This my NAS，total cost was $120

[zeruns]

 

CPU：J1900，RAM：DDR3 4GB，motherboard，power supply，case and one 16GB SSD

The total cost was $ 54.67

 

Storage：Two used 2TB hard drives

The total cost was $ 65.33

 

 

 

 

[RadiatingLight]

Good deal but used drives sketch me out. 

[Spoiled_Kitten]

15 minutes ago, zeruns said:

 

CPU：J1900，RAM：DDR3 4GB，motherboard，power supply，case and one 16GB SSD

The total cost was $ 54.67

 

Storage：Two used 2TB hard drives

The total cost was $ 65.33

 

 

 

 

is the drive running in raid? also whats the software

[zeruns]

1 minute ago, Spoiled_Kitten said:

驱动器是否处于突袭状态？还有什么软件

I'm not using RAID，NAS system is Synology

I set it up to automatically copy files from one hard drive to another,and in normal times another hard disk will automatically sleep

[Spoiled_Kitten]

2 minutes ago, zeruns said:

I'm not using RAID，NAS system is Synology

I set it up to automatically copy files from one hard drive to another,and in normal times another hard disk will automatically sleep

nice, i would reccommend raid with 2nd hand or old hard drives.

[Letgomyleghoe]

20 minutes ago, Spoiled_Kitten said:

nice, i would reccommend raid with 2nd hand or old hard drives.

Raid 1 or 0?

[Spoiled_Kitten]

1 minute ago, scuff gang said:

Raid 1 or 0?

Personally 1 but look at this to see what is best for you. https://www.diffen.com/difference/RAID_0_vs_RAID_1

[Letgomyleghoe]

19 minutes ago, Spoiled_Kitten said:

Personally 1 but look at this to see what is best for you. https://www.diffen.com/difference/RAID_0_vs_RAID_1

Yeah I have my home server set in raid 10

8x 12tb hdd drives

 

Raid 1 isn't a back up in my opinion, having an off-site server is the best bet, talk to a friend and have servers at each other's houses with your important pictures and files, so if something happens at your house, fire, flood etc there's a back up, the reason why I use raid 10 is so that if there's a problem with my raid 0 array I have the block and I can just replace the one drive and copy it over, makes things safer and cheapers

[FloRolf]

25 minutes ago, scuff gang said:

Yeah I have my home server set in raid 10

8x 12tb hdd drives

 

Raid 1 isn't a back up in my opinion, having an off-site server is the best bet, talk to a friend and have servers at each other's houses with your important pictures and files, so if something happens at your house, fire, flood etc there's a back up, the reason why I use raid 10 is so that if there's a problem with my raid 0 array I have the block and I can just replace the one drive and copy it over, makes things safer and cheapers

8 drives in a Raid10 isn't really optimal at all imo. 

You basically use half of your storage for very little redundancy. 

Better go with a Raid5 or 6 or on ZFS with a z2 or z3. 

[Nick7]

1 hour ago, FloRolf said:

Better go with a Raid5 or 6 or on ZFS with a z2 or z3. 

Just a small side-note:

z1 = 1 parity (aka RAID5)

z2 = 2 parity (aka RAID6)

z3 = 3 parity (no standard RAID that has 3 parity)

[Letgomyleghoe]

7 hours ago, FloRolf said:

8 drives in a Raid10 isn't really optimal at all imo. 

You basically use half of your storage for very little redundancy. 

Better go with a Raid5 or 6 or on ZFS with a z2 or z3. 

The extra few hundred dollars, to know that if a drive fails I can just copy that block and add a new drive, really gives me a piece of mind, I enjoy having my speedy storage, and I enjoy having lots of, alot of my important files are stored on there as well as some pictures, and it would kill me to loose the, so this array made sense.

 

On a side note, one of my drives corrupted last winter, and I'm really glad I was running raid 10, I know it's not optimal, and costs alot more, but I enjoy the piece of mind

 

 

 

[FloRolf]

38 minutes ago, scuff gang said:

The extra few hundred dollars, to know that if a drive fails I can just copy that block and add a new drive, really gives me a piece of mind, I enjoy having my speedy storage, and I enjoy having lots of, alot of my important files are stored on there as well as some pictures, and it would kill me to loose the, so this array made sense.

 

On a side note, one of my drives corrupted last winter, and I'm really glad I was running raid 10, I know it's not optimal, and costs alot more, but I enjoy the piece of mind

 

 

 

I think you got the wrong idea of raid10 there mate. 

It's actually terrible. 

 

You were lucky with your drive failure because you can just tolerate 1 drive to fail with that array. 

You're also wasting 48TB of storage right now and you're not wasting them for redundancy either. 

A Raid6 would be A LOT better. It can suffer 2 drive failures before you lose data and it only wasts 24TB of storage for that. 

 

I'm running a Raidz2 myself and it has about 500mb/s read and write so it's plenty fast and easily maxes out a GBit network, hence I went 10gbit. 

 

It's just a well meant advice but I'd move away from that if I were you. 

 

 

And please keep in mind, NO kind of Raid is a backup! You said you have very important files on there that you really can't lose, so please take at least 1 more external drive that is stored elsewhere and not connected to power to actually backup your stuff. 

 

 

EDIT: just a little clarification, you could also lose two drives on your Raid10 but you'd have to be lucky that it's not two drives from the same Raid1

[Windows7ge]

9 hours ago, RadiatingLight said:

Good deal but used drives sketch me out. 

Personally I'm OK with the idea of them but I'd definitely want to setup some redundancy. RAID6 IMO.

[Dutch_Master]

+1 for a more efficient form of RAID. With 8 drives I'd suggest a RAID61 or even 51 with 2 hot-spares. (meaning: 2 RAID5 or 6 arrays in a RAID1 array) Same speed as you have now, but a much, much better redundancy level. Still not a backup solution though! Fairly easy to convert as well, even 'on the fly' if you must: dis-RAID the RAID1, then reconfigure the 4 RAID0 drives as RAID5 or 6. Then re-assemble the RAID1 again and let it work its magic. Once everything is copied from the RAID1, dis-RAID it again, then convert the remaining RAID0 to RAID5 or 6, re-assemble the RAID1 again and you're done. Using Webmin on Linux: piece of cake! (no doubt other RAID tools work equally efficient as well, I haven't tried them)

[Windows7ge]

18 minutes ago, Dutch_Master said:

With 8 drives I'd suggest a RAID61

With an even number of drives in this configuration you'd be better off with RAID10 as oppose to RAID61. You end up with the same amount of usable capacity but greater read/write performance and much higher IOPS. The same number of disks can be lost as well. You have nothing to lose and something to gain.

[FloRolf]

13 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

With an even number of drives in this configuration you'd be better off with RAID10 as oppose to RAID61. You end up with the same amount of usable capacity but greater read/write performance and much higher IOPS. The same number of disks can be lost as well. You have nothing to lose and something to gain.

We're completely high-jacking the topic right now but why would you get a Raid10 with 8 drives? To me it seems completely crazy. 

While you can lose drives (4 if I just think about it?!) they'd have to be all from the same Raid0. One of each Raid0 and you're f#cked. 

 

Compared to a Raid6 where you can lose any 2 drives but with less performance. 

 

A Raid61 on the other hand can lose 4 drives again but 2 of each Raid6 so 3 drives could already kill you. 

 

 

 

Edit: wait, can you not only make a raid10 out of 4 drives because you need 2 for a raid1 and then you Raid0 two raid1? 

Or is a raid10 a raid1 of two huge Raid0s? 

 

 

Edit2: okay so a raid10 includes multiple raid1s

In case of 8 drives you have 4xRaid1 in a Raid0, that means you can lose 4 drives, one of each Raid1, but not two drives of the same raid1

[Windows7ge]

1 minute ago, FloRolf said:

We're completely high-jacking the topic right now but why would you get a Raid10 with 8 drives? To me it seems completely crazy. 

While you can lose drives (4 if I just think about it?!) they'd have to be all from the same Raid0. One of each Raid0 and you're f#cked. 

 

Compared to a Raid6 where you can lose any 2 drives but with less performance. 

 

A Raid61 on the other hand can lose 4 drives again but 2 of each Raid6 so 3 drives could already kill you. 

If it were up to me I'd just do one 8 drive RAID6. As far as recommending RAID61 goes though there's no benefit to it over using RAID10 with in-fact a whole lot to lose. However RAID10 would only be the better option here because it's 8 drives. If he had 10, 12, 14, etc then RAID61 wold make more sense. More usable capacity, but with 8 drives you don't get any more out of it you lose 50% of the usable storage either way. Hence RAID61 would be inferior to RAID10.

 

So as you said yourself getting off the topic I'm not looking out for the situation at hand I'm making a direct comparison between two 8 drive setups and the pros/cons. I'm not recommending it to OP.

[2FA]

8 hours ago, FloRolf said:

We're completely high-jacking the topic right now but why would you get a Raid10 with 8 drives? To me it seems completely crazy. 

While you can lose drives (4 if I just think about it?!) they'd have to be all from the same Raid0. One of each Raid0 and you're f#cked. 

 

Compared to a Raid6 where you can lose any 2 drives but with less performance. 

 

A Raid61 on the other hand can lose 4 drives again but 2 of each Raid6 so 3 drives could already kill you. 

 

 

 

Edit: wait, can you not only make a raid10 out of 4 drives because you need 2 for a raid1 and then you Raid0 two raid1? 

Or is a raid10 a raid1 of two huge Raid0s? 

 

 

Edit2: okay so a raid10 includes multiple raid1s

In case of 8 drives you have 4xRaid1 in a Raid0, that means you can lose 4 drives, one of each Raid1, but not two drives of the same raid1

I'm going to quote from a comment on Jim Salter's blog.

Quote

• Your odds of surviving a single disk failure in an 8-disk pool of mirrors are 100%. (All eight disks have a redundant partner.)
• Your odds of surviving a second disk failure in an 8-disk pool of mirrors are 86%. (Of seven remaining disks, only one of them has no redundant partner, so 1/7 odds of pool failure.)
• Your odds of surviving a third disk failure in an 8-disk pool of mirrors are 67%. (Of six remaining disks, only two of them have no redundant partner, so 1/3 odds of pool failure.)
• Your odds of surviving a fourth disk failure in an 8-disk pool of mirrors are 40%. (Of five remaining disks, only three of them have no redundant partner, so 3/5 odds of pool failure.)

Rebuilding a mirror is potentially up to an order of magnitude faster than rebuilding RAIDZ2. Another thing to note is that drives get large, the chances of UREs get larger and not so insignificant. An URE on a mirror simply results in a corrupt sector that can salvaged because you still have the original copy, a URE on a stripe results in completely lost stripe because you're rebuilding parity. The longer the rebuild time, the higher the chance of encountering an URE. If you maintain a proper 3-2-1 backup strategy, you shouldn't fear a disk failure.

[Spoiled_Kitten]

1 hour ago, 2FA said:

I'm going to quote from a comment on Jim Salter's blog.

Rebuilding a mirror is potentially up to an order of magnitude faster than rebuilding RAIDZ2. Another thing to note is that drives get large, the chances of UREs get larger and not so insignificant. An URE on a mirror simply results in a corrupt sector that can salvaged because you still have the original copy, a URE on a stripe results in completely lost stripe because you're rebuilding parity. The longer the rebuild time, the higher the chance of encountering an URE. If you maintain a proper 3-2-1 backup strategy, you shouldn't fear a disk failure.

and have backups to the web like onedrive or something for extra protection.

[Nick7]

RAID6 >>>> RAID1 (10) for protection.

All storage vendors (IBM, Hitachi, EMC, Fujitsu...) for their storage systems recommend RAID6 on SATA drives, or drives bigger than 1TB.

Performance penalty vs RAID5 is about 10%, but this is alleviated by other means (tiering, cache, SSD cache or similar).

 

For best performance RAID10 is the king, and that is a fact - but it's NOT used as most reliable and safe RAID version.

 

So, if you want best performance, use RAID10. If you want your data to be safe - use RAID6.