I went back to Synology after my uper-nas crashed and burned (really bad run of 3TB Seagate drives, 9 out of 12 dead in under 3 years)... Now debating between a 4x8TB or 5x6tb in a future nas box.
I went back to Synology after my uper-nas crashed and burned (really bad run of 3TB Seagate drives, 9 out of 12 dead in under 3 years)... Now debating between a 4x8TB or 5x6tb in a future nas box.
Some retailers have even started to sell the 3TB Seagate drives at almost the same price as the 2TB ones. Probably the only way to get rid of them.
Also, back blaze statistics only apply if you're operating at back blaze's scale. If you're making a home NAS you would have to be _incredibly_ unlucky to hit a bad drive as quickly as back blaze did. I
I absolutely agree though, the 4TB are a great improvement, you can't beat them for reliability unless you're really willing to pay for it. I've chosen them for my personal NAS and some servers even with great results so far.
First, buy good drives. Buying desktop drives that suck are a great way to end up with a corrupt SAN. In general you want drives that support TLER so if something goes wrong, you hear about it right away, rather than the drive trying to fix the problem silently while causing the disk to have long delays. You don't have to go super expensive enterprise, but buying from the bottom of the barrel, or is a 'green' or efficient drive is a great way to lose data.
Second, no matter if you are using hardware or software raid, set up the monitoring utilities properly. You need an immediate alert if a drive is going bad or has failed. SMART should be enabled and when it alerts, replace the drive. The software should also do a verify, patrol read, or scrub (different terms for the same thing) that occasionally check the surface media of the disk and the validity of the data. If anything comes back with an error, you replace the disk right then.
Lastly, one of the big issues why people lose raids all at once is they go out and buy a huge stack of the same kind of disk, made on the same day, with the same firmware, and possibly the same inattentive QA person. Sometimes when problems crop up, it can be a systemic problem with that model, and when all you have is one model, bye bye everything.
Yeah, I've recovered several failed drives without issue, even on LVM systems where some partitions failed because they were striped but others worked because they were mirrored. No real issues overall.
The only case where you might run into problems is when you get conflicting data between 2 drives, but I've never seen that happen in the real world. Some people will scare you into thinking that happens often but it hasn't been my experience. Often one drive just goes kaput completely or has an entire section which is completely unreadable or extremely slow, for which recovery is just a matter of marking that drive offline, swapping a new drive in and telling it to rebuild. The only case in which you lose everything is if you use RAID0. If you can do RAID10 that's the way to go IMO.
RAID5 can be a little riskier because if one drive is damaged and one fails then you can wind up losing the bunch, but I use it on my personal NAS because it's mostly just TV and the important stuff is syncthing'd to my other machines. Regular scrubbing prevents these issues usually.
RAID5 can be pretty risky with large drives that are the same type.
>conflicting data between 2 drives, but I've never seen that happen in the real world
Heh, run enough servers and you'll see everything eventually. Had a really fun one where a hardware raid card was telling us that writes were successful, but when data was coming back corrupt. It was writing bad data to two of the drives in the array.
if you want to learn more about this topic, come on over to www.reddit.com/r/datahoarder and read and ask about it. We're friendly.