Skip to main content

ioSafe's New Disaster-Proof NAS Can Store 100TB and Withstand 1,550F of Heat

ioSafe
(Image credit: ioSafe)

The new disaster-resistant ioSafe 1520+ NAS announced this month could protect drives in temperatures of up to 1,550ºF/843ºC (in accordance with the ASTM E-119 testing standard) for up to 30 minutes as well as keep the drives safe for up to three days when submerged in up to 10 feet/3 meters of water. 

With modern high-capacity hard drives, storing loads of data locally is fairly easy and cheap. But what if you want not only to store data but protect it against natural disasters, fire or flood? This is exactly what disaster-proof NAS and servers from ioSafe are for, as they can withstand extreme heat, floods, and physical impact. 

As far as storage capabilities are concerned, the catastrophe-proof ioSafe 1520+ NAS can house up to five hot-swappable 3.5-inch hard drives, meaning that it can store up to 100TB using 20TB HDDs depending on the RAID configuration. Also, it can be further expanded with disaster-resistant expansion modules to host up to 300TB of data. Furthermore, the drives' contents can be encrypted using the AES-256 algorithm. 

The ioSafe 1520+ runs the Synology DSM operating system designed primarily for business users (so do not expect to run sophisticated multimedia or consumer-grade software on it). On the hardware side of matters, ioSafe's 1520+ NAS is based on the Intel Celeron J4125 system-on-chip (four cores, 1.5 GHz ~ 2.30 GHz, hardware AES-256 support) paired with 8GB of DDR3L memory. It can connect to a local network using four GbE ports (up to 2GbE is supported when two ports are aggregated) and supports various external storage devices using its USB 3.0 Type-A and eSATA interfaces. 

(Image credit: ioSafe)

For a five-drive NAS, the ioSafe 1520+ is pretty large and heavy: it measures 406×483×534mm (16×19×21 inches, W×L×H) and weighs 29 kilograms without drives and 33 kilograms when fully packed. 

ioSafe positions its disaster-proof 1520+ NAS for those who want to protect their data, but do not want to store their information in the cloud. 

"The new 1520+ offers our customers data center-class storage while saving customers over 75% of the cost of one year of cloud storage," said Robin Wessel, Executive Vice President of ioSafe. "With unprecedented speed-to-recovery, media companies and creative professionals, businesses and government agencies can recover the massive amounts of data they generate without loss when a water leak, wildfire, or virtually any major disaster occurs." 

ioSafe plans to begin shipments of its 1520+ NAS in February, 2022. One diskless unit can be purchased for $1,919 (down from its list price of $2,399), whereas a fully populated NAS with five 14TB HDDs can be pre-ordered directly from the company for $11,999 (down from the list price of $14,999). 

Anton Shilov
Freelance News Writer

Anton Shilov is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • derekullo
    5 to 15 20TB drives in a raid 0 ... what could possibly go wrong.

    On top of that I feel bad for anyone restoring a 100 terabyte backup over 2 gigabit ethernet, 4.9 days

    I guess 10 gigabit Ethernet was too expensive for the nearly $2000 NAS.
    Reply
  • Nolonar
    I'm not sure if a fireproof NAS is really that great. I mean, it's not like the power cable or UPS are fireproof too, and there's always a risk of data corruption, if the NAS loses power in the middle of a write operation (not to mention bit rot that can occur randomly at any time, even without a disaster).

    I'd rather just buy a second NAS.
    It's cheaper (drives not included)
    safer (you have a backup in case one NAS burns for over 30 minutes or has its data corrupted)
    and has better availability (you can still access your data even if one NAS goes offline for whatever reason)Who exactly is the target audience for this? It might be interesting for consumers who can't afford to keep another NAS in a separate location, but less so for actual businesses.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    derekullo said:
    5 to 15 20TB drives in a raid 0 ... what could possibly go wrong.

    On top of that I feel bad for anyone restoring a 100 terabyte backup over 2 gigabit ethernet, 4.9 days

    I guess 10 gigabit Ethernet was too expensive for the nearly $2000 NAS.
    No one using this would be running a RAID 0 array (RAID 0 wasn't mentioned anywhere in this article), which rolls into your 2nd point. If you're running some sort of parity RAID level, even with reads, you're not getting close to 250MB/s sustained throughput with SATA drives, so there's no point adding 10gb ethernet capability.
    Reply
  • derekullo
    spongiemaster said:
    No one using this would be running a RAID 0 array (RAID 0 wasn't mentioned anywhere in this article), which rolls into your 2nd point. If you're running some sort of parity RAID level, even with reads, you're not getting close to 250MB/s sustained throughput with SATA drives, so there's no point adding 10gb ethernet capability.
    I only mentioned raid 0 because the article kept stressing up to 100TB and 300TB of usable space which logically could only be attained with raid 0 or JBOD

    According to
    https://wintelguy.com/raidperf.pl
    A raid 6 with 15 - 20 Terabyte drives with a highly conservative 100 MB/s single drive performance and 0% read operations would have a write speed of 260 MB/s but since you are using it as a backup the write speed doesn't really matter.

    You want to be able to restore your backup as quick as possible (read operations).

    Setting the read operations percentage to 100% we get a read speed of 1500 MB/s which would indeed benefit from 10 gigabit Ethernet (1250 MB/s).

    For completeness, going with a Raid 10 nets you 1400 MB/s reads and 700 MB/s writes. (14 drives)
    Reply
  • closs.sebastien
    The planes and other should not store in local "flight recorder" which could be lost.. instead, all the datas should be sent to a cloud in real time, by a satellite link
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    closs.sebastien said:
    The planes and other should not store in local "flight recorder" which could be lost.. instead, all the datas should be sent to a cloud in real time, by a satellite link
    Not really.

    The current flight data recorders are a very mature technology. Very rarely do they fail or are lost.

    Design lead time. It takes a long time for a new aircraft to go from idea to the runway. This cloud magic of which you speak was not really a stable thing when the current crop of jets were on the drawing board.
    And you can't just retrofit. It takes years of Agency testing and approval.

    Lastly, a lot of that information IS beamed back to home base, for aircraft diagnostics.
    But it is not a full replacement for the FDR and CVR.
    Reply
  • Friesiansam
    derekullo said:
    5 to 15 20TB drives in a raid 0 ... what could possibly go wrong.
    If it's set up like that, quite a lot, because it is clearly being used by an idiot...
    Reply
  • kanewolf
    Nolonar said:
    I'd rather just buy a second NAS.
    It's cheaper (drives not included)
    safer (you have a backup in case one NAS burns for over 30 minutes or has its data corrupted)
    and has better availability (you can still access your data even if one NAS goes offline for whatever reason)
    That is assuming you have a location that is not in the fire and appropriate network bandwidth to make backups to the second NAS feasible. You might have a relative or friend that would host your second NAS and allow you to use their bandwidth for your backups, assuming you provide the same service to them.
    If you have the network bandwidth, pre-encrypting your backups and using cloud storage is a secure and low cost option without to provide "off site" storage.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Nolonar said:
    I'd rather just buy a second NAS.
    If you have the money for this, this IS the 'second NAS'.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    derekullo said:
    I only mentioned raid 0 because the article kept stressing up to 100TB and 300TB of usable space which logically could only be attained with raid 0 or JBOD

    Because that's how RAID array capacities are stated. Up to whatever the max is. The news sections here gets a ton wrong every day, this isn't one of those.

    "NAS can house up to five hot-swappable 3.5-inch hard drives, meaning that it can store up to 100TB using 20TB HDDs depending on the RAID configuration. "

    100% accurate. You will not find every capacity for every RAID level in any spec sheet because there are endless combinations depending on the number of drives and drive capacities.

    derekullo said:
    According to
    https://wintelguy.com/raidperf.pl
    A raid 6 with 15 - 20 Terabyte drives with a highly conservative 100 MB/s single drive performance and 0% read operations would have a write speed of 260 MB/s but since you are using it as a backup the write speed doesn't really matter.
    For 15 drives. For 5 drives, which is the max in the standard configuration, the write speed is 83MB/s. Comfortably below 1gbe throughput. According to this calculator, scaling is perfect going from 5 drives to 15 drives. Good luck achieving that. You can't use a calculator like this, anyway, as performance varies greatly among RAID solutions. A enterprise level NAS with true hardware RAID with significant onboard cache is going to perform much closer to the theoretical performance of the drives than the NAS in this article or anything a consumer would purchase.
    Reply