PDA

View Full Version : Joining the NAS community.



TomDac
2010-02-25, 11:42
Hey all,
I took the plunge and bought a ReadyNAS NV+ with no disks. Overstock.com has them (NEW, not refurb) for under $400 with free shipping and no tax. Got 4 750G SATA ii drives ordered and am looking forward to getting it all up and running with RAID-x config.

Anyone else using this setup that wants to give me some tips, please do so!

Glad to be here.

Tom

iPhone
2010-02-25, 14:00
Hey all,
I took the plunge and bought a ReadyNAS NV+ with no disks. Overstock.com has them (NEW, not refurb) for under $400 with free shipping and no tax. Got 4 750G SATA ii drives ordered and am looking forward to getting it all up and running with RAID-x config.

Anyone else using this setup that wants to give me some tips, please do so!

Glad to be here.

Tom

Sold mine a long time ago. My advice, if possible return it all and buy a PC or Vortexbox. Also RAID is useless these days (in this application, it just gives one the false sense that ones ripping labor is safe). RAID is not true backup. If the Server dies or takes a direct hit, then one ends up with nothing. One is better off using a purpose built server from an Atom board or PC and backing up to USB drives. This is true backup and protection. It will be more robust, more powerful, and only cost about $450 total and have true backup.

mark wollschlager
2010-02-25, 14:51
I have had the NV+ running for a bit over a year and have had few issues.
I play back mostly FLAC and mp3 files. I have seen folks complain about other formats( WMA , iTunes files ), but have no direct experience.
The primary complaint I have heard is the speed of the web interface with SqueezeServer.
It is slow. I only use it for maintenance so I don't find it a problem.
You can backup the unit to an attached USB drive for safety.
The backup disk works best( fastest) when it is formatted ext3.
As with any system you count on, use a UPS.
Upgrade the firmware to the latest, and follow the wiki pages for updating
squeezeCenter
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/SqueezeCenter_on_ReadyNAS

Turn off unused plugins in the SqueezeCenter settings.
You might look into upping the memory to 1gb, I assume it came with 256mb.
It can not hurt the performance, it probably will help.

As noted there are other paths to take if you are not satisfied with the NV+, but it does work.

Mark.

TomDac
2010-02-25, 16:56
Thanks Mark! Sounds like I will be using it pretty much like you are.

Tom

sleepysurf
2010-02-25, 19:40
Tom (funny running into you here!)... I've been using my NV+ for over a year now. No problems whatsoever, EXCEPT it's not powerful enough to run SqueezeCenter AND handle 24/96 streaming. For me that's not a major issue, as I run SqueezeCenter on my office laptop, and switch to the NV+ version only for the rare times my laptop is turned off. Nowadays, you can buy a Terabyte USB hard drive for under $100, so it's easy to have a spare backup of the NV+.

iPhone
2010-02-25, 20:56
Just to be clear, I am not saying it will not work, I am saying it is a poor choice money and performance wise. If one needs to use SoX for 24/96 files, buy something else. If you plan on having a huge collection of FLAC, again buy something else.

If its 1000 CDs ripped to MP3, sure it will work fine. I just think there are much better ways to go for less money and better performance.

kphinney
2010-02-26, 10:01
... Also RAID is useless these days (in this application, it just gives one the false sense that ones ripping labor is safe). RAID is not true backup. If the Server dies or takes a direct hit, then one ends up with nothing. One is better off using a purpose built server from an Atom board or PC and backing up to USB drives. This is true backup and protection. It will be more robust, more powerful, and only cost about $450 total and have true backup.

I almost completely disagree. RAID varies in the amount of security you are willing to live with, but it is immensely secure in even its most rudimentary forms (except RAID 0 which is meant to only improve speed, not security).

Search before you type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

How can something that requires user intervention to be more robust, more powerful as you say? RAID 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 0+1 all do this INSTANTLY.

agillis
2010-02-26, 12:48
I almost completely disagree. RAID varies in the amount of security you are willing to live with, but it is immensely secure in even its most rudimentary forms (except RAID 0 which is meant to only improve speed, not security).

Search before you type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

How can something that requires user intervention to be more robust, more powerful as you say? RAID 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 0+1 all do this INSTANTLY.

I agree with iPhone. Most system failures I have seen are from heat or electrical disturbance. Both of these will kill all your drives. Also the more platters you have spinning the higher your chance of failure.

If you need a lot of space get one 2TB drive for your systems and another one for backup. Backup your data and put your backup drive in a safe place.

Also think about this if your NV+ fails you need another one of the same model to get all your data back. If you PC based NAS fails just hook your backup drive to your PC and theirs your data.

This is why I never use hardware RAID. If you controller fails you need the exact same controller or NAS to get your data back.

RAID is not backup.

signor_rossi
2010-02-26, 14:00
... or takes a direct hit

That made me LOL, you can't describe it better.

aubuti
2010-02-26, 14:04
Search before you type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
...and in the same vein, read your own reference before you trot it out as "evidence" to support your point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_is_not_data_backup

mherger
2010-02-26, 14:18
> I agree with iPhone. Most system failures I have seen are from heat or
> electrical disturbance.

Most failures I've seen were human. Oops! Wrong file deleted. Raid doesn't protect from this. Raid is just fancy marketing in most cases.

> RAID is not backup.

Amen to that.

--

Michael

kphinney
2010-02-26, 14:18
Okay, look at it this way. You plug in your USB drive, select the data, and copy it. How often? Once a day? Fine. Do it every picosecond and you have RAID 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1

Add more drives and you can increase the fail safe.

"RAID is not data backup" had no citations and, besides that, limits the scope of failure to the RAID box. RAID can be set up between a PC and a USB drive, NAS, or off-site drive. Even considering that the box fails, the drives would (baring fire or flood) remain unharmed.

kphinney
2010-02-26, 14:44
Build an idiot proof system and I'll show you a better idiot. Nothing can stop the human screwup.

If you don't feel RAID is a method to protect data, someone had better call Google and Amazon. I'm sure they'll get right on sending their techs out with USB drives.

aubuti
2010-02-26, 14:52
I am quite sure Google and Amazon have RAID and backup. The former to avoid downtime, and the latter to protect against catastrophic loss.

fragfutter
2010-02-26, 15:53
raid is no backup. It protects you against the failure of single disks (or some more depending on raidlevels). It does not protect against user error or full system hits (power surge). It might increase performance (depending on raidlevels and controlers).

For raids with a huge amount of disks, reliability even starts to decrease again.

Honva
2010-02-28, 21:46
Raid 1 is to increase up time reliability, definitely not replacement for backup.

For squeeze server, raid 1 on NAS doesn't make much sense. For most people, listen to music is not mission critical. You are just wasting the mirrored hard drive 24/7 for the rare hard drive failure that happen once in a few years causing down time of a few hours. I don't see a great deal not having music for a few hours once in a few years. Why waste a hard drive and the electricity.

One only need Raid if running a commercial service like serving music in a lounge, motel complex, etc. Also, for others who also run other servers on the same hardware for more mission-critical tasks. However, in those situations the NAS cpu most likely not fast enough and one would need a more powerful dedicated server with raid 1 or even raid 5.

iPhone
2010-03-01, 11:30
How can something that requires user intervention to be more robust, more powerful as you say? RAID 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 0+1 all do this INSTANTLY.

You are welcome to disagree (and be foolish to believe your data is safe and backed up with RAID). The fact remains that RAID is not a total true backup system. Real backup is data storage on a completely different system whether that is Tape as in the old days or USB Drives and services like Carbonite or Mozy as today. RAID is for Banks, Credit Card companies, and other businesses that HAVE to have instant access to records or data even with a single drive failure. Even these companies that use RAID have additional real backup on alternate systems because again RAID is not backup it is data access protection against a single drive failure. Now just tell me who is going to lose business or die if their music library is off line while they do a recovery? I can answer that, nobody, not even a music addict like me.

As to my comment about more robust and more powerful, I was talking about a PC/DIY Server versus buying an NAS off the shelf. NASs are over priced and under powered, I was not referring to RAID with those comments.

RAID might be instant and automatic but is nowhere near secure as a backup system. It only makes current data available in case of a single drive failure. USB drives are so cheap now that RAID is a waste of money and is still useless since it doesn't offer true backup. Almost any true backup system REQUIRES user intervention (unlike over the Internet backup services) as that is the only way/means to secure the true backup in a safe place (tape, USB Drive) IE as in a place other then in the PC/NAS that is in use and at risk.

fragfutter
2010-03-01, 14:11
a lot of people believe in raid as a backup until they make the experience of loosing data.

business critical database server with a raid5 and hotspare. Nobody noticed until the third disk blew. Nice support task explaining them.

Netapp fileserver (wafl -> raid4). Blowing up multiple disks in two shelfs at three in the morning. After a few coffees and a restored backup, company replaced the slow backup system with a faster one. Resoning: if the system blows again we at least need to recover in less then X hours.

pounce
2010-04-04, 21:12
USB drives are so cheap now that RAID is a waste of money

Perhaps you are ignoring the fact that RAID types can take many inexpensive disks and make them act like a very large one. I don't really think the argument that USB drives are cheap is a good reason to dismiss the value of RAID.

A single USB external drive is generally limited to it's single drive capacity. If it's too small then you have trouble. It's also still a spinning disk. How redundant of a collection of USB drives should one have?

Also, don't overlook that having two NAS RAID devices with replication is a pretty typical approach to speed and redundancy.



and is still useless since it doesn't offer true backup.



RAID might be instant and automatic but is nowhere near secure as a backup system.

I think you need to split your argument and address two functions.

RAID can offer Speed greater than a single part, redundancy to prevent downtime and loss due to failures in the drives and greater overall size of your storage.

Backup offers point in time copies of your data primarily to help prevent loss of data due to failure of your primary storage or human error.

Please stop putting the two together. It's just silly. They are different things.

Yes, many people use a NAS RAID and don't backup their NAS to some other storage. Yes, some people don't understand what they are doing or should be doing to protect their data. These have nothing to do with the technology. Some people are ignorant. Some people accept the risk due to the added cost involved in greater data safety.

Generally, using a NAS with RAID offers more than a single USB drive for data safety if there isn't a backup somewhere. I seriously doubt you want to argue that point.

JJZolx
2010-04-04, 21:41
I think you need to split your argument and address two functions.

RAID can offer Speed greater than a single part, redundancy to prevent downtime and loss due to failures in the drives and greater overall size of your storage.

Backup offers point in time copies of your data primarily to help prevent loss of data due to failure of your primary storage or human error.

Please stop putting the two together. It's just silly. They are different things.

The only reason the two are put together in arguments against RAID, is that it's commonly billed as and misunderstood to be a backup solution. IMO, RAID is very seldom needed for a home music server, and for most people is a bad idea that is likely to cause them to either lose their entire library, or, at the very least, cause them unnecessary headaches managing the storage system.

The additional speed afforded by interleaved reads from multiple disks is unnecessary for audio serving. You can easily stream FLAC, for instance, to a half dozen or more players from a single 5400 RPM drive. I've never tested it, nor run the calculations, but I suspect its a lot more.

The increase in storage size of a large array is seldom needed. A $150 2 TB drive can store upwards of 5000 FLAC encoded CDs, which I'd guess covers about 99% of the general population's needs. And with larger libraries, the contiguous space may be nice to have, but isn't necessary, as you can easily use links and mount points to combine drives into an easily managed space.

The disk redundancy of RAID offers only greater uptime. Again, usually not a big concern for most people if they have to go without music for a day to restore from a backup. It may be nice to have, but at what cost? Additional disks, possibly a RAID controller or NAS system, and perhaps a lot more technical knowledge than the average person has when something actually fails and it comes time to rebuild an array or replace a controller.

pounce
2010-04-05, 05:50
IMO, RAID is very seldom needed for a home music server, and for most people is a bad idea that is likely to cause them to either lose their entire library, or, at the very least, cause them unnecessary headaches managing the storage system.



I'm sorry, but you are making some very large assumptions. Could you expand on how using RAID is a "Bad Idea"? Perhaps it would help our discussions if we focus on the Requirements and determine what is the ideal solution.



The additional speed afforded by interleaved reads from multiple disks is unnecessary for audio serving. You can easily stream FLAC, for instance, to a half dozen or more players from a single 5400 RPM drive. I've never tested it, nor run the calculations, but I suspect its a lot more.


Perhaps, but one can never have enough speed in a server. What if you wanted to move a TB of files to your server while you were listening? What if you wanted to stream to multiple end points? I'm not saying thats your requirement, but using the most simple use case to try to show RAID or even just good drive speed is not needed is sort sighted.



The increase in storage size of a large array is seldom needed. A $150 2 TB drive can store upwards of 5000 FLAC encoded CDs, which I'd guess covers about 99% of the general population's needs. And with larger libraries, the contiguous space may be nice to have, but isn't necessary, as you can easily use links and mount points to combine drives into an easily managed space.


Here I think you make assumptions that people don't do other things with their home equipment. Perhaps a person has a very large collection and wants to store the ISO's as well as multiple file formats. Maybe they have video too.



The disk redundancy of RAID offers only greater uptime.


This is an incorrect statement. RAID does provide a level of data protection in addition to uptime. Simple example to prove your statement is incorrect: If you have two drives in a RAID 1 config without offline backup and one of the two drives fail your data is still safe.

People might want to take a look at the basic RAID page on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID



Again, usually not a big concern for most people if they have to go without music for a day to restore from a backup. It may be nice to have, but at what cost? Additional disks, possibly a RAID controller or NAS system, and perhaps a lot more technical knowledge than the average person has when something actually fails and it comes time to rebuild an array or replace a controller.

It may be that you haven't looked at the prices of NAS devices lately and what sort of features they can provide. A common tech forward home these days can benefit quite a bit from a NAS device. Many allow you to run the squeeze server on the NAS in addition to UPnP/DLNA servers, scheduled backups of network computers, off-line backups to external disks, low power consumption by powering down disks when not needed etc etc.

I agree large disks are inexpensive these days. However, NAS RAID devices really are not as much voodoo as you guys are implying. I think you are doing a disservice to the members and readers here by poopooing just how useful this type of technology can be for people.