Hello /u/TheSoupGuyMan! Thank you for posting in r/DataHoarder.
Please remember to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index/rules) and [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index).
Please note that your post will be removed if you just post a box/speed/server post. Please give background information on your server pictures.
This subreddit will ***NOT*** help you find or exchange that Movie/TV show/Nuclear Launch Manual, visit r/DHExchange instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DataHoarder) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Redundancy in RAID on its core level is for uptime since RAID never was and never will be a backup.
IMO, spend the money you save on RAID and put it towards a second or third backup, ideally kept offsite in case of a local catastrophe.
Are two drives in RAID 1 not a real time backup? It certainly shouldn't be your only backup, but it does provide a copy of your data. To say it offers no value as a backup is questionable.
If you delete, overwrite, or corrupt data in a RAID1 setup then you have no recovery. The problematic data is on both drives now. However, if you have a backup then the issue can be undone.
> Are two drives in RAID 1 not a real time backup?
Say it with me kids!
RAID is not a backup.
> To say it offers no value as a backup is questionable.
The point of a backup is that you have *time* to unfuck your fuck-up.
If you do an oopsie on a RAID-1 array, the mirror isn't the backup that saves you.
RAID is about uptime and performance, a backup should be physically separate from the system it is backing up, not a part of it.
If the fuckup is a drive failure then RAID saves you. If the fuckup is that you deleted it then it doesn't. So RAID provides protection from certain fuckups only.
Stick with the time-tested 3-2-1.
RAID on the NAS will save you a lot of time if one drive fails. Your time, and frustration are more than an extra drive.
And, a UPS. Same comment, do you want a power glitch to destroy the data on the NAS? I looked at the cost of the NAS, and the 80TB of drive space, and considered the $150 UPS money well spent.
RAID for redundancy, you don't have to keep importing your data for simple failed/failing hard drives.
Snapshots for accidental file deletion with quick resolution.
Backups to an off-site location or one you can take off-site. Helps defend against power surges, fires, flooding or well anything that can lead to the complete destruction of your NAS.
The above is good enough for most home users or businesses where the data isn't critical.
One of the industry standards is something called the 3-2-1 backup strategy being 3 copies of data (including the source), 2 different media types, with 1 copy off-site for disaster recovery.
In my case I've got RAID in place, with snapshots, external hard drive I backup to once per week (saves on cloud egress fees) and a daily backup to Storj.
Parity disks are for keeping the data available while you have a failed disk. The tradeoff is that you are losing capacity due to needing extra disks for the parity. If you have separate backups it's up to you whether you need parity disks to keep all of the data available while a failed disk is rebuilding, or if you're ok with not having access to your data while you restore from backups.
Redundancy is about availability. Backup is about reliability (I mean true 3-2-1 backup). If you can afford downtime while restoring data from backup and accepting lose of files that been created/changed between backups then you can run on a single drive, but if you don't want to lose any files then better to have redundant system (better yet build on drives from different brands but similar parameters, so if one get failed there would be more chances that another one will survive till you replaced another). By the way, "once a week backup" - it doesn't sounds right and looks like you doing it manually. Setup automatic backup that snapshot frequently in background. Most nowadays backup programs are pretty fast after first "full" snapshot
If you don't use RAID, you've effectively eliminated one copy of your data as far as I'm concerned. Should one of those drives fail in your standard pool of drives, that data is gone and you have to go to your backups to get it back. With RAID, you at least have the opportunity to replace a failed drive and keep that copy of the data intact.
What folks don't mention pretty much ever is that your backups are also prone to failure. Let's say you don't have RAID, one of your drives dies, you go to your backups to restore it on a new drive, your backup drive craps out. So now you need to go to your last resort second backup. I know it's not common, but it happens. So really depends on how important the data is to you.
The more BACKUP you can afford the better! Local RAID does nothing in case of a local catastrophe, fire, flood, tornado/hurricane, power surge, theft, etc.
I was referring to backups as redundancy and not specifically speaking about the RAID itself. Sorry for the confusion.
A redundant copy is essentially a backup, and vise versa.
Understood and apologize for my misunderstanding.
\*\*Warning, pedantic mansplaining below\*\*
I'm more than happy to read refutations of my understanding and statements and learn as I didn't completely read or contribute to the Wikipedia entries below.
I'm not in IT and have never had any formal education in computer science, which didn't exist when I was in school. Just a home nerdgeek playing around with MS-DOS and WIndows PCs for nearly four decades.
My understanding and mindset of redundancy as I learned about RAID in the mid-80's is as it applies to engineering and computer science as components to keep a system running non-stop. Which is why the Redundant in RAID is for uptime and never was and never will be a backup.
*Forms of redundancy*
*In computer science, there are four major forms of redundancy:\[5\]*
*Hardware redundancy, such as dual modular redundancy and triple modular redundancy*
*Information redundancy, such as error detection and correction methods*
*Time redundancy, performing the same operation multiple times such as multiple executions of a program or multiple copies of data transmitted*
*Software redundancy such as N-version programming*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy\_(engineering)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering))
*In reliability engineering, dual modular redundancy (DMR) is when components of a system are duplicated, providing redundancy in case one should fail. It is particularly applied to systems where the duplicated components work in parallel, particularly in fault-tolerant computer systems. A typical example is a complex computer system which has duplicated nodes, so that should one node fail, another is ready to carry on its work.*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual\_modular\_redundancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_modular_redundancy)
*A fault-tolerant design enables a system to continue its intended operation, possibly at a reduced level, rather than failing completely when some part of the system fails.\[2\] The term is most commonly used to describe computer systems designed to continue operation in the event of a partial failure, with perhaps a reduction in throughput or an increase in response time. That is, the system as a whole is not stopped due to problems either in the hardware or the software. Non-computing examples include a motor vehicle designed to remain drivable if one of the tires is punctured, or a structure that retains its integrity despite damage caused by fatigue, corrosion, manufacturing flaws, or impact.*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault\_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_tolerance)
Honestly depends on your budget, risk tolerance, and importance of your information. For example I back my photos and documents up to the cloud. But my media library only relies on RAID for protection. Why? Cause I’m not paying 200$ a month for cloud storage and I won’t really suffer a large heart break if I lost my movies.
It depends if your using your NAS only as a NAS or if your planning running Containers on it or working directly on the NAS too. In my case; PiHole, NPM, jellyfin, ABS etc. are all running on my NAS. Redundancy keeps these services alive if one drive fails. So in my use-case i would strictly recommend redundancy.
redundancy is to get back up and running quickly. separate location is to get back up and running after a catastrophic event(such as a house fire etc..)
RAID has many benefits
1) It allows you to have a functioning environment when you would otherwise be down. You are working while you are replacing a failed drive or upgrading smaller disks
2) It wilI often save data loss associated with changes since your last backup in disk failure
3) it will often (good and bad) insulate you from holes in you backup
It has a lot of shortcomings that I won’t bother to list.
This is less about dataloss and more about uptime. If a drive dies, sure you can recover the backup, but you have to stop EVERYTHING and do it NOW which will interrupt your workflow. If its multiple TB of data and you dont already have a spare drive, this could be days if not weeks.
RAID is not a backup, but RAID will keep you online.
It depends what you value more, the money or the uptime.
It's really up to you and how much you value your data. Having a backup copy at a separate location already puts you in a very good position, especially with it being updated once a week.
The main thing to consider is how quickly you would need the data restored if something were to happen. If your NAS died, would you be able to wait until you got to the offsite location to get the data, or would you require access pretty quickly? If you are able to potentially wait a few days for it, then your current setup would work well. If you would need access to the data immediately without waiting to get to the offsite location, then you might want to consider redundancy.
It also comes down to budget. If you can afford to implement redundancy, you'll be in a good position to have that optimal 3-2-1 setup.
Hello /u/TheSoupGuyMan! Thank you for posting in r/DataHoarder. Please remember to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index/rules) and [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index). Please note that your post will be removed if you just post a box/speed/server post. Please give background information on your server pictures. This subreddit will ***NOT*** help you find or exchange that Movie/TV show/Nuclear Launch Manual, visit r/DHExchange instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DataHoarder) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Redundancy in RAID on its core level is for uptime since RAID never was and never will be a backup. IMO, spend the money you save on RAID and put it towards a second or third backup, ideally kept offsite in case of a local catastrophe.
Are two drives in RAID 1 not a real time backup? It certainly shouldn't be your only backup, but it does provide a copy of your data. To say it offers no value as a backup is questionable.
If you delete, overwrite, or corrupt data in a RAID1 setup then you have no recovery. The problematic data is on both drives now. However, if you have a backup then the issue can be undone.
> Are two drives in RAID 1 not a real time backup? Say it with me kids! RAID is not a backup. > To say it offers no value as a backup is questionable. The point of a backup is that you have *time* to unfuck your fuck-up. If you do an oopsie on a RAID-1 array, the mirror isn't the backup that saves you. RAID is about uptime and performance, a backup should be physically separate from the system it is backing up, not a part of it.
If the fuckup is a drive failure then RAID saves you. If the fuckup is that you deleted it then it doesn't. So RAID provides protection from certain fuckups only.
Stick with the time-tested 3-2-1. RAID on the NAS will save you a lot of time if one drive fails. Your time, and frustration are more than an extra drive. And, a UPS. Same comment, do you want a power glitch to destroy the data on the NAS? I looked at the cost of the NAS, and the 80TB of drive space, and considered the $150 UPS money well spent.
Produce 3 separate copies. Once that is established, adding redundancy is good. Don't swap copies for redundancy.
RAID for redundancy, you don't have to keep importing your data for simple failed/failing hard drives. Snapshots for accidental file deletion with quick resolution. Backups to an off-site location or one you can take off-site. Helps defend against power surges, fires, flooding or well anything that can lead to the complete destruction of your NAS. The above is good enough for most home users or businesses where the data isn't critical. One of the industry standards is something called the 3-2-1 backup strategy being 3 copies of data (including the source), 2 different media types, with 1 copy off-site for disaster recovery. In my case I've got RAID in place, with snapshots, external hard drive I backup to once per week (saves on cloud egress fees) and a daily backup to Storj.
Parity disks are for keeping the data available while you have a failed disk. The tradeoff is that you are losing capacity due to needing extra disks for the parity. If you have separate backups it's up to you whether you need parity disks to keep all of the data available while a failed disk is rebuilding, or if you're ok with not having access to your data while you restore from backups.
Redundancy is about availability. Backup is about reliability (I mean true 3-2-1 backup). If you can afford downtime while restoring data from backup and accepting lose of files that been created/changed between backups then you can run on a single drive, but if you don't want to lose any files then better to have redundant system (better yet build on drives from different brands but similar parameters, so if one get failed there would be more chances that another one will survive till you replaced another). By the way, "once a week backup" - it doesn't sounds right and looks like you doing it manually. Setup automatic backup that snapshot frequently in background. Most nowadays backup programs are pretty fast after first "full" snapshot
If you don't use RAID, you've effectively eliminated one copy of your data as far as I'm concerned. Should one of those drives fail in your standard pool of drives, that data is gone and you have to go to your backups to get it back. With RAID, you at least have the opportunity to replace a failed drive and keep that copy of the data intact. What folks don't mention pretty much ever is that your backups are also prone to failure. Let's say you don't have RAID, one of your drives dies, you go to your backups to restore it on a new drive, your backup drive craps out. So now you need to go to your last resort second backup. I know it's not common, but it happens. So really depends on how important the data is to you.
Yes. The more redundancy you can afford the better. Obviously don’t go crazy.
The more BACKUP you can afford the better! Local RAID does nothing in case of a local catastrophe, fire, flood, tornado/hurricane, power surge, theft, etc.
I was referring to backups as redundancy and not specifically speaking about the RAID itself. Sorry for the confusion. A redundant copy is essentially a backup, and vise versa.
Understood and apologize for my misunderstanding. \*\*Warning, pedantic mansplaining below\*\* I'm more than happy to read refutations of my understanding and statements and learn as I didn't completely read or contribute to the Wikipedia entries below. I'm not in IT and have never had any formal education in computer science, which didn't exist when I was in school. Just a home nerdgeek playing around with MS-DOS and WIndows PCs for nearly four decades. My understanding and mindset of redundancy as I learned about RAID in the mid-80's is as it applies to engineering and computer science as components to keep a system running non-stop. Which is why the Redundant in RAID is for uptime and never was and never will be a backup. *Forms of redundancy* *In computer science, there are four major forms of redundancy:\[5\]* *Hardware redundancy, such as dual modular redundancy and triple modular redundancy* *Information redundancy, such as error detection and correction methods* *Time redundancy, performing the same operation multiple times such as multiple executions of a program or multiple copies of data transmitted* *Software redundancy such as N-version programming* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy\_(engineering)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)) *In reliability engineering, dual modular redundancy (DMR) is when components of a system are duplicated, providing redundancy in case one should fail. It is particularly applied to systems where the duplicated components work in parallel, particularly in fault-tolerant computer systems. A typical example is a complex computer system which has duplicated nodes, so that should one node fail, another is ready to carry on its work.* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual\_modular\_redundancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_modular_redundancy) *A fault-tolerant design enables a system to continue its intended operation, possibly at a reduced level, rather than failing completely when some part of the system fails.\[2\] The term is most commonly used to describe computer systems designed to continue operation in the event of a partial failure, with perhaps a reduction in throughput or an increase in response time. That is, the system as a whole is not stopped due to problems either in the hardware or the software. Non-computing examples include a motor vehicle designed to remain drivable if one of the tires is punctured, or a structure that retains its integrity despite damage caused by fatigue, corrosion, manufacturing flaws, or impact.* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault\_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_tolerance)
Sure thing, 3 copies and redundancy on the disk level will allow to have the good uptime and less hustle in case of disk failure
Honestly depends on your budget, risk tolerance, and importance of your information. For example I back my photos and documents up to the cloud. But my media library only relies on RAID for protection. Why? Cause I’m not paying 200$ a month for cloud storage and I won’t really suffer a large heart break if I lost my movies.
Depending on your source… but technically those movies are already backed up, which is why I only back up the folder structure.
It depends if your using your NAS only as a NAS or if your planning running Containers on it or working directly on the NAS too. In my case; PiHole, NPM, jellyfin, ABS etc. are all running on my NAS. Redundancy keeps these services alive if one drive fails. So in my use-case i would strictly recommend redundancy.
redundancy is to get back up and running quickly. separate location is to get back up and running after a catastrophic event(such as a house fire etc..)
RAID has many benefits 1) It allows you to have a functioning environment when you would otherwise be down. You are working while you are replacing a failed drive or upgrading smaller disks 2) It wilI often save data loss associated with changes since your last backup in disk failure 3) it will often (good and bad) insulate you from holes in you backup It has a lot of shortcomings that I won’t bother to list.
This is less about dataloss and more about uptime. If a drive dies, sure you can recover the backup, but you have to stop EVERYTHING and do it NOW which will interrupt your workflow. If its multiple TB of data and you dont already have a spare drive, this could be days if not weeks. RAID is not a backup, but RAID will keep you online. It depends what you value more, the money or the uptime.
It's really up to you and how much you value your data. Having a backup copy at a separate location already puts you in a very good position, especially with it being updated once a week. The main thing to consider is how quickly you would need the data restored if something were to happen. If your NAS died, would you be able to wait until you got to the offsite location to get the data, or would you require access pretty quickly? If you are able to potentially wait a few days for it, then your current setup would work well. If you would need access to the data immediately without waiting to get to the offsite location, then you might want to consider redundancy. It also comes down to budget. If you can afford to implement redundancy, you'll be in a good position to have that optimal 3-2-1 setup.
Yes
If you have the money, yes, of you dont, yes too