails, it can take [B]days[/B] to rebuild the array, during which the NAS has limited or zero availability for other purposes. And this is assuming things go as expected. From following the Synology fora for a month or two, it seems that the NAS can fail in a way that cannot be repaired, and then one is [S]buggered[/S] in an unfortunate position. Part of the problem here is the complexity of extracting your data from a broken RAID setup, with possibly proprietary features. Note: I am not criticising Synology here -- these concerns apply to all makers of NAS systems. If I were in the market again for a mass-storage system, I am not sure that I would buy a NAS, The appealing alternative is a [B]drive pool[/B], and I would probably opt for the "Stablebit" drive pool software (they are very responsive to users on their forum). The advantages that I see are: (1) Provides a single "view" of the pooled disks, i.e. a single drive letter in Windows. (2) Can use disks of different size. (3) Can use SATA, PATA, or USB disks. (4) Uses a bog-standard file-system (e.g. NTFS, possibly others). (5) Can unplug a pool disk and access it as a simple NTFS disk (so not tied to proprietary data structures on the disk). (6) Can retain two (or more!) copies of files, either the whole pool, or selected directories; duplication is done automatically by the software. (7) Has disk-fitness monitoring software (separate product) that monitors disk status, and automatically copies files off failing disks onto other disks in the pool at the first sign of impending failure. (8) Can expand the pool at any time by simply plugging in another disk and adding it to the pool. I have never used drive pool software, so I may be seeing only the advantages, and not the disadvantages. However, I have so many odd disks laying around unused that I might set one up, to act as a backup for the NAS. -- from CyberSimian in the UK [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
HTPC Projects
Hardware
Storage
Server Build - FreeNAS
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom
