Flood göndermek, insanların floodlarını okumak ve diğer insanlarla bağlantı kurmak için sosyal Floodlar ve Flood Yanıtları Motorumuza kaydolun.

Oturum aç

Flood göndermek, insanların floodlarını okumak ve diğer insanlarla bağlantı kurmak için sosyal Floodlar ve Flood Yanıtları Motorumuza giriş yapın.

Şifremi hatırlamıyorum

Şifreni mi unuttun? Lütfen e-mail adresinizi giriniz. Bir bağlantı alacaksınız ve e-posta yoluyla yeni bir şifre oluşturacaksınız.

3 ve kadim dostu 1 olan sj'yi rakamla giriniz. ( 31 )

Üzgünüz, Flood yazma yetkiniz yok, Flood girmek için giriş yapmalısınız.

Lütfen bu Floodun neden bildirilmesi gerektiğini düşündüğünüzü kısaca açıklayın.

Lütfen bu cevabın neden bildirilmesi gerektiğini kısaca açıklayın.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Preferred way to store backed up data centrally? RAID 1?

Hi,I work at a lab, and we’ve got about 10-20 TB of data across several windows machines, that we’d like to store centrally, and with redundancy, so if we were to lose the data it could be regained quickly. The person requested has said no to cloud storage. They want:

* About 10-20 TB Capacity, that can be expanded up later if so desired (by adding additional discs)
* ‘Reasonable’ (yeh, not sure what that constitutes) performance. But it’s relatively low data rates realistically.
* Local storage only
* Should appear as any other network drive might on the writing PC. So mounted like NAS.
* Automatic backup of data to the second local location (Maybe adding an automatic cloud backup in the future)
* Used as a common data repository for 7 different PCs (in 3 different rooms)
* ‘System needs to use Ethernet for primary access’. (Though worth noting, will only be accessible on an internal network – data security and all that)

Huge read/write speeds aren’t a big issue since we won’t need to move data on or off constantly, we just need to know it’s there and access it here and there.

I initially read around and figured RAID 10 might be what he wants, I took to r/buildapc to check my thinking and they seemed to think RAID is not what we wanted at all, and was more for uninterrupted workflow than it was to keep data backed up automatically and centrally, and that instead a series of external drives would be better. I took that back to him, and he said he agreed that most RAID levels don’t apply here, but RAID 1 would be highly applicable, because it offered ‘perfect redundancy’ and not to bad performance. I see what he’s getting at, but I’m not sure I agree – maybe JBOD a series of drives instead?


* Is RAID 1 a good solution to this problem, or is there something better out there?
* How do I identify if 1 disc in the RAID 1 has failed and another needs adding?
* I seem to find mixed information, is RAID 1 expandable beyond 2 discs? i.e. can you set it up with Disc A and Disc B mirroring it, and then adding Disc C to the volume and Disc D to add to the mirror?

Thanks for any help, new to all the RAID stuff, and trying to get my head around it.

Benzer Yazılar

Yorum eklemek için giriş yapmalısınız.

6 Yorumları

  1. The modern CPU is powerful enough to dispense with the need for RAID cards. Such cards are still marketed with server hardware were there card has 4 minSAS headers that fan out into 16 disks.

    Low cost NAS boxes with 8 disk bays are ideal for 99% of media library needs etc.

  2. If you want a commercial off the shelf solution for disk redundancy that handles expansion automatically you should look into Synology. You can do better than Raid 1 for multi-disk arrays. Pick SHR-2 with a 4 bay NAS and you can survive any two simultaneous disk failures. Raid-1 with a 4 bay will survive 2 disk failures only sometimes, depending on which disks fail. SHR is based on raid-5 and adds automatic expansion features and works perfectly fine with mixed disk sizes, and will give you the maximum possible storage space while maintaining survivability with 1 or 2 disk failures (SHR-1 or SHR-2)

  3. Is it just gigabit ethernet?

    Why not buy a of the self NAS? They often come with backup software and are easy to maintain. You can often just add a disk or two to extend them.

    If you use 4x 12 TB disk, as in 2 times raid1 and both of the raid get combined with a raid0, then you could lose all your data if the wrong 2 disk die.

    You could also do 2x raid 1, and combine the 2 mirrors with some kind of JBOD. That why you potentially only lose half the data if both disk of the same mirror fail.

    Any reason not to go for raid6 / raidz2? For example 6x 10 TB, for about ‘ish 40 TB of data (a bit less with overhead etc.) 3 Disk need to fail to lose data.

    And if you want to expand it add an additional 6 disk. So you have 2x (raidz2 with 6 disk each)

  4. There first up seems to be confusion as to what RAID actually is and how different RAID levels work.

    RAID 1 is a set of disks (2 to n) which all contain a mirror of the data that is stored onto the array, if you have 5 disks in a RAID1 you have ALL the data on each one of those 5 disks.

    RAID10 is a combination of mirrors (RAID1) and stripes (RAID0) laid out in a particular way. That way beinf that 2 to n RAID1-Arrays are treated as members of the overlying RAID0. This setup allows for redundancy while allowing for some more performance. Your last part on first having a mirror of disk A and B and later adding disk C and D for more storage space describes that I think.

    Secondly you describe redundancy as being a way to “quickly regain” data in the case of data loss. That is mixing up redundancy with backup. Redundancy means either a hardware controller or some software is make sure that the data can still be accessed and worked on in a case of drive failure (depending on RAID level and layout this could be several disks). The failed disk can be swapped and the data that was on it rebuilt. This ensures uninterrupted access to the data. Redundancy does NOT protect i.e. of accidental deletion of data since it will be deleted on all mirrors, that is what backup is for.


    As far as I can tell from your information a NAS with 4 or 6 bays might do the trick (like a Synology or QNAP), starting out with the minimal requirement of 10TB by going with a 2-disk mirror and later adding 2 more disks when needed. These can make the data accesible through a number of sharing options including SMB/NFS and more for different type of systems.

  5. You don’t need RAID for backups. It has nothing to do with backups. But if it makes you feel better, go for it.

    What is needed is at least three backup copies.

    On at least two different types of storage. (One type might be a RAID array in the network. A NAS.)

    And at least one of the copies stored remotely, so if the house is swallowed by a sink hole, or burn up, you still have a backup.