Hard drive/storage solution help wanted

[DownhillGoat]

I want to have a media server set up, and I'm looking at options for HDD storage and am sort of out of my realm.

The ultimate plan is to have a boxee box, WD live, Mac mini or something of the sort as a front end, that's still up in the air.

What I'm looking for first, is storage options to put media on.

Must haves:

- USB compatible
- 8-10TB capacity
- Mac compatible
- Low price point

Nice to haves:

- Network capability

I've been looking at some different solutions, but everything I've found seems to point me towards a RAID setup, which I've go no experience with. I'm not even really sure of the pros to using RAID. Hoping some of the tech oriented CPers could point me in the right direction.

[Rathji]

So ideally, you want a single device on the network to handle the drives and media serving?

Drobo would be what first comes to mind.

The other option is build a cheap PC (or take your existing one), and either:

- plug in one (or 2)of these external raid enclosures with a couple of these 3 TB drives in each, you can set those drives as RAID1 (or a couple more like RAID0 or JBOD that you wouldnt really want to use) with toggle switches, so it is VERY easy.
- toss a bunch of hard drives directly inside it. Most motherboards can support 4+ drives, but the problem would be having enough room to mount them internally, so make sure the case you get has room or you find some brackets to use 5.25 drive bays with your 3.5" drives. The RAID software in windows 7 is pretty good and would save you finding a hardware raid controller, and is pretty straightforward once you find your way into Disk Management.

RAID 1 (or RAID5) both essentially give you a small measure of redundancy to ease your pain in recovery in terms of a disc failure. It is not a backup solution, but it essentially mirrors drive content without using the full space (ie 2x 1 Tb drives give you about 1.33 TB of drive space when set up in RAID 1 )

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Was looking for pretty much the same as you, but network connectivity was big for me. Looked at a Drobo, but the networked version is ridiculously overpriced.

Ended up with a Synology DS 411j - so far so good. Great user community - amazing what this little thing will do (i.e. - ability to hook up IP cameras and record video, in addition to the obligatory NZB and torrent downloads).

http://www.kitguru.net/site-news/ann...ds411j-review/

[photon]

Yeah I've got a 411j as well, not the fastest drive out there but fast enough to serve media and stuff. Would hold 8TB with 4x2TB drives without any RAID.

I have mine doing RAID with mirroring, so that if one drives dies the other will still be ok. That only protects partially, but I also have the important stuff backing up to Amazon S3 automatically from the 411j.

[Rathji]

That DS411j looks pretty sweet.

Actually to the point where I now officially need one~

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by photon

Would hold 8TB with 4x2TB drives without any RAID.

Originally Posted by Rathji

plug in one (or 2)of these external raid enclosures with a couple of these 3 TB drives in each, you can set those drives as RAID1 (or a couple more like RAID0 or JBOD that you wouldnt really want to use) with toggle switches, so it is VERY easy.

I don't think it has to be a server so much (wouldn't need software to stream, etc unless I do in fact go with a networked solution). While setting up a PC with 4 drives would probably be the more robust option, I would then have to worry about compatibility between the mac that I use for daily use, whatever I use for a front end in the home theatre, and then the windows file server.

What's the advantage of RAID1 vs JBOD? Let's say I went with a dual or quad bay external enclosure, could I use JBOD to make it appear as one drive, and have a duplicate setup for a backup drive?

[Rathji]

JBOD will support one continuous drive, but with no redundancy. You get maximum space this way, but your backup option, which is better than RAID1, would be more costly.

If you use RAID1, you lose 33% 50% of your disk space but get built in redundancy for a reduced cost, but you would then need another backup solution.

[photon]

You don't even really need software on the NAS to stream, I just meant that the different devices (Mac, PS3, PC, Hardware media player, whatever) can just read the file share directly and read the media file. From that point of view I don't think there'll be any compatibility issues; my MacBook Pro reads my 411j fine, I can play media files off it if I like.

So it was more just referring to the file serving portion rather than streaming software running on the NAS. Though it does do some of that kind of thing as well for streaming to iPhone or something like that (for the Synology anyway).

Not having it networked would be a crime IMO, it's just way too useful. I have my NAS in my furnace room, and I can access my media files directly on a file share with my PC, Mac, PS3, WDTV (and Xbox if I turn on the UPnp thing). Plus the file sharing is great, I can backup all my computers to it, no worries about multiple copes of files, etc.

Plus it works as a Time Machine endpoint, so you can backup to the 411j over the network.

RAID1 vs JBOD, RAID1 gives you the partial redundancy of mirrored drives, while JBOD doesn't give any redundancy. Some devices might support mirrored JBOD groups, but I don't think I've ever specifically read something like that. If they don't then you'd have to have some kind of other solution doing backups between the two groups of drives.

To me drives are pretty cheap, so better to just go with a large capacity.

If 3GB mirrored isn't enough per volume then you could go with RAID 10, where it mirrors the drives, then stripes the mirrored set to give you 6GB per volume with 4 3GB drives.

Synology also has what they call Hybrid RAID which seems like some kind of cross between RAID and JBOD, more flexible I guess.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If you use RAID1, you lose 33% of your disk space but get built in redundancy for a reduced cost, but you would then need another backup solution.

I think that's wrong. RAID 1 is you lose all but one drive. RAID 5 is you lose one drive. RAID 6 is you lose two drives.

RAID 1 works as long as one drive is operational. RAID 5 requires all but one drive to be operational. RAID 6 requires all but two drives to be operational.

Typically, RAID 1 is only used on 2 drive arrays, so you lose 50%.

If you're going with 4 drives for storage, I'd use RAID 5. 75% of capacity is available, you don't need extra speed and everything's safe from disk failure.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by photon

Not having it networked would be a crime IMO, it's just way too useful. I have my NAS in my furnace room, and I can access my media files directly on a file share with my PC, Mac, PS3, WDTV (and Xbox if I turn on the UPnp thing).

True. If I'm doing the setup I may as well do it properly. I was just thinking in terms of cutting the costs down.

However I just realized that I should be able to use the cheaper solution in an external raid enclosure (no network support), and plug it into the USB port on the Airport Extreme, which would both cut costs and allow for network support. Looking at the links from MemEx, I'm thinking I should be able to get 6TB of storage (not as much as I was hoping, but I might be able to wrangle some things around) in a RAID enclosure for less than $400. Double that for a backup copy down the road and it's not too horrendous a price tag.

Unless of course I wouldn't get the speed required with that method.

If I were to take a look at the 411j, is there anywhere in Calgary that distributes them? The only dealers I saw on their website were in Ontario.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

True. If I'm doing the setup I may as well do it properly. I was just thinking in terms of cutting the costs down.

However I just realized that I should be able to use the cheaper solution in an external raid enclosure (no network support), and plug it into the USB port on the Airport Extreme, which would both cut costs and allow for network support. Looking at the links from MemEx, I'm thinking I should be able to get 6TB of storage (not as much as I was hoping, but I might be able to wrangle some things around) in a RAID enclosure for less than $400. Double that for a backup copy down the road and it's not too horrendous a price tag.

Unless of course I wouldn't get the speed required with that method.

If I were to take a look at the 411j, is there anywhere in Calgary that distributes them? The only dealers I saw on their website were in Ontario.

Just order from ncix.

http://www.ncix.ca/products/?sku=565...ology%20Inc%2E

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think that's wrong. RAID 1 is you lose all but one drive. RAID 5 is you lose one drive. RAID 6 is you lose two drives.

RAID 1 works as long as one drive is operational. RAID 5 requires all but one drive to be operational. RAID 6 requires all but two drives to be operational.

Typically, RAID 1 is only used on 2 drive arrays, so you lose 50%.

If you're going with 4 drives for storage, I'd use RAID 5. 75% of capacity is available, you don't need extra speed and everything's safe from disk failure.

I used to agree with you, but I am pretty sure we bought one of the enclosures I linked in my previous post last year at work and it formatted with an extra 33% than what i expected (ie 66% of the total of both drives).

I will check when I go in today, and would be very happy if you were correct because it really bugs me that I think it is otherwise.

edit: Yeah, its not the RAID1 drive that had the extra capacity, so ignore my 33% thing.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

True. If I'm doing the setup I may as well do it properly. I was just thinking in terms of cutting the costs down.

True, the nas does add more, theyre not super cheap. They'll last you a long time tho.

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Double that for a backup copy down the road and it's not too horrendous a price tag.

That'll work too though you'll have to leave a computer on with some software to do the backup. And you still lose 50% of drive space, same as if you'd gone raid1.

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Unless of course I wouldn't get the speed required with that method.

That might be an issue, it should be ok for light duty or playing just one high def file, but multiple users or playbacks at the same time might be too slow, you might need to research a bit to see if anyone has done that.

USB 2 isn't all that fast.

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

If I were to take a look at the 411j, is there anywhere in Calgary that distributes them? The only dealers I saw on their website were in Ontario.

Yeah those or ncix. I ordered mine from out east fine.

[photon]

RAID1 is 50%, since it's just mirroring, making a complete copy.

RAID5 or 6 can be more space efficient because they store parity data, at the cost of speed. Most home nas units would be slower with raid 5-6

Raid 10 is best for speed and redundancy but is 50% drive as well.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

RAID1 is 50%, since it's just mirroring, making a complete copy.

RAID5 or 6 can be more space efficient because they store parity data, at the cost of speed. Most home nas units would be slower with raid 5-6

Raid 10 is best for speed and redundancy but is 50% drive as well.

Just verified that on my drive here. Makes me feel a lot better that I wasnt losing my mind.

[GoFlamesGo89]

Originally Posted by photon

Plus it works as a Time Machine endpoint, so you can backup to the 411j over the network.

Just want to follow up on this point-- does it require the hack to allow OSX to see network drives for time machine or is the disk visible by default? I have a Dlink NAS which time machine doesn't see natively (at least in snow leopard, haven't checked lion), and I'd be tempted to look into this unit if it was bait smoother.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

RAID5 or 6 can be more space efficient because they store parity data, at the cost of speed. Most home nas units would be slower with raid 5-6.

Worth mentioning that some 3D stuff on the web has double the bitrate of 1080p60. Still seems to play fine of externals though.

I don't think RAID5 would ever be the bottleneck (not sure why it would be slower - I guess the parity calculations are slower than than writing to disk?). Would RAID ever be slower than USB?

[Hack&Lube]

Newegg's Shellshocker today is this (may bring up keyboard, scroll over to the other deal)

http://www.newegg.ca/Special/ShellSh...7-_-08162011_1

SATA 150 & 300
4 x Hot-Swappable 3.5" Drive Bays
JBOD (Hard drives are accessed individually)

$74.99

A very simple but economical and elegant in my mind solution. The biggest downside is the drives are accessed individually but for a media server/NAS, that should be no problem right?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Newegg's Shellshocker today is this (may bring up keyboard, scroll over to the other deal)

http://www.newegg.ca/Special/ShellSh...7-_-08162011_1

SATA 150 & 300
4 x Hot-Swappable 3.5" Drive Bays
JBOD (Hard drives are accessed individually)

$74.99

A very simple but economical and elegant in my mind solution. The biggest downside is the drives are accessed individually but for a media server/NAS, that should be no problem right?

Seems like a decent enclosure for the price.

You would either need to add a raid controller or do it with software - is that even possible with Port Multiplier eSata?

[ZedMan]

Note that that enclosure is eSATA only and uses port multiplying, so it requires that you have an eSATA port that supports multiplying, and unless you have a 3rd party eSATA card your port(s) probably don't.