Technical Discussion
  >> Hardware Issues


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


  Print Thread
Standard User metalhead41
(knowledge is power) Fri 20-Jan-12 16:49:54
Print Post

RAID for NAS


[link to this post]
 
Just a quick question, I have just purchased a 4 bay NAS that supports RAID 0/1/5/6/5+Spare/JBOD. I was thinking of configuring it as RAID5 but would it be better to configure it with 3 disks in the array plus 1 hot spare or use all 4 disks in the array with no spare?

All disks are 2TB so I understand the 3 disk array will give me 4TB and a 4 disk array will give me 6TB of storage.

----------------------------------------------------
We may be human But we're still animals

My Blog | follow me @metalhead41 | Surfin' Bird Dance
Standard User camieabz
(sensei) Fri 20-Jan-12 17:03:34
Print Post

Re: RAID for NAS


[re: metalhead41] [link to this post]
 
Do you need more than 4TB?

Assuming it is a hotswap setup, and the system is mission critical, I would go with the least drives (cost and lesser failure chance, and less power used and heat generated for that matter). If you can put up with downtime, and you want the extra space, get four and order more if it goes down.

If you want space and no downtime, four plus spare.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

All Connection Data ~ plusnet

Scottish Labour politician: “The SNP are on a very dangerous tack. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the border in a number of areas.”

Interviewer: ”Is that a bad thing?”

Scottish Labour politician: “No, but they are doing it deliberately.”
Standard User mixt
(experienced) Fri 20-Jan-12 17:08:28
Print Post

Re: RAID for NAS


[re: metalhead41] [link to this post]
 
All about risk and how important your data is.

If you do RAID 5 with one spare, I would imagine when a drive fails, it immediately spins up the spare disk and starts returning the array to a redundant state. You can then remove the failed disk, and bung in another one ready for the same event to happen again.

If you skip the spare, then there will be a period where the array is in a non-redundant state until you replace the failed disk and it rebuilds it again.

Swings and roundabouts. Personally, I would do a RAID 5 setup on a 4 drive NAS. If you had 8 drives, then RAID 6 is another option (you can lose two drives) or even RAID 6 + spare, but with only 4 drives, I would skip the spare option.

Now on <aaisp.net> (21CN)
Previous ISPs: Virgin Media (50Mb/Cable), Be* Un Limited, ZeN
Is Linux routing your internet connection?
Need to make BIND geo-aware?


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Spasch
(fountain of knowledge) Fri 20-Jan-12 17:08:49
Print Post

Re: RAID for NAS


[re: metalhead41] [link to this post]
 
I have a 4 bay NAS unit and run in RAID 5 with 4 2TB disks. If 1 drive fails the system will run in a degraded state until the drive is replaced. If 2 disks fail, the data is toast, but I'm okay with that.

Also, you'll actually only have about 5.5TB of available space as your 2TB drive isn't really 2TB..
Standard User metalhead41
(knowledge is power) Fri 20-Jan-12 20:29:32
Print Post

Re: RAID for NAS


[re: mixt] [link to this post]
 
This is what I was thinking, instead just have a coldspare incase of failure...

----------------------------------------------------
We may be human But we're still animals

My Blog | follow me @metalhead41 | Surfin' Bird Dance
Standard User metalhead41
(knowledge is power) Fri 20-Jan-12 20:30:46
Print Post

Re: RAID for NAS


[re: Spasch] [link to this post]
 
Just for simplicity I said 6TB, but it goes without saying that it would actually be a bit less than that smile

----------------------------------------------------
We may be human But we're still animals

My Blog | follow me @metalhead41 | Surfin' Bird Dance
  Print Thread

Jump to