Thanks for the video Ash, you make me feel like a genius 😆 I have two RAID 5 QNAP NAS but I use external drives and QSYNC to backup both NAS. You're right, the RAID 5 dual disk failure is something that could happen. I have had a high failure rate on my Seagate IronWolf 110 SSDs. Out of twelve drives, five have failed and they all failed within a six month period, but never two drives in the same NAS at the same time, which usually is not my luck. Great video!
Respect, smart move getting two units and backing up between them. I hate buying more than one drive at a time, as usually you get the same batch which means they're more likely to fail at the same time. Hope you managed to get your failed ones replaced under warranty.
@@headsoftech Thanks for the tip, I will never buy a 'batch' of drives again, never thought about that. Seagate was fantastic with the replacements. I'll see how the raining seven original drives hold out 🤞
That's horrendous, it's not like you bought cheapy SSDs, you bought according to their marketing speak "designed for everything business NAS, with 24×7 performance" ones. Well, at least you're slowly getting the batches replaced one by one.
@@headsoftech Buy from different stores (which don't belong to the same chain of course). Big online stores sometimes offer a "RAID Service" where they bundle HDDs from different batches 4 each. I bought two of those when I upgraded my last system (which needs another update to 16TB each soon...)
just wanted to add some info to a statement you made. Allocation size / inode size definitely affects speed even more so on larger transfers (depending on the size of the files you are transferring) A larger allocation size tends to be smoother for large files.
I’m transferring from a four bay to a five bay. Moving my drives. When I change to a raid 6 From a raid five, can I change the pool set up to what you were advising or will that mess up my storage already on the drives? Thx
When you start using RAID (actual raid, not SW Raid or ZFS) you should definitely test the recovery speed before shuffling data on the array. Some consumer RAID hardware is really slow (I've seen controllers that need upwards of 4 weeks to recover a 4TB HDD for some reason...) when doing RAID5/6. For personal use I'd recommend: Mirroring for up to 4 HDDs, RAID6 or ZFS-X2 for 5+ HDDs (more redundancy after 24th drive). RAID-5 recovery often trashes one of your drives, especially with 8+TB drives which should be the standard for storage solutions by now. Thats only in general though, there are reasons to mirror with more drives, but I definitely wouldn't use anything other than mirroring with less than 5 drives. --- And NEVER!!! Stripe (RAID-0) - There are other solutions on Filesystem_Level where you don't loose all your data just bc one drive failed... Unless you don't need redundancy and it is some kind of SSD RAID where the data is completly temporary, then a stipe is fine :)
Great explanations. But how about using another computer (such as a RPi 4) with normal external drives for backing up the NAS instead of having 2 NAS? What would be the problem with that?
I always depends on how important the data is. "Ideally" you have a backup on Tape. They don't randomly corrupt after they are written and verified (very important last part!) but it is ironically more expensive by now and it takes longer to recover (you also can't use it directly from the tape). Most customers prefer the shady solutions though once they see what hardware and tapes cost...
I like raid 6 because any two drives can fail, but with raid 10 if two drives on the same split fail, you're done. The best solution however is two NAS units, that way you can have a fast RAID5/RAID0 one and a backup RAID6
Not everyone has a 10gbe nas there is not much difference between raid5 and 6 on a 1gbe network (generally that's limited to just qnap from price standpoint) for new users who typically don't know what they re doing or business use (even some youtubers) a 5 bay or higher nas with RAID6 or SHR2 is recommended (2 disk failures is quite rare but does not mean doesn't happen RAID6 protects you still when one disks has failed or been rebuilt with RAID5 you lose all protection and at mercy of remaining disks to stay functioning) Or buy 2 2 bay nas's and have the second one backing up first one (personally first nas should be the one that has more protection and be a 4 or 5 Bay nas with RAID6) Synology uses standard mdadm raid and btrfs/ext4 easy to access and recover data as long as the raid array is intact and can transplant the same disks into any nas from 2012 to 2022, only5-25 minute migrate and its working it's qnap that has messed with LVM and mdadm so requires knowledge of what they did to access the data, (likely have to buy the same year nas to be able to access the data if the nas is what failed)
raid 5 would perform faster than raid 6 for the simple reason there's an extra drive to stripe the data across. In a small array the difference is noticeable and makes sense not to waste a drive. In a large array the difference is less noticeable and more likely for dual drive failure.
Wait, encrypted is faster? Really? That seems like it'd be harder on the Nas. Interesting. Do you know why? Also, why would there be a resync speed option? If your array is degraded that is an emergency situation. Who wouldn't want to get back to a healthy state as quickly as possible?
I think another comparison would be 4 drives in raid 5, and 5 drives in raid 6, to see if having the same number of data blocks working at a time could compensate
@@Snow.Drifter I thought about that too... Such a test with the same number of disks should theoretically be worse. With 6 or more disks, RAID6 is much more reasonable.
This isnt the best example, sub 1000$ Synology systems only support at Max 8 drives, the one you use is 4-5. If you buy a used dell r720 with 12 drives the performance isn't a 50% drop. it's a 9% performance drop
a chance of 1 drive on it's own failing is 1% add that 1 percent per every single drive, even at 4% failure is extremely unlikely. i have 4 drives and haven't had my r0 fail on me for over 5 years now. if it does, no biggy. i can replace failed drive and restore important stuff from cheap extrernal backup drive. i'd never trade raid0 for inferior config with mechanical drives, only to maybe a more robust ssd raid if money was not an issue.
Dam that was an in-depth and straight to the point video. Rare.
Very useful. Simple and straight to all the critical stuff.
Thanks for the video Ash, you make me feel like a genius 😆 I have two RAID 5 QNAP NAS but I use external drives and QSYNC to backup both NAS. You're right, the RAID 5 dual disk failure is something that could happen. I have had a high failure rate on my Seagate IronWolf 110 SSDs. Out of twelve drives, five have failed and they all failed within a six month period, but never two drives in the same NAS at the same time, which usually is not my luck. Great video!
Respect, smart move getting two units and backing up between them. I hate buying more than one drive at a time, as usually you get the same batch which means they're more likely to fail at the same time. Hope you managed to get your failed ones replaced under warranty.
@@headsoftech Thanks for the tip, I will never buy a 'batch' of drives again, never thought about that. Seagate was fantastic with the replacements. I'll see how the raining seven original drives hold out 🤞
@@headsoftech Your video jinxed me 😆😆 One of my NAS just crapped another drive, I am now up to a 50% failure rate.
That's horrendous, it's not like you bought cheapy SSDs, you bought according to their marketing speak "designed for everything
business NAS, with 24×7 performance" ones. Well, at least you're slowly getting the batches replaced one by one.
@@headsoftech Buy from different stores (which don't belong to the same chain of course).
Big online stores sometimes offer a "RAID Service" where they bundle HDDs from different batches 4 each.
I bought two of those when I upgraded my last system (which needs another update to 16TB each soon...)
just wanted to add some info to a statement you made. Allocation size / inode size definitely affects speed even more so on larger transfers (depending on the size of the files you are transferring) A larger allocation size tends to be smoother for large files.
I’m transferring from a four bay to a five bay. Moving my drives. When I change to a raid 6 From a raid five, can I change the pool set up to what you were advising or will that mess up my storage already on the drives? Thx
So if I'm using a NAS strictly for a Plex media server that will only ever have a maximum of three connections would Raid 6 suffice?
When you start using RAID (actual raid, not SW Raid or ZFS) you should definitely test the recovery speed before shuffling data on the array.
Some consumer RAID hardware is really slow (I've seen controllers that need upwards of 4 weeks to recover a 4TB HDD for some reason...) when doing RAID5/6.
For personal use I'd recommend:
Mirroring for up to 4 HDDs, RAID6 or ZFS-X2 for 5+ HDDs (more redundancy after 24th drive).
RAID-5 recovery often trashes one of your drives, especially with 8+TB drives which should be the standard for storage solutions by now.
Thats only in general though, there are reasons to mirror with more drives, but I definitely wouldn't use anything other than mirroring with less than 5 drives.
---
And NEVER!!! Stripe (RAID-0) - There are other solutions on Filesystem_Level where you don't loose all your data just bc one drive failed...
Unless you don't need redundancy and it is some kind of SSD RAID where the data is completly temporary, then a stipe is fine :)
How can you show a performance test without even saying how many drives you're using or what they are?
Thanks for sharing. I am considering buying a QNAP TVS Nas and your videos rank high in my final desision.
Best of luck, let me know how you get on
Thank you for this video, very usefull!
Hey what monitor do you have there? I tried to see if you had a video on it, looks good!
Here's the review mate: th-cam.com/video/wAADyngg7tw/w-d-xo.html
@@headsoftech Cheers!
Great video. Thanks mate
Great explanations. But how about using another computer (such as a RPi 4) with normal external drives for backing up the NAS instead of having 2 NAS? What would be the problem with that?
Don't see a problem with doing that, any backup is better than no backup.
I always depends on how important the data is.
"Ideally" you have a backup on Tape.
They don't randomly corrupt after they are written and verified (very important last part!) but it is ironically more expensive by now and it takes longer to recover (you also can't use it directly from the tape).
Most customers prefer the shady solutions though once they see what hardware and tapes cost...
Ash - great reviews. It would be good to hear your thoughts on Raid 10 vs Raid 6?
I like raid 6 because any two drives can fail, but with raid 10 if two drives on the same split fail, you're done. The best solution however is two NAS units, that way you can have a fast RAID5/RAID0 one and a backup RAID6
@@headsoftech But the backup Raid 6 will have less space if you fill up your first one?
You can use larger drives or only backup the important files. Eg. Exclude the recycle folders and cache.
Not everyone has a 10gbe nas there is not much difference between raid5 and 6 on a 1gbe network (generally that's limited to just qnap from price standpoint)
for new users who typically don't know what they re doing or business use (even some youtubers) a 5 bay or higher nas with RAID6 or SHR2 is recommended (2 disk failures is quite rare but does not mean doesn't happen RAID6 protects you still when one disks has failed or been rebuilt with RAID5 you lose all protection and at mercy of remaining disks to stay functioning)
Or buy 2 2 bay nas's and have the second one backing up first one (personally first nas should be the one that has more protection and be a 4 or 5 Bay nas with RAID6)
Synology uses standard mdadm raid and btrfs/ext4 easy to access and recover data as long as the raid array is intact and can transplant the same disks into any nas from 2012 to 2022, only5-25 minute migrate and its working
it's qnap that has messed with LVM and mdadm so requires knowledge of what they did to access the data, (likely have to buy the same year nas to be able to access the data if the nas is what failed)
I have no idea what the hell you typed - but I can imagine irl you're an overweight geek. Jesus.
raid 5 would perform faster than raid 6 for the simple reason there's an extra drive to stripe the data across. In a small array the difference is noticeable and makes sense not to waste a drive. In a large array the difference is less noticeable and more likely for dual drive failure.
Wait, encrypted is faster? Really? That seems like it'd be harder on the Nas. Interesting. Do you know why?
Also, why would there be a resync speed option?
If your array is degraded that is an emergency situation. Who wouldn't want to get back to a healthy state as quickly as possible?
How many drives were in your array for these tests?
4
I think another comparison would be 4 drives in raid 5, and 5 drives in raid 6, to see if having the same number of data blocks working at a time could compensate
@@Snow.Drifter I thought about that too... Such a test with the same number of disks should theoretically be worse. With 6 or more disks, RAID6 is much more reasonable.
This isnt the best example, sub 1000$ Synology systems only support at Max 8 drives, the one you use is 4-5. If you buy a used dell r720 with 12 drives the performance isn't a 50% drop. it's a 9% performance drop
Raid5 is faster but, in enterprise environments, you need maximum redundancy. Performance comes second.
first off, never user RAID5. proceed/.
What to use than with a 4 bay ? Raid 10?
@@perrys9872 RAID 0 is best, I'm gettin 788MB/s which is faster than sata SSD
@@一本のうんち and then if one drive fails your data is gone yay
a chance of 1 drive on it's own failing is 1% add that 1 percent per every single drive, even at 4% failure is extremely unlikely. i have 4 drives and haven't had my r0 fail on me for over 5 years now. if it does, no biggy. i can replace failed drive and restore important stuff from cheap extrernal backup drive. i'd never trade raid0 for inferior config with mechanical drives, only to maybe a more robust ssd raid if money was not an issue.