Watched now a couple of your videos about NAS, ISCSI, RAID. alsongside with the same content from other channels. Your explanations are simply the best and easiest to understand. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
A lot of mistakes here. 1. ZFS is not RAID, it's a filesystem. It can be used on any RAID or even on a single drive (Assuming OS supports it). 2. RAID 1 won't give you double WRITE speed. Actually, write performance can be even slower than a single drive. 3. It is incorrect to say that RAID 10 is less safe than RAID 6. For example, in 10-drive RAID 10 configuration, you can lose up to 5 drives and don't lose any data. In RAID 6 if you lose 3 drives it's over. Even more, you have bigger chance to lose another drive during the RAID rebuild in RAID 6 due to a much longer rebuild time, especially in high-load systems. 4. It is incorrect to say that you can only use the same brand drives for the traditional RAID. You can use different brands easily.
@@BrianGarside There is no silver bullet for everything. What is better depends on many factors, like what environment is it on and what are the requirements. is it a home NAS capped by network speed? Or is it a high-end RAID controller on a high-load production server? Does rebild speed matters? Or redunduncy is the first priority? Is workload mostly read or there are a lot of write operations? Without knowing all the details and context word "better" is meaningless.
@@K_Tech Read mostly on a NAS h1288x. Its a Multimedia NAS for Music up to 4k movie streaming on a 10gb network. Using 8 Seagate Exos drives 14TB x 8 in RAID 6. Thanks for your insights.
@@K_Tech Thanks! Performance has been good. I do have a 1gb downlink for the streaming devices like NVDIA. I have a NVME for the system drive pool 1 as well which really helps with the Plex etc...
Please note with SHR - You came make the SHR larger.. BUT please last be mindful that YOU CANNOT MAKE IT SMALLER WITH OUT DESTROYING IT. I wish I had known that before I started using SHR.
Look up why we don't use RAID5 and even RAID6 anymore. They do not stack up well with xTB capacity drives. They hark back from the days when drive capacities in the GBs were the norm. I haven't used RAID6 for going on 12 years, let alone RAID5. The technical papers are out there, look them up for the reasoning.
So what raid do you recommend to use? You seem to have forgotten to put that in your post. I’m interested because I am about to set my 4 bay NAS up and was considering raid 5.
@@chrisl1077if you are a home user and have a backup, you can go with raid 5/shr-1. But the risk of losing a second drive during rebuild increases significantly if you have large drives because of the heavy load they're experiencing during rebuilds. Again, for home users where you can live with a downtime and if you have a backup, that shouldn't matter
Hi, Netgear ReadyNAS X-RAID and X-RAID 2 is been around forever not just Synology's SHR/Drobos BEyondRAID has fluid RAID. Netgear's ReadyNAS X-RAID is similar to RAID 5 and X-RAID 2 is similar to RAID 6 both are fluid RAID or dynamic RAID X-RAID is an auto-expandable RAID technology that is available only on ReadyNAS systems. The easiest RAID to have with different type and sizes of HDDs.
If you lets say start with 4x4Tb drives in a 4 bay running raid 5, and you decide over time you need more space, can you slowly replace the 4Tb with a 10Tb ... one at a time, live with the short term loss of the 6Tb per disk, and in the end once all 4x10Tb drives are installed, will it finally adapt to seeing 40Tb of space? Or will it only ever see 16Tb? Do you have to buy a new NAS and 4x10Tb drives and migrate the data over at one time? How do you upgrade to larger drives, in raid 5, over time?
I know the Synology units will let you do that, once you have the drives swapped depending on how you configured your storage pool/s and volume/s the extra space will be automatically assigned or be sitting there as spare unused space waiting for you to assign it to a volume/s
About a 1GB network (Does that mean the ethernet connections between router, nas, and clients?) That the speed of Nas drive function wont matter as much with higher speed drives if the ethernet is maxed out at 1GB (Router?)? I heard a 6e cat might be over kill if the client(computer or Nas doesnt process 1GB speeds) Not sure if that is true . . .And does that mean a better router would avoid a bottleneck??
I have a few questions regarding RAID5: Is it upgradable? Imagine I have 3 2TB disks and in a few years I want to add another one, would it be possible? Also, what should I do if I want to replace my disks for bigger ones down the line? How could I transfer all data?
New to NAS have you done a video on showing the SHR in action, in that you show us what happens if you upgrade to a bigger drive, do you just pull it out with the system powered on then slap in the new bigger one? how to add the bigger one in. How does that all work. Im looking at the 4 or 5 bay Synology and I think from the start I should use SHR as I plan on upgrading to bigger drives as funds allow.
You just add it. Might be necessary to go to storage manager and click through since obvious choices, but that should be it. Needles to say, prior to doing this, if you don't have a backup of your nas, make one.
I am looking at buying the TVS-872XT and thinking Raid 5 config. Due to the initial outlay for this NAS, buying 8 x high capacity HDD is out of my budget range at the moment but will add HDD to the NAS as funds become available. As I understand it I need to buy the highest capacity of HDD's I can afford at the outset (3 for raid 5) this will allow me to add the remaining 5 HDD (same capacity HDD as the initial 3 HDD) to the NAS without loosing my existing data. Is this correct? Is this the best way for me to go about increasing storage and securing my already secured data?
Correct! As long as your server supports expansion. So for example, with Synology it does. I use Synology and the max amoutn of RAID5 / or RAID 6 is as many slots as you have. Just add one drive at a time, slowly.
Your comments on zfs are not really accurate. You can put zfs on anything that can run freenas, which is most consumer hardware. It also now ships as an install option on ubuntu. Lastly, 8GB of ram is generally thrown out as a recommendation, but is definitely not a requirement. It would be interesting to make equivalent systems to some cheap qnap or synology nas and put freenas on it to see how it performs.
Sooooo, I'm watching this to find out if traditional Raid or SHR is better than the other for only two bays since it's basically just a mirror of the other.
Exactly what NAScompares wrote, RAID1 or RAID 5/6 have a higher read performance than SHR. But I love SHR in the sense of adding different sized drives. On my backup system which will only use 8TB drives, I am setting up a RAID5.
Depends. If you're running a custom rig with software raid like truenas or unRAID you just get/build a replacement system and stick them in it. With synology, you'll need another synology unit, i.e. you can't attach them to any other PC/nas, it has to be a synology for it to work. Same goes for a hardware raid card unless it is used as dumb hba.
Thank you for the informative video. A couple of questions: (a) Does RAID6 degrade to RAID5 in case of a single drive failure? (b) What is the difference between RAID6 vs RAID5 with a spare?
Panos Hountis no a raid 6 doesn’t turn into a raid 5 when you loose a drive, raid 5 has one parity stripe and raid 6 has 2 parity stripes. So for every piece of data written to a raid 6 the system calculates 2 different parity’s so if you had a nas with 5 4Tb drives you would 12Tb usable for your data the other 8Tb are used for the parity data. The advantage of raid 6 over raid 5 is the ability to handle 2 drives failures. If a second drive is going to fail in an array it will most often be during rebuilding. If this happens with a raid 5 then the array is toast and you data is gone, with a raid 6 you can survive that second failed drive. While it is possible to loose a third in which case even the raid 6 would be toast, that being said 3 almost simultaneous drive failures is highly unlikely but not impossible or unheard of. Any your choice of array is a balance of cost performance and redundancy depending on what factors are important to you. No array is a replacement for proper reliable backups things can and do go wrong and arrays of all kinds can and do fail.
Panos Hountis yes, as the hot spare is as the name suggests it is just a spare it sits there doing nothing until a drive fails. The system can then automatically start rebuilding the raid 5 with that spare without any intervention to do it manually. However being a raid 5 it is still vulnerable to a second drive failure during rebuild and if that happens the array is toast, so yes raid 6 is more resilient than 5 with the trade off of slightly slower write speed due to the dual parity having to be calculated and written in most cases you won’t notice the difference, I know I don’t with mine.
@@panoshountis1516 Coming here REALLY late, but hopefully it helps somebody; In bit more enteryprise'y world the way of thinking is that the RAID5 + hot spare would be in a case that you don't know where that hot spare would go, eg you have multiple RAIDs that could take that disk in case of failure. If you have just one RAID, sacrificing one disk doesn't really add any value (other than you'd have less used disk available, but then again the opportunity cost of that is quite high.) The choice between RAID5 and RAID6 is thought to be "is it going to break another disk before rebuild is completed" and nothing much more. As the broken disk can be replaced rather quickly at home, assuming that you'd hear bleebing from the NAS and/or have some email/notification warning for it, the only "relevant" thing to think about is just rebuild time. So having 4TB SSDs or 20TB HDDs might change the calculations quite a lot. As well as the size of the array; having 5 disk array with RAID5, one failing and starting a 3 day (as an example, you might want to test this yourself on your own system by replacing oldest disk and check how long the rebuild takes) long rebuild ASAP, having the risk of ANOTHER disk to fail might be low, but having 24 disk RAID5 it is more likely. Assuming that you have the financial means to go and buy a new disk as soon you have disk failure, I wouldn't see a reason to have more than one disk redundancy. And remember, RAID is not a backup 😉
I know this is old, but maybe someone still reads and watches the video. I own Synology DS-220+ and thinking of buying the 4 bay NAS. I have raid1. Is it possible when placing them in the new Synology NAS to add a third disc and changing the Raid to Raid 5 to gain more space, without data loss?
it's certainly possible on QNAP as I've just done it, search for something like "raid a to raid 5 migration on synology" I'm sure it's possible too. No data loss but it will take even days to calculate parity and create new raid5.
I want to buy synology ds920+ but I want to have 2 disks in redundancy maybe later on add two more disk in redundancy, independent of the first two disks. What is the best raid to do that. I want to create this so that I can have pictures and videos on two disks at redundancy and the other two in redundancy for documents and business. Thank you for your help.
The only choice you have with 4 disks is 10. Not the best choice though. If you want 2-disk redundancy, your best bet it's generally raid6/shr2 which requires more than 4 bays.
I have read some people say that Raid 10 is safer than Raid 6 because it is faster to recover from a single loss and restoring redundancy, also boasting higher performance while in the state of rebuilding. Can someone tell me how Raid 10 compares speed-wise (Rebuild) to Raid 5 or Raid 6 because I have not found a video on that yet.
Hi Elfwyn, that is hardware-dependent. With a modern NAS today, for example a modern Qnap or modern Synology, your re-build time of a RAID6 is excellent and fast, and so it is too with RAID10. You wouldn't want to go with R10 unless you are in a business environment with hundreds of users. RAID6 / or SHR-2 will work with all your needs up to 30-40 users without delay.
@@exsosus5002 Thank you for your answer. Due to limitations in the upgrade path of my 6-Bay Qunap I went with Raid 6 in the end. To compensate for possible failure states I bought a 5-bay Synology NAS for redundancy and have both wired up with an UPS. So at least I have peace of mind if something should fail horribly.
My motherboard only supports 0, 1, and 10. The minimum is 4 disks for 10, right? I get that losing the 2 wrong pairs can cause you to lose all of your data. Can't I increase the disks to something like 6 or 8 to remedy that risk?
You don't want to run raid on your motherboard. In fact, you do not want to run hardware raid at all. If it's a computer, you're much better off rubbing a software raid.
Hello!! I've reading about NAS and raid configuration because I don't want to pay anymore for google storage. I bought locally 6 hard drives, 2 》1TB , 3 》500GB and 1 》256GB . From what I've been searching it looks I can go with the terramaster with 5 bays. Now since you have a lot of experience, whith all the hd i have , which configuration would you suggest, raid 5 or 6, and if they allow different sizes ? I know with raid 1 and 2 you need to have hard drives with the same sizes, but I'm not that familiar with raid 5 o or 6. Thank you.
You don't have to have drives if same sizes, it's just it will use the size of the smallest disk for all drives and all the remaining size will be wasted as in unused. So if you paid e.g. a 1tb drive with a 20tb drive they'll be considered 1tb drives and you'll have 19tb wasted on the bigger drive.
Weird point... i am looking to upgrade my truenas box from 8x4tb to 8x8tb... i found a weird thing with Seagate Barracuda disks (this nas is only active on Saturday and Sunday) i was looking into the Barracuda Pro 8tb, but what is weird?? The Barracuda 8Tb and the Pro version share the same name ST8000DM004. This is also difficult with looking at prices because they both show up, sometimes also with pro in the name but as product you see the one without pro, and the other way around. Do i miss something? Or are they the same without telling?
No, you didn't miss anything: The Barracuda 8TB has two seperate last digit models. So in the example of the standard 8TB you are looking at: ST8000DM004 - 2CX8188. Then, for the pro the name is: ST8000DM005 - 2EH112. To find out the last four digits of the standard Barracuda 8TB you should be able to see them in your storage manager on your NAS.
Hi. Your definition of JBOD is incorrect. It is not just a bunch of disks that appear as independent disks, as you say. It is a collection of 2 or more disks that are combined into one logical drive. I've been building computers since 1983 and that has been the definition I've always seen. Check this out; "While partitioning chops single drives into smaller logical volumes, JBOD combines drives into larger logical volumes. Because JBOD does not provide fault tolerance or performance enhancements, this 2001-era writer concludes, “JBOD doesn’t really have a lot to recommend it” over RAID 0 (a configuration that also lacks fault tolerance but at least offers performance improvements over individual hard drives or JBOD). According to him, the only advantages JBOD offers over RAID 0 (or any other RAID configuration) are: Avoiding Drive Waste: If you have a number of odd-sized drives, JBOD will let you combine them into a single unit without loss of any capacity; a 10 GB drive and 30 GB would combine to make a 40 GB JBOD volume but only a 20 GB RAID 0 array. This may be an issue for those expanding an existing system, though with drives so cheap these days it’s a relatively small advantage
Hi Mike, the RAID0 wasting some disk space is correct on the old RAID0. I've built several RAID0 arrays this past year and they waste zero space on any sized drive combinations. Using Synology RAID0 what I have written is correct.
I have an aging DS207+ that’s done remarkably well over the years, but I’m ready to upgrade it, but it’s so frustrating, I think I now know what I want spec wise, but Synology don’t seem to offer it yet! I want to buy something pretty future proof, as the DS207+ has gone on for a dozen or so years, so prepared to spend a decent amount on this upgrade. I want to move to a SHR Raid. I want a 10GB port. I want M.2 SSD adapter card to speed up IO speed from the HDD’s. I’d like a pretty good CPU, I’d like 6-8 bays but am flexible if I can buy an expansion case later if less than 6 bays, or I don’t mind getting more than 8, but doubt I’ll need them. I’d like it to be capable of 4K encoding too, purely to future proof. Do you this Synology do something that ticks all those at a semi sensible price? No. I mean, how hard can it be? If the DS1618+ or 1819+ had either a built in 10GB port, or two expansion slots, they would be nigh on perfect. The XS range is out because of lack of SHR support. I’ve looked at QNAP, they have models that tick all the boxes EXCEPT for SHR or an equivalent. I think Synology announced last year an add-on card that combined M.2 SSD adapter card & a 10GBb port on a single card, which would be an acceptable solution for me.....but it seems to be vapourware, it’s still not arrived. So deeply frustrating!
Lawrence Dunn SHR is not the be all and end all, if you only have two drives shr runs as a raid 1, once you have 3 or more drives it runs the same as a raid 5, and shr 2 under the hood is raid 6. The only thing shr gives you is when upgrading drives you can access the extra space once you have replaced 2 of the drives with larger drives instead of having to wait until all the drives in the array have been replaced to access the extra space, this is done by the partitioning of the larger drives into multiple smaller partitions the size of the smallest hdd it is then these partitions that are the members of the array rather than the hdd itself, rebuild times are generally slower as every time you change drives around as it is not just a case of re-striping the data across the disks it also have to move and resize partitions to match the smallest disk in the set and then re-stripe the data across the partitions.
ck9581 - yes, I think that was the conclusion I came to, that the only real advantage is being able to mix the size of the HDD/SSD as you grow your Raid over time. I played with the Raid calculator on the Synology site, comparing SHR/2 with various raids, even then in some combos not all HDD space seemed to be accessible every time with SHR. It may sound a bit ‘odd’, but having used Raid 1 for the past 12 years (I think I may have upgraded the HDD’s during that time for larger ones) & only having a two bay NAS, ive been acclimatised to the process of replacing two HDD’s with larger ones when running out of space, and I note that with more bays and Raid 5/6, I can just add more drives to the array to grown the size, and you get a speed boost for each drive you add....which brings many of the benefits of SHR anyway. So, I’ve come around to the idea of sticking with one of the standard array types.
Lawrence Dunn I know that you can change raid types with Synology with a couple of caveats, shr can only be changed to shr2 as you add drives and nothing else due to the way it uses partitions the option becomes available in drive manager. If you stick to standard raid types, you can start with a raid 1 when you only have two drives when you add a third you get the option of creating a new storage pool or you can have it migrate to a raid 5, add 2 drives and you can create a new storage pool or you can migrate your raid 1 to a raid 5 or raid 6 or raid 10. So you have pro’s and con’s either way you can either have more flexibility in you raid type or you can have the ability to mix and match drive sizes. You can still upgrade a standard array by swapping out disks one at a time and letting it rebuild each time difference is shr lets you have the extra space after swapping 2 disks, standard raid you get the extra space once you have swapped out all the disks in the array.
ck9581 and the other benefit of not going for SHR/SHR2 is that if you went for one of those (only available on a Synology NAS) & then your NAS packs up in the future, or you need to upgrade your NAS box for a more powerful unit, or more storage or more features, then being in SHR, you are tied in to only upgrading to another Synology NAS (unless your old one is still working and you buy new disks and copy old data across to the new NAS) - you can’t just pull the old HDD’s out and put them in a non-Synology NAS.....you can’t even pull them out and put them in the upper half of the Synology range because the more expensive bigger/better performing Synology NAS models from the XS range up don’t support SHR. I’m pretty convinced now that I’m not going SHR route and sticking to a Standard Raid.....but most of that is due to the Synology units that offer it not giving me the hardware I think I’m after, so I either have to go up the Synology range or go to a different company (Qnaps) to get the mix of hardware that I want....and I have to go way higher up the Synology range to get the mix of features I want and pay a lot lot more vs Qnaps. So it looks like it will be a Qnaps for me in the future.
I’m not beating up on Synology, my DS207+ has lasted really well, and I was only using it as a basic file store, so could have done a lot more with it. It’s just that now I’m looking for a certain combination of features, and Qnaps are offering NAS’s that get much closer to what I’m seeking. In fact, the difficulty with Qnaps is that I actually have a choice of units and differing prices that can meet my spec, and the problem is deciding which one to go for. It’s pretty much coming down to how much cpu power do I really need in my NAS over the next decade or so. I can go for a model that has a lower cpu (still benchmarking above the atom in the DS1819+ ) and save £700 or go for a unit that offers more than double the cpu bench mark, and three times that of the DS1819+. The QNAP models I’m looking at are: TVS-873e TVS-872XT I was considering the TVS-872N, but have dropped this as I’d want to add 10gbe to it and once I’ve done that, there is only £150 difference between it and the TVS-872XT, which offers me more than £150’s worth I think.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Watched now a couple of your videos about NAS, ISCSI, RAID. alsongside with the same content from other channels. Your explanations are simply the best and easiest to understand. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
Nice cock bro, and you speaking facts
A lot of mistakes here.
1. ZFS is not RAID, it's a filesystem. It can be used on any RAID or even on a single drive (Assuming OS supports it).
2. RAID 1 won't give you double WRITE speed. Actually, write performance can be even slower than a single drive.
3. It is incorrect to say that RAID 10 is less safe than RAID 6. For example, in 10-drive RAID 10 configuration, you can lose up to 5 drives and don't lose any data. In RAID 6 if you lose 3 drives it's over. Even more, you have bigger chance to lose another drive during the RAID rebuild in RAID 6 due to a much longer rebuild time, especially in high-load systems.
4. It is incorrect to say that you can only use the same brand drives for the traditional RAID. You can use different brands easily.
What is better than RAID 6? That's what I use. RAID 5 seemed too risky.
@@BrianGarside There is no silver bullet for everything. What is better depends on many factors, like what environment is it on and what are the requirements. is it a home NAS capped by network speed? Or is it a high-end RAID controller on a high-load production server? Does rebild speed matters? Or redunduncy is the first priority? Is workload mostly read or there are a lot of write operations? Without knowing all the details and context word "better" is meaningless.
@@K_Tech Read mostly on a NAS h1288x. Its a Multimedia NAS for Music up to 4k movie streaming on a 10gb network. Using 8 Seagate Exos drives 14TB x 8 in RAID 6. Thanks for your insights.
@@BrianGarside Nice setup. RAID6 should be fine in this case, unless you experience performance issues.
@@K_Tech Thanks! Performance has been good. I do have a 1gb downlink for the streaming devices like NVDIA. I have a NVME for the system drive pool 1 as well which really helps with the Plex etc...
Please note with SHR - You came make the SHR larger.. BUT please last be mindful that YOU CANNOT MAKE IT SMALLER WITH OUT DESTROYING IT. I wish I had known that before I started using SHR.
What if you try a smaller drive? It will refuse it?
Why would you actually make it smaller if you own larger drives already? Makes no sense to me
@@chuckfina5388maybe it’s the order that he decided to put in the drives that messed up this way
Love the thorough explanation, even answered my follow up question at the end w/SHR & BeyondRAID
Brother thanks to GOD and I got it clear
Excellent explanation. Thank you for making it simple to understand
Look up why we don't use RAID5 and even RAID6 anymore. They do not stack up well with xTB capacity drives.
They hark back from the days when drive capacities in the GBs were the norm. I haven't used RAID6 for going on 12 years, let alone RAID5. The technical papers are out there, look them up for the reasoning.
So what raid do you recommend to use? You seem to have forgotten to put that in your post. I’m interested because I am about to set my 4 bay NAS up and was considering raid 5.
@@chrisl1077 he's likely referring to raid10 or a non-standard raid configuration that uses stripping and mirroring (like raid10 does).
@@chrisl1077if you are a home user and have a backup, you can go with raid 5/shr-1. But the risk of losing a second drive during rebuild increases significantly if you have large drives because of the heavy load they're experiencing during rebuilds. Again, for home users where you can live with a downtime and if you have a backup, that shouldn't matter
Hi, Netgear ReadyNAS X-RAID and X-RAID 2 is been around forever not just Synology's SHR/Drobos BEyondRAID has fluid RAID. Netgear's ReadyNAS X-RAID is similar to RAID 5 and X-RAID 2 is similar to RAID 6 both are fluid RAID or dynamic RAID X-RAID is an auto-expandable RAID technology that is available only on ReadyNAS systems. The easiest RAID to have with different type and sizes of HDDs.
Maybe you could do a video on them.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge
Thank you for the explanation.
I pay for an online back up for my NAS that happens daily, but I'm using RAID 5. Should I just convert to RAID 0 since I have that safety net?
Excellent video! Thank you.
Amazing content❤❤
RAID1 would be twice the read speed, but not twice the write speed, no?
I always run RAID 50. Could you touch on 50/60 options. I know that lower end units don't offer this.
If you lets say start with 4x4Tb drives in a 4 bay running raid 5,
and you decide over time you need more space,
can you slowly replace the 4Tb with a 10Tb ... one at a time,
live with the short term loss of the 6Tb per disk,
and in the end once all 4x10Tb drives are installed,
will it finally adapt to seeing 40Tb of space?
Or will it only ever see 16Tb?
Do you have to buy a new NAS and 4x10Tb drives and migrate the data over at one time?
How do you upgrade to larger drives, in raid 5, over time?
I know the Synology units will let you do that, once you have the drives swapped depending on how you configured your storage pool/s and volume/s the extra space will be automatically assigned or be sitting there as spare unused space waiting for you to assign it to a volume/s
On an shr raid - yes.
About a 1GB network (Does that mean the ethernet connections between router, nas, and clients?) That the speed of Nas drive function wont matter as much with higher speed drives if the ethernet is maxed out at 1GB (Router?)? I heard a 6e cat might be over kill if the client(computer or Nas doesnt process 1GB speeds) Not sure if that is true . . .And does that mean a better router would avoid a bottleneck??
Well Explained.
I have a few questions regarding RAID5: Is it upgradable? Imagine I have 3 2TB disks and in a few years I want to add another one, would it be possible? Also, what should I do if I want to replace my disks for bigger ones down the line? How could I transfer all data?
I don’t believe so
With Truenas scale in raid 1, can it be upgraded to raid 5 without losing data?
Hi - great video. If i have a few type 1 VM...how can i create access to high speed storage using RAID
so in raid5 the parity on one disc can recover different data stored on 3 separate discs if the raid has 4 discs??
New to NAS have you done a video on showing the SHR in action, in that you show us what happens if you upgrade to a bigger drive, do you just pull it out with the system powered on then slap in the new bigger one? how to add the bigger one in. How does that all work. Im looking at the 4 or 5 bay Synology and I think from the start I should use SHR as I plan on upgrading to bigger drives as funds allow.
You just add it. Might be necessary to go to storage manager and click through since obvious choices, but that should be it. Needles to say, prior to doing this, if you don't have a backup of your nas, make one.
I am looking at buying the TVS-872XT and thinking Raid 5 config. Due to the initial outlay for this NAS, buying 8 x high capacity HDD is out of my budget range at the moment but will add HDD to the NAS as funds become available. As I understand it I need to buy the highest capacity of HDD's I can afford at the outset (3 for raid 5) this will allow me to add the remaining 5 HDD (same capacity HDD as the initial 3 HDD) to the NAS without loosing my existing data. Is this correct? Is this the best way for me to go about increasing storage and securing my already secured data?
Correct! As long as your server supports expansion. So for example, with Synology it does. I use Synology and the max amoutn of RAID5 / or RAID 6 is as many slots as you have. Just add one drive at a time, slowly.
Your comments on zfs are not really accurate. You can put zfs on anything that can run freenas, which is most consumer hardware. It also now ships as an install option on ubuntu. Lastly, 8GB of ram is generally thrown out as a recommendation, but is definitely not a requirement. It would be interesting to make equivalent systems to some cheap qnap or synology nas and put freenas on it to see how it performs.
Sooooo, I'm watching this to find out if traditional Raid or SHR is better than the other for only two bays since it's basically just a mirror of the other.
Tbh it would be RAID 1, as the performance is a pinch higher
Exactly what NAScompares wrote, RAID1 or RAID 5/6 have a higher read performance than SHR. But I love SHR in the sense of adding different sized drives. On my backup system which will only use 8TB drives, I am setting up a RAID5.
I bought new NAS920+ and 4 sata driver. Plz suggest me which one is batter RAID1 OR RAID5 RAID10?
What happens if the RAID controller or system fails, but the drives are fine? Is the data on all the drives able to be recovered?
What?
Depends. If you're running a custom rig with software raid like truenas or unRAID you just get/build a replacement system and stick them in it. With synology, you'll need another synology unit, i.e. you can't attach them to any other PC/nas, it has to be a synology for it to work. Same goes for a hardware raid card unless it is used as dumb hba.
Thank you for the informative video. A couple of questions: (a) Does RAID6 degrade to RAID5 in case of a single drive failure? (b) What is the difference between RAID6 vs RAID5 with a spare?
Panos Hountis no a raid 6 doesn’t turn into a raid 5 when you loose a drive, raid 5 has one parity stripe and raid 6 has 2 parity stripes. So for every piece of data written to a raid 6 the system calculates 2 different parity’s so if you had a nas with 5 4Tb drives you would 12Tb usable for your data the other 8Tb are used for the parity data. The advantage of raid 6 over raid 5 is the ability to handle 2 drives failures. If a second drive is going to fail in an array it will most often be during rebuilding. If this happens with a raid 5 then the array is toast and you data is gone, with a raid 6 you can survive that second failed drive. While it is possible to loose a third in which case even the raid 6 would be toast, that being said 3 almost simultaneous drive failures is highly unlikely but not impossible or unheard of. Any your choice of array is a balance of cost performance and redundancy depending on what factors are important to you. No array is a replacement for proper reliable backups things can and do go wrong and arrays of all kinds can and do fail.
@@ck9581, thank you. What is your advice...is the RAID6 more resilient than the RAID5+hotspare setup?
Panos Hountis yes, as the hot spare is as the name suggests it is just a spare it sits there doing nothing until a drive fails. The system can then automatically start rebuilding the raid 5 with that spare without any intervention to do it manually. However being a raid 5 it is still vulnerable to a second drive failure during rebuild and if that happens the array is toast, so yes raid 6 is more resilient than 5 with the trade off of slightly slower write speed due to the dual parity having to be calculated and written in most cases you won’t notice the difference, I know I don’t with mine.
@@panoshountis1516 Coming here REALLY late, but hopefully it helps somebody;
In bit more enteryprise'y world the way of thinking is that the RAID5 + hot spare would be in a case that you don't know where that hot spare would go, eg you have multiple RAIDs that could take that disk in case of failure. If you have just one RAID, sacrificing one disk doesn't really add any value (other than you'd have less used disk available, but then again the opportunity cost of that is quite high.) The choice between RAID5 and RAID6 is thought to be "is it going to break another disk before rebuild is completed" and nothing much more. As the broken disk can be replaced rather quickly at home, assuming that you'd hear bleebing from the NAS and/or have some email/notification warning for it, the only "relevant" thing to think about is just rebuild time. So having 4TB SSDs or 20TB HDDs might change the calculations quite a lot. As well as the size of the array; having 5 disk array with RAID5, one failing and starting a 3 day (as an example, you might want to test this yourself on your own system by replacing oldest disk and check how long the rebuild takes) long rebuild ASAP, having the risk of ANOTHER disk to fail might be low, but having 24 disk RAID5 it is more likely.
Assuming that you have the financial means to go and buy a new disk as soon you have disk failure, I wouldn't see a reason to have more than one disk redundancy. And remember, RAID is not a backup 😉
I know this is old, but maybe someone still reads and watches the video. I own Synology DS-220+ and thinking of buying the 4 bay NAS. I have raid1. Is it possible when placing them in the new Synology NAS to add a third disc and changing the Raid to Raid 5 to gain more space, without data loss?
it's certainly possible on QNAP as I've just done it, search for something like "raid a to raid 5 migration on synology" I'm sure it's possible too. No data loss but it will take even days to calculate parity and create new raid5.
I want to buy synology ds920+ but I want to have 2 disks in redundancy maybe later on add two more disk in redundancy, independent of the first two disks. What is the best raid to do that. I want to create this so that I can have pictures and videos on two disks at redundancy and the other two in redundancy for documents and business. Thank you for your help.
The only choice you have with 4 disks is 10. Not the best choice though.
If you want 2-disk redundancy, your best bet it's generally raid6/shr2 which requires more than 4 bays.
Enjoyed that, thanks!
No worries, cheers.
If using 4Kn disks in RAID, what kind of cache do you need in Synology? Didn't find information about this anywhere.
So useful … this video is
I have read some people say that Raid 10 is safer than Raid 6 because it is faster to recover from a single loss and restoring redundancy, also boasting higher performance while in the state of rebuilding. Can someone tell me how Raid 10 compares speed-wise (Rebuild) to Raid 5 or Raid 6 because I have not found a video on that yet.
Hi Elfwyn, that is hardware-dependent. With a modern NAS today, for example a modern Qnap or modern Synology, your re-build time of a RAID6 is excellent and fast, and so it is too with RAID10. You wouldn't want to go with R10 unless you are in a business environment with hundreds of users. RAID6 / or SHR-2 will work with all your needs up to 30-40 users without delay.
@@exsosus5002 Thank you for your answer. Due to limitations in the upgrade path of my 6-Bay Qunap I went with Raid 6 in the end.
To compensate for possible failure states I bought a 5-bay Synology NAS for redundancy and have both wired up with an UPS.
So at least I have peace of mind if something should fail horribly.
50% chance to suffer total data loss when another disk fails for RAID 10
Use a larger font on your autocue
Can you point me what is the sound from the intro ? is it stock from Yt ? or else ? thank ya
My motherboard only supports 0, 1, and 10. The minimum is 4 disks for 10, right? I get that losing the 2 wrong pairs can cause you to lose all of your data. Can't I increase the disks to something like 6 or 8 to remedy that risk?
You don't want to run raid on your motherboard. In fact, you do not want to run hardware raid at all. If it's a computer, you're much better off rubbing a software raid.
Hello!! I've reading about NAS and raid configuration because I don't want to pay anymore for google storage. I bought locally 6 hard drives, 2 》1TB , 3 》500GB and 1 》256GB . From what I've been searching it looks I can go with the terramaster with 5 bays. Now since you have a lot of experience, whith all the hd i have , which configuration would you suggest, raid 5 or 6, and if they allow different sizes ? I know with raid 1 and 2 you need to have hard drives with the same sizes, but I'm not that familiar with raid 5 o or 6. Thank you.
You don't have to have drives if same sizes, it's just it will use the size of the smallest disk for all drives and all the remaining size will be wasted as in unused. So if you paid e.g. a 1tb drive with a 20tb drive they'll be considered 1tb drives and you'll have 19tb wasted on the bigger drive.
Weird point... i am looking to upgrade my truenas box from 8x4tb to 8x8tb...
i found a weird thing with Seagate Barracuda disks (this nas is only active on Saturday and Sunday) i was looking into the Barracuda Pro 8tb, but what is weird?? The Barracuda 8Tb and the Pro version share the same name ST8000DM004. This is also difficult with looking at prices because they both show up, sometimes also with pro in the name but as product you see the one without pro, and the other way around. Do i miss something? Or are they the same without telling?
No, you didn't miss anything: The Barracuda 8TB has two seperate last digit models. So in the example of the standard 8TB you are looking at: ST8000DM004 - 2CX8188. Then, for the pro the name is: ST8000DM005 - 2EH112. To find out the last four digits of the standard Barracuda 8TB you should be able to see them in your storage manager on your NAS.
@@exsosus5002 thanks
shr and beyondraid, which filesystem are using?
EXT4 and my new and favorite: Brtfs.
Hi. Your definition of JBOD is incorrect. It is not just a bunch of disks that appear as independent disks, as you say. It is a collection of 2 or more disks that are combined into one logical drive. I've been building computers since 1983 and that has been the definition I've always seen.
Check this out;
"While partitioning chops single drives into smaller logical volumes, JBOD combines drives into larger logical volumes.
Because JBOD does not provide fault tolerance or performance enhancements, this 2001-era writer concludes, “JBOD doesn’t really have a lot to recommend it” over RAID 0 (a configuration that also lacks fault tolerance but at least offers performance improvements over individual hard drives or JBOD).
According to him, the only advantages JBOD offers over RAID 0 (or any other RAID configuration) are:
Avoiding Drive Waste: If you have a number of odd-sized drives, JBOD will let you combine them into a single unit without loss of any capacity; a 10 GB drive and 30 GB would combine to make a 40 GB JBOD volume but only a 20 GB RAID 0 array. This may be an issue for those expanding an existing system, though with drives so cheap these days it’s a relatively small advantage
Hi Mike, the RAID0 wasting some disk space is correct on the old RAID0. I've built several RAID0 arrays this past year and they waste zero space on any sized drive combinations. Using Synology RAID0 what I have written is correct.
I use RAID 60 3 days to inicialize!
I have an aging DS207+ that’s done remarkably well over the years, but I’m ready to upgrade it, but it’s so frustrating, I think I now know what I want spec wise, but Synology don’t seem to offer it yet!
I want to buy something pretty future proof, as the DS207+ has gone on for a dozen or so years, so prepared to spend a decent amount on this upgrade.
I want to move to a SHR Raid. I want a 10GB port. I want M.2 SSD adapter card to speed up IO speed from the HDD’s. I’d like a pretty good CPU, I’d like 6-8 bays but am flexible if I can buy an expansion case later if less than 6 bays, or I don’t mind getting more than 8, but doubt I’ll need them. I’d like it to be capable of 4K encoding too, purely to future proof.
Do you this Synology do something that ticks all those at a semi sensible price? No. I mean, how hard can it be?
If the DS1618+ or 1819+ had either a built in 10GB port, or two expansion slots, they would be nigh on perfect. The XS range is out because of lack of SHR support.
I’ve looked at QNAP, they have models that tick all the boxes EXCEPT for SHR or an equivalent.
I think Synology announced last year an add-on card that combined M.2 SSD adapter card & a 10GBb port on a single card, which would be an acceptable solution for me.....but it seems to be vapourware, it’s still not arrived.
So deeply frustrating!
Lawrence Dunn SHR is not the be all and end all, if you only have two drives shr runs as a raid 1, once you have 3 or more drives it runs the same as a raid 5, and shr 2 under the hood is raid 6. The only thing shr gives you is when upgrading drives you can access the extra space once you have replaced 2 of the drives with larger drives instead of having to wait until all the drives in the array have been replaced to access the extra space, this is done by the partitioning of the larger drives into multiple smaller partitions the size of the smallest hdd it is then these partitions that are the members of the array rather than the hdd itself, rebuild times are generally slower as every time you change drives around as it is not just a case of re-striping the data across the disks it also have to move and resize partitions to match the smallest disk in the set and then re-stripe the data across the partitions.
ck9581 - yes, I think that was the conclusion I came to, that the only real advantage is being able to mix the size of the HDD/SSD as you grow your Raid over time. I played with the Raid calculator on the Synology site, comparing SHR/2 with various raids, even then in some combos not all HDD space seemed to be accessible every time with SHR.
It may sound a bit ‘odd’, but having used Raid 1 for the past 12 years (I think I may have upgraded the HDD’s during that time for larger ones) & only having a two bay NAS, ive been acclimatised to the process of replacing two HDD’s with larger ones when running out of space, and I note that with more bays and Raid 5/6, I can just add more drives to the array to grown the size, and you get a speed boost for each drive you add....which brings many of the benefits of SHR anyway. So, I’ve come around to the idea of sticking with one of the standard array types.
Lawrence Dunn I know that you can change raid types with Synology with a couple of caveats, shr can only be changed to shr2 as you add drives and nothing else due to the way it uses partitions the option becomes available in drive manager.
If you stick to standard raid types, you can start with a raid 1 when you only have two drives when you add a third you get the option of creating a new storage pool or you can have it migrate to a raid 5, add 2 drives and you can create a new storage pool or you can migrate your raid 1 to a raid 5 or raid 6 or raid 10. So you have pro’s and con’s either way you can either have more flexibility in you raid type or you can have the ability to mix and match drive sizes. You can still upgrade a standard array by swapping out disks one at a time and letting it rebuild each time difference is shr lets you have the extra space after swapping 2 disks, standard raid you get the extra space once you have swapped out all the disks in the array.
ck9581 and the other benefit of not going for SHR/SHR2 is that if you went for one of those (only available on a Synology NAS) & then your NAS packs up in the future, or you need to upgrade your NAS box for a more powerful unit, or more storage or more features, then being in SHR, you are tied in to only upgrading to another Synology NAS (unless your old one is still working and you buy new disks and copy old data across to the new NAS) - you can’t just pull the old HDD’s out and put them in a non-Synology NAS.....you can’t even pull them out and put them in the upper half of the Synology range because the more expensive bigger/better performing Synology NAS models from the XS range up don’t support SHR.
I’m pretty convinced now that I’m not going SHR route and sticking to a Standard Raid.....but most of that is due to the Synology units that offer it not giving me the hardware I think I’m after, so I either have to go up the Synology range or go to a different company (Qnaps) to get the mix of hardware that I want....and I have to go way higher up the Synology range to get the mix of features I want and pay a lot lot more vs Qnaps. So it looks like it will be a Qnaps for me in the future.
I’m not beating up on Synology, my DS207+ has lasted really well, and I was only using it as a basic file store, so could have done a lot more with it. It’s just that now I’m looking for a certain combination of features, and Qnaps are offering NAS’s that get much closer to what I’m seeking. In fact, the difficulty with Qnaps is that I actually have a choice of units and differing prices that can meet my spec, and the problem is deciding which one to go for.
It’s pretty much coming down to how much cpu power do I really need in my NAS over the next decade or so. I can go for a model that has a lower cpu (still benchmarking above the atom in the DS1819+ ) and save £700 or go for a unit that offers more than double the cpu bench mark, and three times that of the DS1819+.
The QNAP models I’m looking at are:
TVS-873e
TVS-872XT
I was considering the TVS-872N, but have dropped this as I’d want to add 10gbe to it and once I’ve done that, there is only £150 difference between it and the TVS-872XT, which offers me more than £150’s worth I think.
The real issue nowadays is shingled HHD (SMC) sold as NAS drives.
and raid 10 you will only get HALF your total storage
I thought that you are going to talk about RAID drives that are visible on the network (NAS)????
He is. NAS and main large enterprise servers, there is only one solid difference: More expensive. It's all the same.
Man this mans lips are out of sync