Hi, I’m trying to work up the energy to redo my server setup and I’d just like to have a quick discussion based on what I’m looking for.
Right now I have an HP Envy (HP ENVY Laptop - 17t touch Best Value (Y7C72AV_1)) with four daisy-chained drives (1.81, 3.63, 3.63, and 4.54 TB) and I’ve got it plugged directly into my gigabit router. It works fine, I’ve had some complaints lately of playback errors but for the most part things have been smooth.
I have about 30 total users, maybe 15 or so active daily.
My main problem is that I’m running out of storage space (1 TB free out of 13.5) and I don’t have anything backed up. If a drive fails, I’d lose tons of content. I would like to solve both problems, so my first thought was increasing my usable storage to somewhere closer to 30 TB and then in order to back it up I assume I’d need to have another 30 TB dedicated to backup? So would 60 TB in total?
And if I do, I assume I don’t want to just keep buying drives and plugging them into each other, so I probably need a NAS. Since this would be my first foray into NAS, I know that Synology is always touted here as being a good option, but I’m wondering if I’m better off going with an 8-bay one and using my 4 current drives and adding new ones, or if it’d be cheaper/better to get a 4-bay NAS, toss my current drives, and get like four 10 TB drives or something. I’m seeing the 10 TB NAS drives listed for 279 here (https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-IronWolf-10TB-Internal-Drive/dp/B085ZB51HW) or here’s a 5-bay Synology that also comes with 50 TB here (Synology 50TB DiskStation DS1520+ 5-Bay NAS Enclosure Kit with)
I’m comfortable, but not thrilled, spending somewhere around 2k on this, but obviously would be pretty fired up if I could pull this off for closer to 1k. I know this is all expensive tech and I’m asking for a lot, so maybe that 50tb option for 2k is the best I can do. But also maybe it’s not entirely necessary? idk, that’s why I wanted to post here. Anybody got any wise words for me?
FYI, I have been running Seagate IronWolf drives for the last 4 years and only had one fail, which happened in the 1st month, and was originally supplied by a different supplier.
That drive was replaced under warranty and I’ve never had a problem yet!
Further, the online backup company Backblaze, recently released their drive failure report, and the drives that failed the least over the last year were the 6TB Seagate IronWolf’s…
Now for your problem… I had a similar issue, running low on space, and had to add an additional 4 drives to my USB3 RAID box. Unfortunately the unit would not recognize the drives, as I had already been running 4 in a RAID 10 array.
The manufacturer advised I needed to factory reset the device in order to be able to introduce the new drives.
This meant I needed to copy all of my 10TB of content off of my current array, reset the device, add the additional drives, and copy my content back on.
And to do that, I had to buy an additional 12TB drive (equates to 10.9 TB formatted) to do the job.
So now I have 2 RAID10 arrays in my box, and 1 single backup drive the equivalent size of the smallest array.
In the next few months, I will then buy another drive the equivalent size of the larger array, and will then do regular monthly backups of each array.
Lastly, you will not be able to put your existing drives into a NAS and keep the content, as the NAS will want to format the drives, so you will also need to copy your content off before you can do that.
I was actually a little surprised by their results, as many people seem to hate the Seagate drives, however I have had great results with them, and this report simply confirms I made a good choice!
It’s the same as with all statistics… they’re no good for you if you’re the 1 case that fails. They’re still helpful to see trends or get some general guidance.
I do like their remarks in the comment section where they also admit that it’s not just about the HDD – it’s about how they used them (e.g. linking some of the failure rate reductions to less large HDDs being transported/moved for migrations (e.g. because they better managed their load and there’s been less “movements” due to COVID lockdowns). Same for the sweet spot in their HDD’s lifecycle (bad apples are already gone, older/lower-capacity versions that “survived” are mostly the “good ones”)
This almost certainly goes back to their arguably-questionable decision to sell a bunch of 3TB drives back in 2011 that mostly failed. It really hurt their long-term reputation, as seen from your perception of what people think of Seagate.
BTW, heads up to those looking for hard drives, there are concerns that large drives are about to get far more expensive soon. The prices are reportedly already skyrocketing in China.
Oh hell yeah! That is, if you want to ensure you don’t lose any content!
One last bit of advise… If you do go down the route of a NAS, please do ensure you buy NAS drives for the unit, and don’t skimp on price by buying cheaper desktop drives.
NAS drives are specifically designed to work in a device with multiple drives, as the more drives you put in a device, the more vibration can start to occur.
NAS drives are designed to withstand and accommodate for the vibration.
Yeah thanks, I linked to one drive model in the original post that’s a NAS drive. I’m just really worried that I’m gonna blow a bunch of money on a setup that won’t end up working, so I’m trying to talk through all the angles first. I may just bite the bullet and buy the 2k one that comes with the 50 TB drives…
