I’ve had a Plex Server running for the last year or so with no issues. Currently it’s running on a dedicated PC with the media stored on an external USB hard drive (Western Digital Easystore 8 TB).
Running low on space now, and having some confusion on what would be best to expand? I’m pretty unfamiliar with NAS and RAID setups, but if that is the most advantageous way to store the media, I will do some homework. Should I just buy another external? Move to a NAS? RAID (whatever that may be)?
Any thoughts, opinions, expertise on which direction to move? Thanks!
Most consumer grade NAS devices are pretty simple to set up, and will certainly give you more storage space and with RAID (it’s not that big and scary, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID ) you’ll have some redundancy as well. You can also expect much faster read/write speeds, not a big deal for streaming (unless you have multiple users) but makes moving large media files around a breeze.
Just a standard NAS will be great as storage leaving your server on the PC, a NAS with the processing power to be a Plex server is a lot more complex setup and cost.
If you only have a small number of users just installing another larger external drive is going to be your lowest cost and easiest setup.
Personally if you have 8TB of data already, that is a big loss if you have a drive failure, I’d be going for a NAS for the data redundancy.
I run a 4-bay QNAP TS-431P with 4x 4TB drives as storage and a windows 10 PC as the Plex server. The 4 drives are in a raid array so I have 12TB storage, but with any drive failure I just replace the drive and it rebuilds itself with no data loss
That model only takes 4 drives - just use bigger drives (that model will take drives up to 10TB from memory), or get one with more drive bays. You can buy it with or without drives.
Essentially RAID 0 will give you the storage capacity of n-1 drives (ie 1 drive space lost to the redundancy).
Err RAID 0 has no redundancy at all. Lose any disk and all the data is gone
RAID 1 requires an even number of disks and you lose 50%
RAID 5 requires 3 disks minimum and you lose 1 disk of capacity
RAID 6 requires 4 disks minimum (I think) and you lose 2 disks of capacity
RAID 10 requires 4 disks minimum (and an even number) and you lose 50% capacity
It looks like a no brainer, RAID 5 or 6. However in the event of a disk problem they take a long time to rebuild and statistically, the most likely time for a disk failure is during a RAID rebuild. Also RAID 5 & 6 are slower (access times, write speeds etc) than RAID 0 & 10.
If you want high speed storage use RAID 0 or 10
If you want bulk storage use RAID 5 or 6
If you want really high speed use SSD’s
Also, RAID is not a backup - its redundancy. If the data is important make a backup on seperate equipment
As for memory. in general additional memory over whats used by the NAS for programs is used for file caching (a typical linux feature) - but it has minimal effect in my opinion. As Schtevo_66 said if you want to use the NAS to run virtual machines then more memory is good. Just don’t expect these virtual machines to be quick as (in general) a NAS normally has a low to moderate CPU (unless you buy high end kit). Just be aware and plan accordingly.
the thing with raid is that it works on the smallest capacity disk assuming all are the same size so mixing them up like this is not cost effective. I have not checked the effect on speed but it’s probably something similar.
Ideally all disks in the raid array are the same size and type.
As to disk storage, once you are over the limits of a single disk. Options are:
NAS - Network Attached Storage - Storage is attached to the network and accessed as a separate device.
DAS - Direct Attached Storage - like your existing USB disk - but you can buy external RAID chassis that contain more than one disk. These attach via USB, eSATA or SAS depending on the model (sometimes more than one). DAS is accessed like your existing USB drive as part of the computer its attached to.
Consider 4 bays or more (I personally am dubious of the use of a 2 bay unit and would rather buy a 4 bay, even if you only use 2 drives to start with - but that’s just me).
Agree - I started with a 2-bay Netgear NAS with 2x 2TB in Raid 5 for 2TB total, but after about 2 years upgraded to the 4-bay.
I would recommend a 4-Bay (I like the QNap, but any brand will do) and grab 4 drives as big as your budget will allow.
The OP states he has an almost full 8TB drive now I’d recommend 4x 6TB for 18TB total in raid5 or 4x 10TB drives for 30TB total if the budget will allow it.
As above also consider a 4-bay with 2x 10TB drives (total 10TB in Raid5) which gives you 2TB more than current, and add another 10TB drive each time you fill it up, less cash up front but very easily expandable
Or build a system with soft raid like unraid or FreeNas. They allow you to mix and match disk size and as long as your parity disk is as large as your largest disk in the array you are protected plus you can use SSD as a cache drive and run Plex right on it either in docker or plugin.
But if this is all new to you, you will have to spend time learning to get up to speed.
Yes. BUT, and its a big but
SSD is expensive, HDD is cheap.
SSD is “small”, HDD is “large”
You can use SSD’s in a NAS (I do for virtual machine storage) because the latency is a lot lower.
For media type files, latency is rarely an issue
To run RAID SSD’s you need multiple SSD’s of identical size. All RAID disk’s should be identical as the size of the array (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is dependent on the size of the smallest disk (with occasional exceptions) which makes large arrays of SSD’s extremely expensive.
The alternative is to use cache, or tiered storage which are sort of the same thing but the Tiered storage is probably done rather better.
In Synology or QNAP terms
Cache would be to put 1 or 2 SSD’s alongside the main HDD array (likely needed more than 4 bays). the NAS will cache commonly used data on the SSD’s to make reading quicker and when you write data will write to the SSD, returning control to the OS saying write successful earlier than if writing direct to the HDD. The NAS will then write the data to the HDD (this write cache will only happen if you have 2 SSD’s, in case of failure)
Tiered storage if a more formal mechanism. The NAS looks at how you use data, what you use, how often etc. The commonly used stuff is stored on the SSD, the stuff accessed infrequently is stored on the HDD’s. How much is stored where is dependant on the total volume of what type available. The NAS will migrate data between the multiple volume tiers as data is accessed. I don’t think Synology does this. QNAP I think does.
If you are just storing Media then caching / tiered storage is probably a waste of time.
My preference for brands is QNAP or Synology. I use both, but started with Synology and tend to use them more often than QNAP. You can build your own which is cheaper, but harder
Are there advantages of DAS over NAS or vice versa? Are the different equipment? Or is it the same - just depends on how you connect to the PC / Network?
Considering I am using a dedicates system to manage the transcode, etc - seems DAS would be simpler and more appropriate than a NAS with features to host the server, to which I would not be doing.
I understand now the QNAP and Synlogy are NAS options. What are some of the options for DAS?
“As above also consider a 4-bay with 2x 10TB drives (total 10TB in Raid5) which gives you 2TB more than current, and add another 10TB drive each time you fill it up, less cash up front but very easily expandable”
Not quite.
2 drives is either RAID 0 or 1
Not all NAS systems will allow the conversion of this to RAID 5 and may require reformatting.
Synology do a hybrid RAID - which may allow you to go from 2 to 3 (or more) disks without reformatting assuming that you start with 1 disk redundancy (note I am not certain - but reasonably sure). To be safe start with 3 disks
You can have as many disks as you like in RAID 0 - but its dangerous (to the data)
Yes DAS would be a bit simpler, and a bit cheaper (the chassis is generally cheaper). Note that the DAS is also less capable as its a slave unit and not an entire computer on its own. Limited RAID options, No SSD caching / tiered storage - but do you need it?
If picking DAS look carefully at connectivity to the computer, some come with cards, some expect you to have the port available. Also they don’t have to support RAID. You can use the OS itself to create the array (normally - but not windows 10 home which uses “Storage Spaces” instead (minimum of three disks)) if the device is JBOD (Just a Bunch of Disks) only. But that’s OS dependent
Buying either NAS or DAS can be a bit of a minefield
Thanks for the info - there’s a lot here and a lot to process. Like I said - I’m a newbie to all of this. Seems like the easiest and best place to start is a 4 Bay NAS with 4 x 6TB or 4 x 10TB in Raid 5 - but maybe I’m wrong. Someone can correct me.
I’m assuming the purchase of a 4 Bay QNap or Synology does not include the storage. Any recommendations on what Drives (Brand, etc) to pair with it?
I agree with the NAS - its more long term useful and adaptable.
Disks WD Red / Seagate Ironwolf / Toshiba N300 are generally the best NAS drives as they are designed for that use. (there are potential issues with “normal” drives in error conditions)
Stick with Synology or QNAP unless budget is a real problem. There are others, but they are less complete / capable
