The attached image is the closest thing I can find for good data on hard drive fail rates as BackBlaze does a published annual comparison/release. Do keep in mind that these are more than likely enterprise level drives which are more reliable than consumer ones, but you will not really find any major comparisons with good data sets with consumer drives since even a small business will eventually switch from consumer grade (if started with it) to enterprise as business grows that is why it is hard to find. Also keep in mind that these drives pretty much will have no downtime besides when maybe they are getting maintenance done throughout the year which is also why it is good data set. So even IF a enterprise level drive is 10x less error prone than a consumer at a pretty much 99% uptime of reading/writing you are look at what 11% for a Seagate 8TB. *please keep in mind my 10x is a guess and I do not think the difference is this high if you have never had a hard drive fail on you before then a NAS drive is even less likely because even a consumer one is rated for a higher workload than a standard HHD* Synology and Seagate (or whatever company drive you choose) also has built in software or software available to keep regularly of drive health so the likelihood of sudden failure is slim and you can see when it detects a drive showing signs of failure for you to get a replacement whether that be through warranty or a new one if past warranty.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NAS or mini + external storage?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, yes, but NASs start a lot cheaper than a Mac Mini - which was the alternative.
The main point about "RAID" and eggs in baskets is that whatever you do you'll want to keep backups, and multiple layers of backups if you're serious. My opinion is that while RAID mirroring is technically more reliable than a single disk, there are too many exceptions for it to replace a layer of backup and it isn't worth the price for a "home" setup.
Hi @cthompson94 have you had a chance to test? In particular, I want to know:
If iPad and iPhone store different photos and videos, does the NAS/Synology Photos treat them as files from the same source/device and lump all the photos and videos together and then categorize accordingly
or
the NAS/Synology Photos treat them as backup files from two different sources/devices. For example, it creates one folder for ipad and one folder for iPhone. Then copy all photos/videos from iPad to the photos/videos in the backup folder for iPad and all photos/videos from iPhone to the photos/videos in the backup folder for iPhone.
If iPad and iPhone store different photos and videos, does the NAS/Synology Photos treat them as files from the same source/device and lump all the photos and videos together and then categorize accordingly
or
the NAS/Synology Photos treat them as backup files from two different sources/devices. For example, it creates one folder for ipad and one folder for iPhone. Then copy all photos/videos from iPad to the photos/videos in the backup folder for iPad and all photos/videos from iPhone to the photos/videos in the backup folder for iPhone.
Completely agree with this advice.
It is more cost effective in a home environment to redirect redundant RAID drives to multiple backups. Multiple backups, done regularly and stored offsite, are the best and cheapest insurance against data loss. In the event of a data loss at home you can just as easily restore from a backup as you could rebuild a RAID arrray. And, as you have pointed out, if multiple drives in the redundant RAID go down, then you have an expensive rebuild. Oh, and you better have some extra drives (another expense!) on hand for that rebuild otherwise you may be waiting for awhile.
Yeah, simple, cheap NAS with lots of backups is the way to go. Now I need to take that advice myself and retire that old energy hogging PC I have been using as a file server. I also have my old 2009 MP with all that wonderful ECC ram that would work great as a server but an even bigger energy hog. But which NAS?
Last edited:
Depends upon the size of the backup. In my case we're talking about days to do a complete restore of ~65 TB of data even over a 10 GbE or Thunderbolt connection. The system would be down the whole time. A RAID rebuild usually allows you to continue to use the system during the rebuild if a disk fails.
Yes, if you care about the data you need a 3-2-1 backup strategy.
Sure if (a) you need 65TB of contiguous storage that can't be split over several volumes and/or (b) system downtime costs you $$$/hour - then RAID might make sense. In particular (b) is what makes up for having to buy more drives to get the same storage space. That's not an issue for many home/small business setups.
The point is that RAID is part of your 3-2-1 backup strategy the way Cap'n Crunch is part of your nutritious breakfast.
You're paying for no/reduced downtime in a few 1-2 disc failure scenarios (or, sometimes, increased read performance that is mainly useful for multi-user server loads) but doing very little to alleviate all the other threats that could knock out your entire 65TB.
It's also something that depends on whether you're running an informal home network with half a dozen drives - where you might not see a 'random' drive failure before the NAS gets knocked off the shelf and peed on by the dog or a lightning strike takes out everything - or managing a data centre - presumably dog-free & surge protected and generally well housed - where you're dealing with failed drives on a regular basis simply because you've got hundreds of the things.
Right, but I am talking home network. I have just south of 8TB of audio/video data that I stream regularly from an old pc to a macmini in the downstairs media room (images/documents are handled separately). The audio and video files each get their own 4TB HDD with corresponding backup drives. If one goes down, I simply replace it with the backup drive. Very little down time.
Some years ago I had about the same amount of data but 4TB drives were the max you could get and were expensive. So, I had no choice but to pool smaller drives in various raid schemes. And backing up was a pain. Had to split them up on smaller drives and/or backup to port multiplication (remember them? what fun!) external boxes. Much easier now. But if I had to manage your 65TB of data, well, Tiny Tim wouldn't be getting his operation.
Last edited:
How would volume splitting help? The major limitations are the number of drives which affect the read/write limits, the interface capacity, and the system hardware capacity. Don't think more volumes would change these variables.
Not sure I understand why you would buy more drives for the same storage space. Isn't the normal scenario to buy a drive to replace a failing one or to expand storage space.?
There is way to guarantee no failures. You just have a plan in place if it happens.
The threats I plan for, in descending order, are disk failure, power failure, earthquake, enclosure failure. Disk failure risk is reduced with RAID, power failure is covered by UPS. Earthquake and enclosure failure fall into the catastrophic category.
I'm sort of in-between running ~36 drives.
Same here.
You're less likely to have 65TB of storage wiped out in one go and have to spend days restoring the whole shebang from backup. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket unless you have a good reason for needing them all in one basket.
Because that's what you have to do with RAID - either 2x as many for mirroring or extra drives/space for parity. Unless you go for RAID 0 which increases the risk of failure.
That's ignoring software failure - bugs, user error, malware etc. which can trash an entire RAID set. Plus, RAID is no good for recovering accidentally deleted files.
Also, the chance of disk failure depends on how many disks you have - and are pretty low if you only have a handful of disks, while most of the other potential failures don't - and might even be higher in a domestic environment c.f. a properly run data centre... and the backups you need to mitigate those other risks are good for restoring failed drives too.
Nope.
Get your point. Thought you were referring to transfer speed rather than restore time. Not practical however as these are all media server files delivered by Plex or SMB. Splitting between volumes would just cause problems.
True, did leave out firmware and other software failures as well as accidental deletions. In my case deletions are only done by Carbon Copy Cloner when populating from master so not an issue. Since the NAS is not the master copy deletions are covered by Master copy backup policy.
All I am saying is that RAID provides some additional protection, when used with multiple firewalls both hardware and software means that I can't say "wish I had done that" if there is a failure. I've built in as much protection as is feasible, RAID 5 being just one piece of the puzzle.
Ah, though you were referring to adding drives after setup. Obviously on setup additional drive(s) have to be allocated.