Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
chconline

So I just got four WD Red 4TB drives...

78 posts in this topic

One drive fails in raid 0 every thing is gone. no redundancy

I realize that - just wondering why someone said to not do a RAID 0 with these drives in particular.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm the odd one out but I don't see the perpetual need to have the enormous amount of space some folks around here strive for

 

500GB is way more than I'd ever need. Just as an example.

 

Then again, I don't store a lot of music/pictures. Mostly just application coding.

 

Ditto!!

 

Even 100GB of music is more than a life times worth if its in MP3.

 

Although I LOVE the WD RED Line. I have a 1TB one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm the odd one out but I don't see the perpetual need to have the enormous amount of space some folks around here strive for

 

500GB is way more than I'd ever need. Just as an example.

 

Then again, I don't store a lot of music/pictures. Mostly just application coding.

 

There is nothing wrong with future proofing or just not worrying about space at all.. and he'll likely use them in a RAID setup and only end up with 8TB or 4TB anyway.

 

I've always just bought what i needed and it ends up being a nightmare... i got a 256gb SSD in my mac, i thought it would be enough but wasn't so i got a 1TB portable hdd to carry around, which is now almost full. Then i bought a PC with 1TB that is now almost full, so i bought a 240GB ssd and used the 1TB for data only.. both are now almost full and i don't have a single backup... so now it's more consolidating. waste of time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone downloads a lot of 1080p Blu-ray Disc rips (or Blu-ray Disc ISOs) :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is nothing wrong with future proofing or just not worrying about space at all."

 

Not cost effective -- if you have need of say 2TB of space today why would you buy 16TB?  So he is going to raid everyone assumes - so lets say 8TB he bought he doing 10 or 0+1, etc.  Seems pretty pricey to store what exactly - home movies?  Unless he plans on ramp up on his storage needs very very quickly 8TB if he 2 is quite a bit of growth..  Why spend $ per GB when he does not have use of the space, next month the price per GB is going to be lower, and prob the 6TB drives are out, etc..

 

Maybe he just is updating his 3TB drives because they are full, in that case ok..  Without knowing what his storage needs and use is currently it is very hard to say.

 

But I would not suggest someone buy large amounts of space today if they don't need it..  Drives are just going to be faster and cheaper next week, why buy space to sit empty.  The drive is not going to last forever as well, so buying a drive that sits empty just so it can fail with 10% of is space used is pointless waste of money.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drives are just going to be faster and cheaper next week, why buy space to sit empty.  The drive is not going to last forever as well, so buying a drive that sits empty just so it can fail with 10% of is space used is pointless waste of money.

 

Very good point, i didn't really think of that, the only reason i can think of is to avoid what i said.. constant consolidation as you fill up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But with a normal person this will be years apart, and time to prob replace the drive anyway - its out of warranty and prone to fail, etc.

 

Yes you can move up to larger disks and replace your small ones.. I jut did this myself actually, I had 2 750GB - both quite old 4 years plus..  Was getting a bit tight on space - was going to replace with 2TB, but the 3TB was only $10 more, etc. The cost per GB was more effective to go with the 3TB.  I don't see me using this up for quiet a bit of time.  If I do I would prob replace my older 2TB drive with 3 or 4 or whatever size is bigger than 2 that is best bang for the buck in cost.  It might be 4 TB SSD by then might be cheap?

 

Also as you start to get to get tight on space, its a good idea to do some house cleaning.. I have stuff in my media library that I would remove for sure before I spend more money on disks.

 

My point is nice that you have X TB online and all, but if its sitting empty just money you spent not being used that you could of spent on something you would actually use ;)  Maybe faster cpu, maybe better graphics card - maybe beer! ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16TB of HDD space ... shame there'll only be about 14.5TB of available space to use, as the operating system will report

each of those drives as having only approx. 3.6TB. My main storage drive is 2TB, but Windows says it only has 1.81TB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm the odd one out but I don't see the perpetual need to have the enormous amount of space some folks around here strive for

 

500GB is way more than I'd ever need. Just as an example.

 

Then again, I don't store a lot of music/pictures. Mostly just application coding.

 

Nope,

Not the odd one out! Even with 9 computers here, I couldn't even add them all up to 1TB! I don't think I could ever possibly come up with enough crap to store that would require that much space. In fact, I wouldn't even want to either! :wacko:

 

Biggest hard drives I own that are in a computer is 160GB in 3 of the computers. Still have 130GB's free space on those also. :)

 

I don't save squat and see no need to. Don't do backups either as I have nothing worth losing. Have never lost a hard drive either and never have to reinstall Windows! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't understand 10 base numbers vs base 2?  Makers report in base 10, while reality is base 2, and lets not forget the overhead of formatting vs the unformatted space they are reporting..  

 

1000 vs 1024 adds up when you start talking GB and TB ;)  This has been topic of debate from back when hdd first came out... 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 maybe beer! ;)

ALWAYS beer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy your new drives, I have a similar setup too on my NAS VM. Between the 4 drives I have around 3.1TB free in total.

For anyone wondering why I don?t use raid, most of the files don?t change much, and I have everything important backup up to external drives. I feel for me that?s batter as if something ever got corrupted or deleted I can simply restore it with ease.

 

iqh1xx.jpg

I personally use the space for personal digital photos, hd video, then recorded tv shows and blu-rays ive ripped. One of the drives is used for backing up the other PC's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to explain your non use of raid - it makes literately no sense in a HOME setup, where your storing stuff that does need to be online 24/7/365 because of lost revenue if not online if disk fails, etc.  As you stated you could recover your stuff from your backup, or rerip, etc. So why should you spend money for space to keep parity that you do not require.

 

I am with ya 110%  In the home I just can not justify raid for parity sake - now if you want to do 0 for performance that I can see ;)  There is just nothing that justifies the cost of parity in drive space - The critical stuff I have is backed up in multiple locations both locally, remotely and in the cloud..  If it went offline for a few days, weeks its not going to matter so why spend money on parity that is of no use.

 

You might want to look into drive pooling though just for ease of use of your storage - this allows you to present your space as 1 storage pool, so combined space with whatever shares or lack of them you want.  The software can auto balance storage across the disks on multiple algorithms.  You can set files or folders to be duplicated/triplicated/etc across the disks in the pool for say stuff you might not want to have to recover from backup or rerip, etc.

 

I use stablebit, https://stablebit.com/ and can not say enough nice things about their support and the pricing is fantastic, etc.  But there are plenty of other options out there.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta disagree on 'no use for parity in the home'; I have 4 2TB drives, with mirror'ed back ups, I'd have 4TBs to use, so I stuck them in a RAID5 parity, now I have 6TB and still am protected against a failed disk. My problem is lack of $ so I gotta maximize the storage potential while keeping in consideration that I don't want to lose the data if I can help it, and yes I realize RAID5 is not a real backup solution but it's good as I can get right now. Actually using Windows 2012's storage spaces in parity configuration in this setup for about a year now, it works well, had one disk fail about 2 weeks ago, popped a new one in, it rebuilt and I was good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I realize RAID5 is not a real backup solution but it's good as I can get right now"

 

No it is not, and you understand the larger your disks and array get, the more likely it is that you wont be able to restore from parity anyway..

 

What exactly is in your 6TB of data that can not be recovered?  Calculate the cost of your parity - you needed a raid card?, you for sure needed to buy a disk that gives you enough space to create the parity.  For what - you have clearly stated that you understand raid is not a backup.  So you have spent money to hope that if a drive fails you an recover the files from the parity - that may not even work.  What if 2 disks die?  What if your machine catches fire?  Your spending money for backup, that is not even a backup ;)  What is that not having to restore from backup buy you - a few hours of your time "maybe" down the road for non critical stuff..  Rather spend that money on beer ;)

 

And what is so critical in 6TB of data?  Unless you say home movies/pictures/something you created then I have to disagree on its critical nature in a home setup.  I have the complete Star Trek original series in my library - It would suck having to rerip it sure, would take some time.  When was the last time I watched one of those?  Would I loose anything if went away?  No not really other than some point in the future I would pop the disk back into my computer and rip it to my library again.. Because I like to have it there at my fingertips vs having to pull out the disk, etc.  Worse case scenario my house burns down.. Oh #### lost my "backup" media of ST-TOS -- what to do what to do.. Oh wait my home owners insurance, I am quite sure they have 100 if not 1000s to buy still.  Oh #### look at that new  HD version of ST-TOS on BR..  Well screw my old SD copy, now I have better copy and when I get around to it put back in my library, etc.  What was the point of spending money for parity again?  I just do not see it in the home sorry..  I would love to hear why you feel the money your short on is was best spent on parity for something that if not online 24/7 looses you what?

 

So should I spend money on parity to save me possible future time that I may or may not even spend?

 

Now you know what I can not loose - videos and pictures of my grand daughter..  Should I trust that to raid, F no as we clearly all understand raid is not a "backup"  So I have copies on multiple disks in my home, I have copies on optical media both local and my son's house that is 30 plus miles away..  You would hope that any sort of natural disaster would not take out both locations..  Now if they drop a nuke on Chicago - both places prob gone, etc..  Lets hope Amazon storage is online still in that worse case scenario ;)  The roughly 100GB of actual critical movies and pictures cost me a whole $1 a month on glacier to have my piece of mind and DR..  When it grows to the point that its more cost effective to back it up with some unlimited for price per year service - then will move it there.  Either way the money spent on actual backup of my "critical" files I assure you is way less than the cost of your disk for "parity"..

 

You mention lack of $, well your method I am fairly sure is $ not very well spent in overall safety of your critical files.  And that your storing them on RAID without a backup shows that they are not very critical in the first place - so your spending money that buys you nothing but possible loss of some future time in a rerip, redownload, etc.  For someone that has lack of $ this seems less than wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that - just wondering why someone said to not do a RAID 0 with these drives in particular.

 

Because they're very densely packed. More dense = much more prone to errors, so it's very likely that within a year, a RAID0 using 4 of these drives would lead to an error and all data being irrecoverable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man such a shame, should be going into a Synology...

Yeah I have 10 of the 3TB versions in my Synology media server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I use stablebit, https://stablebit.com/ and can not say enough nice things about their support and the pricing is fantastic, etc.  But there are plenty of other options out there.. 

Sorry to thread hack.

Besides the notifications features, what would be the difference between this and storage spaces? I ask because I've been searching for a solution for a non-cloud back up and have several HDDs (750, 320 and 250gb IRC) and this seems like a good solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol well I had 2TB of space at home. I've had it since 2010 with 3x WD Black 1TB in RAID 5 on my QNAP NAS. It's been running low for quite a while, considering it's a central file server in the house.

 

I always run RAID at home. I've definitely had disks fail before, and it's really annoying to recover should anything go wrong. Redundancy does come at a price, and it's not really that high :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 x 3TB RED drives and 2 x 2TB Green drives (upgrading all to RED soon hopefully). I only upgraded because my 4 x 2TB drives were full and the 4TB ones were crazy expensive at the time so I "settled" for 3TBs.

 

I was thinking to get another 2 x 4TB to replace my 2 x 2TB Greens but after thinking about Budman's advice on the previous page - might as well get 2 x 3TB REDs as I don't need another 3-4TB this year! Might as well save the money and then later when 6TB drives come out and I need it I can get 4TBs for "cheap" (y) :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Draconian - not sure I would consider it a thread hijack, since we are discussing lots of things related to storage.. There didn't seem to be a actual topic when the thread started other than hey I got some new toys ;) So to me the thread is free to go in any direction the discussion takes it ;)

There are advantages in drivepool has over storage spaces imho. One being ability to balance storage across disks in the pool. Another being ability to duplicate folders or files across disks in the pool. Done at file level not block level like storage spaces slabs that stripe data across the disks in the pool

Another being folder/file placement, where you can be specific on what disk a folder/file is placed in the pool. That with integration of of their scanner software, where all files can be moved off a disk that shows possible failure (if space in the pool permits of course)

While spaces does have the ability for redundancy, my understating if you want to change the mode you have to redo the whole pool. With stablebit software I can say hey this folder or file is copied to X number of disks in the pool. If I at latter time want to change that, bing bang zoom its done.

Big draw back for me with spaces vs the alternatives is I can not just take a drive out of the pool and connect it to a pc and get my files. Sure you can move the whole pool to another pc. But with stablebit for example.. I can just pop a drive out of pool and connect it to any other OS that reads ntfs and see my files in their folders with their exact name, etc. The pooling is is handled outside of the normal file structure.

With spaces all data on the disk is gone if you place it in a pool. With drivepool I can take any ntfs disk with files on it and add it to the pool while still having access to the original files, and then just move them over into the pool, etc. This makes it much simpler to implement over spaces if you ask me.

I am also not 100% sure but I believe with spaces and the use of slabs and the striping it does, etc. I don't think you can fully utilize the full space of the disks if they are different sizes.. With drivepool, I could have a 500, a 1TB or 2TB and 3TB disk all connected and get all 6.5 as space.

For the $20 cost of the software it to me just blows away what you can do with spaces from lots of different aspects. I would bundle it with their scanner software to be sure, $35 for both is killer price point. You can also just move your license over to another machine, etc.

"Redundancy does come at a price, and it's not really that high "

If your talking 1, or 10 or 0+1 sure you have a redundancy -- if your talking 5 or 6, etc. than not so much you have parity not redundant copies. You can hope that your data can be restored from the parity. Depending on the size of your array the odds get worse and worse that it will happen.

While to a company that needs its data online, I agree raid is small price to pay. When your talking non critical files in a home, that don't even really justify backup I just do see it being the best bang for the buck. But its your data, your money, etc. If you want to run raid - have fun, its interesting and sure provides some mitigation of loss of data on disk failure. I just don't believe it makes sense cost wise in the home.

The best parts about these threads that head in the direction the discussion takes them is the exchange of ideas - you have yours, I have mine lets discuss and let the readers get exposed to both points of view. To me the typical raid 5 for sure is on its last legs - as disks become bigger and bigger and cheaper and cheaper it really just is not cost effective means of mitigation of failure..

Lets make sure even if we debate over the actual definition of redundancy -- I think we can all agree it is not a "backup" which if your files are critical they should have.. A simple virus/malware infection could wipe out your whole array in a heartbeat.. Delete, corrupt, encrypt all your data -- now what does your redundancy get you? This goes for 1 or 10 not just 5.. Same goes for my "pool" - run the wrong file, get the wrong driveby and WTF my data is not there any more -- you want how much money to decrypt them ;) etc. etc. Critical files require "backup" Your copy of sound of music -- not so much ;)

Raid has a specific use, the mitigation of lack immediate access to your files on failure. For a home I don't see the need of this principle.. There is normally a very small subset of data that is "critical" and none of it really requires access 24/7/365.. If your media library is offline because of crash, what does it really matter. It's up to the user to determine if keeping their data for easy access justifies the cost of running raid. To me, it just doesn't - not in the home setup.

If I have a loss of disk in my pool, all I have to do is restore the files that were on that specific disk. Now hopefully with watching the disks for signs of failure, just change out because of more space required so I take out the old smaller and replace with faster bigger I never actually have a loss. But if I do, the files are not "critical" anyway - so I take the opportunity to put in a bigger faster drive and either restore the files I lost at some point or not. They are not critical - so maybe I don't put back that copy of ST-TOS.. Or if I do, so what if it takes 6 months?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got two of these, one 4TB and another 2TB. I wanted both to be 4 TB but these were expensive. I paid almost $200 CAD for 4 TB and $140 CAD for 2 TB. I use these in my Qnap NAS and load tons of music and movies and it works flawlessly. My next plan is to get another 4 TB and replace current 2 TB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loosing 4tb of personal data when a drive dies.  Priceless.

 

I hope your running a raid 10 or raid 5 with that.  Raid 10 would likely be more recommended as I hear bad things with Raid 5 Rebuilding and larger drivers.  I run 8x 2tb wd red drives in a Raid 50 for 12tb. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually your 2TB was more expensive than your 4..

200/4TB vs 160/2TB, so 5 cents a GB for the 4 vs 0.08 a GB for your 2..

If you really need 8, prob would of been cheaper to just wait until you could of gotten another 4 ;)

"Loosing 4tb of personal data when a drive dies"

I really doubt he has 4TB of "personal" data - more like 4TB of movies/music.. Now if they are HOME Movies, then raid is not a backup.. Better to put the money into BACKUP of that space vs spending money on some array with parity..

Raid 50, if you loose 2 disk in the same 5, you just lost the whole 12TB.. Ouch.. 8 disks is lot of chance of failure ;) Did you buy them all at the same time, are they all from the same batch? That ups the likely hood of very close failures if you ask me. What is cost of expansion of that system to say 14TB of storage vs your 12?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raid has a specific use, the mitigation of lack immediate access to your files on failure. For a home I don't see the need of this principle.. There is normally a very small subset of data that is "critical" and none of it really requires access 24/7/365.. If your media library is offline because of crash, what does it really matter. It's up to the user to determine if keeping their data for easy access justifies the cost of running raid. To me, it just doesn't - not in the home setup.

 

Of course, the structure of a home setup will vary wildly depending on the user and their specific situation. Especially the user base here on Neowin...

 

To me, ensuring my critical systems and data can survive a drive failure is important. At the very least, it helps to keep my wife happy. When you have everything in the house running via the server and network you need to ensure its continued availability even when you are away at work... Missed emails, inaccessible live tv, lost phone service, and others can be problematic...

 

I think, like everything else in tech, the user should make the choice that best fits their needs...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.