Bigger drives or more drives?

[garycase]

...  I don't think a NAS or Server is a suitable backup system if you value your data or like me don't want to spend months re-encoding all your movies.

 

Absolutely agree (as I'm sure you know).    It's simply fascinating to me that folks will build nice, fault-tolerant servers to maintain their data;  spend MANY hours over a period of months or years acquiring the data to populate them; and yet resist spending a few extra $$ to back it all up.  "I'll just re-rip, re-download, re-encode"  is a common theme amongst those who don't think they need backups -- UNTIL they actually lose some data and suddenly realize just how many hours that's all going to take.    You insure things because you don't want the expense of re-acquiring them (house, car, jewelry, etc.) ... backups are simply insurance for your data -- and pretty inexpensive insurance at that.

 

... I DO wish I was indeed "made of money"    [unfortunately that's far from the truth]

... and as I noted when that quote was first made, I have a very LOW tolerance for risk -- that is indeed WHY I keep good backups.

 

[c3]

I don't think a NAS or Server is a suitable backup system if you value your data or like me don't want to spend months re-encoding all your movies.

 

Can you describe your backup since it is not NAS or server?

[SSD]

... and as I noted when that quote was first made, I have a very LOW tolerance for risk -- that is indeed WHY I keep good backups.

 

You have an unRAID server, which is protected by parity, which protects from a single failed disk.

 

You have a backup server which is available in the event of two simultaneous failures on a complete loss of the primary server.

 

And you have backup parity that is used if a disk fails in the backup server.

 

If the primary and back up servers both fail, you are screwed.

 

And since they are both (I believe) in your house, fire, flood, or theft are the risk areas.

 

Only an offsite backup would provide provide greater security, and maybe you've already backup up some data that way.

 

But with a large array, the bandwidth necessary to make and maintain an offsite backup can be impractical.

[garycase]

... and as I noted when that quote was first made, I have a very LOW tolerance for risk -- that is indeed WHY I keep good backups.

 

You have an unRAID server, which is protected by parity, which protects from a single failed disk.

 

You have a backup server which is available in the event of two simultaneous failures on a complete loss of the primary server.

 

And you have backup parity that is used if a disk fails in the backup server.

 

If the primary and back up servers both fail, you are screwed.

 

And since they are both (I believe) in your house, fire, flood, or theft are the risk areas.

 

Only an offsite backup would provide provide greater security, and maybe you've already backup up some data that way.

 

But with a large array, the bandwidth necessary to make and maintain an offsite backup can be impractical.

 

Yes, I've said often that the one missing component in my backup strategy is an offsite backup.    I DO have offsite backups of all my personal data [financial records; scans of all important records (actually far more than you need to keep);  pictures; etc.].    But the backups of my UnRAID data are not kept offsite.  They ARE, however, rather robust.  I have 2 primary UnRAID servers -- one for media and one for "everything else".    Together they're a bit over 40TB.    These are both automatically backed up to a 3rd UnRAID server which is at the far end of the house.  In addition, there's a complete set of backups on an additional set of disks that are stored in WeibeTech DriveBoxes which are kept in a UL-certified Class 125 3-hr waterproof and fireproof safe (keeps contents below 125 degrees for up to 3 hrs when exposed to 1925 degree heat).    While not as good as an offsite backup, I feel pretty comfortable that I am FAR better backed up than the vast majority of UnRAID users  :)  [And FWIW, we live less than 2 minutes away from the nearest fire station ... so I suspect my 3 hr safe is plenty to protect against fire damage.]

 

... and EVERY disk on all of the UnRAID servers and on the extra backup disks has an MD5 checksum stored with it, so I can easily run a verification to confirm whether or not there has been any corruption of the file.

 

In addition, EVERY computer I have is protected with a good UPS.    So the likelihood of, for example, losing 2 drives at a time on more than one of the UnRAID boxes, is VERY low.

 

I stand by my comment that I have a VERY low tolerance for risk ... I think my backup strategy supports that comment 

 

[JonathanM]

 

I stand by my comment that I have a VERY low tolerance for risk ... I think my backup strategy supports that comment 

And I reiterate my original statement. It's because of your extensive backups, you seem to have a more cavalier attitude towards your primary array. If something catastrophic happens, you just restore from your backups, no stress. People without backups are more cautious with their only copy of the data.

 

Backups are extremely important. I see it on a regular basis when I am asked to recover files from my clients failed machines. I preach backups every chance I get. But most people always seem to want to get to it later, and only get religion after they've lost files.

[garycase]

... you seem to have a more cavalier attitude towards your primary array. If something catastrophic happens, you just restore from your backups, no stress. ...

 

Simply not true.  I'm far from "cavalier" about my primary array.  I'm VERY cautious with it.  I keep a detailed set of checksums so I can check it ... and do a complete validation anytime there's a sync error on a parity check (perhaps once/year).    When a drive fails (rare) I do a rebuild; then do a checksum validation of every file on the replacement.  In addition, I shut down the server until I have the new drive to do the rebuild, just to minimize the likelihood of another drive failing.  I am also VERY cautious about upgrading to new versions ... my media server is still on v4.7, since it's so rock solid, and I don't need > 2TB support on that system (clearly that will be the catalyst for upgrading it).      My other servers are on v5.0.5.  I DO have a v6 server, but that's just for "playing" with -- I won't migrate my actual data until v6 stable.  Does that seem "cavalier" to you ??

 

It IS true that if something really went haywire, my stress level wouldn't be very elevated, since I have the backups.  But maintaining the backups doesn't mean I treat the server any differently than I would even if I didn't have them.

 

 

Backups are extremely important.

 

Absolutely agree    (as you well know)

 

 

I preach backups every chance I get.

 

Ditto !!  :)

 

 

... most people ... only get religion after they've lost files.

 

Absolutely true.  Everything thinks they don't need them ... until they DO !! 

[JustinChase]

FYI, it's been my experience that buying 3 or 4 TB drives in an external case is cheaper than buying 'raw' drives.  Not much difference in price, but you get a case with the external drive purchase.  I then open the case, take out the drive, put that drive in my unRAID box to upgrade an older/smaller disk, then put the 'retired', smaller drive back into the external case, and use it for backups.  Works well for me

[garycase]

FYI, it's been my experience that buying 3 or 4 TB drives in an external case is cheaper than buying 'raw' drives.  Not much difference in price, but you get a case with the external drive purchase.  I then open the case, take out the drive, put that drive in my unRAID box to upgrade an older/smaller disk, then put the 'retired', smaller drive back into the external case, and use it for backups.  Works well for me

 

It's indeed a strange marketing twist that the external units are often sold for less.  The only "catch" is that sometimes (but not always) the warranty is shorter for the external units ... often only 1 or 2 years, compared with 3 years with most internal drives.

 

I prefer to simply buy the NAS-rated drives with 3yr warranties.  I still do what you suggested -- use any residual smaller drives as backups (I also use any RMA'd drives as backups, as I never put refurbished drives in my array) ... but I prefer to use these via caddies and store them in WiebeTech DriveBoxes, as they take up far less space than a bunch of external units.

 

[SSD]

BEWARE: Seagate has started putting custom firmware in drives destined for external drives that do not work as internal drives. See HERE.

 

The warranties are typically shorter which makes up at least some of the reason for the lower price.

 

And if you remove a drive from an external case, it can be quite difficult to put it back together for a warranty return - even if it dies during the preclear.

 

The price delta should be significant before doing this IMO. $20 or $30 is just not enough IMO.

[garycase]

Definitely agree that $20-30 is NOT enough of a price difference to make this practice worthwhile.  It's worth that much just for the extra year (or two) of warranty.  And if they're actually crippling the firmware (as is suggested in the link Brian gave) that's a VERY good reason to not use them (although I doubt that's a very prevalent practice).

 

Internal or external, I don't think it's a good idea to base your drive purchasing decisions on the absolute lowest cost/TB.    Factors like reliability; warranty; capacity/SATA slot; power efficiency; etc. should also be considered.

 

[c3]

BEWARE: Seagate has started putting custom firmware in drives destined for external drives that do not work as internal drives. See HERE.

 

Is this better or worse than WD, which removes the SATA connector? https://www.google.com/search?q=wd+usb+drive+%22no+sata%22

 

I've always suggested doing the preclear while still in the original and returnable packaging, and really knowing what is inside before shucking the drive. Saving $400-$600 per server is worth it, easily a 20% drop in build cost.

[BRiT]

 

I've always suggested doing the preclear while still in the original and returnable packaging, and really knowing what is inside before shucking the drive. Saving $400-$600 per server is worth it, easily a 20% drop in build cost.

 

No its not. It is not worth having no warranty at all, as removing drives from their external enclosure completely voids the warranty.

[c3]

 

I've always suggested doing the preclear while still in the original and returnable packaging, and really knowing what is inside before shucking the drive. Saving $400-$600 per server is worth it, easily a 20% drop in build cost.

 

No its not. It is not worth having no warranty at all, as removing drives from their external enclosure completely voids the warranty.

 

You are correct. Removing the drives from the enclosures does void the warranty.

 

I should have said the savings are worth it to me. Warranties do not protect data. I invest in additional copies of data to protect it. Lower $/TB enables that protection.