Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

home NAS: JBOD + 2x backup vs. RAID1 + backup

Tags:
  • Storage
  • Backup
  • NAS / RAID
Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
March 3, 2014 2:01:37 PM

I am trying to figure out a storage solution that will work for a home NAS where data integrity is of course very important but where uptime is not important at all.

Should I consider:

1. JBOD single disks with one or two offline backups? This way if I lose a disk I only lose what's on it. Also this makes it easy to add disks from different vendors/different sizes/different rpms. I hear that having different model drives and different RPMs in RAID is bad right? This might be hard when sharing folders over 4TB though, wouldn't it? (If anyone knows a way to get around this and for example include both D:/Videos and E:/Videos in the same share seamlessly, I would very much appreciate some guidance (Server 2012 R2))

2. RAID0 with one or two offline backups? I am a little hesitant to go with the "all-or-none" solution though.

2. RAID5 or RAID6 with one or two offline backups?

3. RAID1 with one offline backup, basically having the second backup "online" and constantly being written to.

Basically I would assume moving the mirror copy of the data from the RAID1 to an offline set would make it safer, no? Also that way I would only have to backup as much as I'm currently using and not purchase double drives for the entire max capacity. On the other hand I fear that it might make things more complicated to not have a single abstracted volume to work with.

Also, with the most realistic thing to happen perhaps being one of the drives in the array failing, is it just creating more work and more potential for error for me to not have any redundancy and instead just have a lot of backup?

And just to clarify though I use the RAID terms I am actually using Storage Spaces.

Input would be appreciated thanks.

More about : home nas jbod backup raid1 backup

Best solution

a b G Storage
March 3, 2014 2:10:39 PM

The thing to keep in mind here is that RAID is not a replacement for a good (and tested) backup. RAID is intended for those applications where up time is paramount, it allows for the failure of one (or more depending on the level) drive, and the hot replacement of same, without taking the storage volume off line. Do not use RAID0 (which is not really RAID as there is no redundancy) to store anything you are not willing to lose should a drive fail.
Share
Anonymous
March 3, 2014 3:02:06 PM

ex_bubblehead said:
The thing to keep in mind here is that RAID is not a replacement for a good (and tested) backup. RAID is intended for those applications where up time is paramount, it allows for the failure of one (or more depending on the level) drive, and the hot replacement of same, without taking the storage volume off line. Do not use RAID0 (which is not really RAID as there is no redundancy) to store anything you are not willing to lose should a drive fail.


But say I have like 9 drives. Am I better served by putting 6 of them in a RAID1 and having 3 as a backup, having 3-5 in JBOD and 4-6 as backup, or having 6 in RAID5/6 and 3 backup?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
March 3, 2014 3:12:00 PM

Quote:
But say I have like 9 drives. Am I better served by putting 6 of them in a RAID1 and having 3 as a backup, having 3-5 in JBOD and 4-6 as backup, or having 6 in RAID5/6 and 3 backup?

With that many drives you'd probably want a RAID 51. Two 4 disk RAID5 arrays mirrored, with a hot spare. No sense wasting 1/3 of your drives as spares.
m
0
l
!