N00b configuration questions about NAS.

[Peat Moss]

I've never owned a NAS or any kind of multi-bay external drive before. I'd like to get a NAS for syncing and backing up all my data.

What I think I'd like to do is get a 4 bay NAS and have it configured in the following ways:

1. one bay for all my personal files, photos, music, etc
2. two bays for video editing files (note: I haven't started doing any video editing yet, I'm just trying to think ahead for what I might need)
3. one bay (4th bay) containing a drive that is 3 times the capacity of the other 3 drives, and use it as an archive drive that is written to by either a) my PC, b) or by the other 3 drives using NAS software..

In other words, configure 4 bays showing as 4 separate drives. What I'd like to do is use the 4th bay drive to back up the other 3 drives. Then remove the 4th bay drive and store it off site for a week or a month, and then put it back in the NAS to update it again. (repeating this procedure on a regular basis).

Could someone kindly tell me if this is possible?

If so, can I partition the 4th drive into 3 volumes to help distinguish and separate my files into 3 categories?

Also, would I sync my data from my PC to the 4 separate NAS drives? Or would I configure the NAS software to sync all 3 drives to the 4th drive?

Thanks.

 

[Grentz]

What you would actually be better off doing is setting up a couple of the drives as a RAID in the NAS. This will protect from a drive failure.
You can achieve the second layer of protection, a true offsite backup, by simply connecting an external drive to the NAS routinely.

I actually do this with my Synology NAS and it works very well and is supported by the Synology backup software.

So I have 2 mirrored arrays (each have 2 drives). Then I have a USB drive I plug in every month or two and using the Synology backup software, run a sync. (you can essentially setup different backup jobs in the software right on the NAS)

 

[travm]

multi bays are for redundant drives. use raid - then when one of the drives eats it, you don't lose data. Ideally this would be where you keep your backups.

 

[Peat Moss]

What you would actually be better off doing is setting up a couple of the drives as a RAID in the NAS. This will protect from a drive failure.
You can achieve the second layer of protection, a true offsite backup, by simply connecting an external drive to the NAS routinely.

I actually do this with my Synology NAS and it works very well and is supported by the Synology backup software.

So I have 2 mirrored arrays (each have 2 drives). Then I have a USB drive I plug in every month or two and using the Synology backup software, run a sync. (you can essentially setup different backup jobs in the software right on the NAS)

Interesting, thanks. So maybe use like a RAID 1 or RAID 10, and use all 4 drives for storage? And then back these up to one ;large capacity external drive via cable from the rear ports?

 

[Grentz]

Interesting, thanks. So maybe use like a RAID 1 or RAID 10, and use all 4 drives for storage? And then back these up to one ;large capacity external drive via cable from the rear ports?

Bingo

Also you can setup separate storage locations on the same array so you can better flex space vs trying to separate storage by physical drives.

 

[Peat Moss]

Bingo

Also you can setup separate storage locations on the same array so you can better flex space vs trying to separate storage by physical drives.

Can I sync files from one drive on my PC to two (or more) drives on a NAS? I'm not exactly sure how syncing to a multi-bay drive works.

 

[Grentz]

When you setup a RAID or Disk Array the NAS manages the duplication seamlessly. You just see the single destination folder.

So long story short, yea the NAS takes care of it.

 

[SamirD]

What you would actually be better off doing is setting up a couple of the drives as a RAID in the NAS. This will protect from a drive failure.

multi bays are for redundant drives. use raid - then when one of the drives eats it, you don't lose data. Ideally this would be where you keep your backups.

I actually don't use raids and don't recommend them. There's the issue of re-creating a volume and even in the case of raid1, it's still not the same as a plain drive that can be read elsewhere (especially with a synology).

I think your initial drive solution is the best--this way you don't even need a nas and can just use an external DAS if you want. And if you do use a NAS, you'll need to be aware of how to read the drive in the event the NAS itself dies--that's a failure point no one here is accounting for.

The only thing I would change in your initial configuration is to maybe have a second drive for bay 4 so you effectively just swap them between the off-site storage so each drive gets a proper amount of use to keep it in good shape. ime drives with little use and a lot of poh tend to fail prematurely.

 

[Peat Moss]

I actually don't use raids and don't recommend them. There's the issue of re-creating a volume and even in the case of raid1, it's still not the same as a plain drive that can be read elsewhere (especially with a synology).

I think your initial drive solution is the best--this way you don't even need a nas and can just use an external DAS if you want. And if you do use a NAS, you'll need to be aware of how to read the drive in the event the NAS itself dies--that's a failure point no one here is accounting for.

The only thing I would change in your initial configuration is to maybe have a second drive for bay 4 so you effectively just swap them between the off-site storage so each drive gets a proper amount of use to keep it in good shape. ime drives with little use and a lot of poh tend to fail prematurely.

Thanks so much. Yeah, I want to keep my set up as simple as possible and not have to spend weeks learning a NAS OS. But I don't see any other way of syncing my files efficiently and simultaneously across my PC and my laptop. I want to avoid cloud based systems like Google and OneDrive.

I've been looking into SyncBack (https://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare-simple.html) where I could just use a DAS. But I'm not exactly sure if it will do what I want.

 

[LukeTbk]

if you will always access the file from the same computer, harddrive could be getting big enough that the solution:

2 big external USB drive, (the second one ot back up the first) could do the trick in a very straight forward way, use folder instead of different drive.

RAID like is nice if you need really fast performance (if you are on regular 1gb Ethernet can be of limited value quick) or ability to continue to run in case of drive failure in a commercial setting, but for personal file like this ? I think we all know people that had a personal computer that had a false sense of security coming from a raid 1 in their computer that lost everything, it is a very dangerous form of backup.

Right now the bigger the drive the cheaper they tend to be:

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/external-hard-drive/#sort=ppgb&page=1

The 3 cheapest (in $/gb) are 20,24 and 18 TB drives, making the low number of large harddrive solution not only simpler/cheaper on the computer side of things to run it, but also of the harddrives side as well.

The first drive would be cheaper than the empty Synology device and you could automate the backup process or do it manually while keeping the drive in a different enough room if the data get really valuable.

But NAS can get really nice the moment you get in a scenario of a more than a device accessing the files, but your need could be quite simple, specially if the active work file will be directly on a fast ssd on the local machine.

 

[Peat Moss]

I want to be able to do this (or get close to doing this) without Google Drive or OneDrive or possibly even without a NAS. But I want to create a seamless or near seamless syncing experience. Perhaps with some sort of peer to peer software or connected via cable. I've looked at SyncThing, but it seems really abstruse and overly complex.


View: https://youtu.be/nvfv5z03YkU?si=uLUSl2WRLmAYD2Qf

 

[SamirD]

Thanks so much. Yeah, I want to keep my set up as simple as possible and not have to spend weeks learning a NAS OS. But I don't see any other way of syncing my files efficiently and simultaneously across my PC and my laptop. I want to avoid cloud based systems like Google and OneDrive.

I've been looking into SyncBack (https://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare-simple.html) where I could just use a DAS. But I'm not exactly sure if it will do what I want.

You're welcome. I actually use the KISS principle on anything I can. And you have one of the best sync programs available right in windows--robocopy:
https://ss64.com/nt/robocopy.html

 

[MrGuvernment]

I actually don't use raids and don't recommend them. There's the issue of re-creating a volume and even in the case of raid1, it's still not the same as a plain drive that can be read elsewhere (especially with a synology).

I think your initial drive solution is the best--this way you don't even need a nas and can just use an external DAS if you want. And if you do use a NAS, you'll need to be aware of how to read the drive in the event the NAS itself dies--that's a failure point no one here is accounting for.

The only thing I would change in your initial configuration is to maybe have a second drive for bay 4 so you effectively just swap them between the off-site storage so each drive gets a proper amount of use to keep it in good shape. ime drives with little use and a lot of poh tend to fail prematurely.

The accounting for, is the 3-2-1 backup rule, a single NAS should not be the only source of important data.

Doing a proper NAS and using their built in raid methods, is better for redundancy and performance along with removing bad bits (ZFS for example) and you can get to use included tools they often have. I have a QNAP that is 7 years old, still going strong, I have a TrueNAS system, going strong. When something dies, it is usually the hard drives, not the QNAP/Synology device it's self.

Not sure how many people have had to take a single drive out of a NAS and connect it to another system to recover data, and if they did, they are not doing proper 3-2-1 backups anyways so they created their own single point of failure.

If they went wit TrueNAS they could take all their drives, move them to a new system, and import the config and done, have full access to everything again...

 

[LukeTbk]

(ZFS for example)

That not what we mean by raid too (or maybe it is so much more common than RAID 1, 5, etc... that what people mean by it now ?), that a complete file system that bring a lot of extra value over the simple drive copy. Performance can be a nice boost, but if you are working with large video file on a 1gb ethernet, a new single regular harddrive will ~double that speed I think, sustain 200MB/s is not exceptional anymore.

I want to be able to do this

If you want to be able to do this without the 2 (or more) computer always running and ready to sync at all time you will need a NAS for sure, QNAP and Synology offer solutions that look a lot like what described:

https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/feature/drive
https://www.qnap.com/en/software/qsync
Simply install the Qsync Central app to use your NAS like a private cloud storage environment (such as Dropbox®, Microsoft OneDrive®, or Apple iCloud Drive®) for real-time file sync and sharing without compromise. Your NAS centrally stores files and distributes them across all your authorized devices. With the companion Qsync utility on your computers and Qfile Pro mobile app on your phones, your devices are linked with the NAS for file syncing and keeping shared files/data up-to-date.

That maybe you will find easier to setup than a SyncThing, and if you are to buy a NAS anyway and not build your own box for it....you can always try their own solution that come with.

 

[MrGuvernment]

That not what we mean by raid too (or maybe it is so much more common than RAID 1, 5, etc... that what people mean by it now ?), that a complete file system that bring a lot of extra value over the simple drive copy. Performance can be a nice boost, but if you are working with large video file on a 1gb ethernet, a new single regular harddrive will ~double that speed I think, sustain 200MB/s is not exceptional anymore.


If you want to be able to do this without the 2 (or more) computer always running and ready to sync at all time you will need a NAS for sure, QNAP and Synology offer solutions that look a lot like what described:

https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/feature/drive
https://www.qnap.com/en/software/qsync
Simply install the Qsync Central app to use your NAS like a private cloud storage environment (such as Dropbox®, Microsoft OneDrive®, or Apple iCloud Drive®) for real-time file sync and sharing without compromise. Your NAS centrally stores files and distributes them across all your authorized devices. With the companion Qsync utility on your computers and Qfile Pro mobile app on your phones, your devices are linked with the NAS for file syncing and keeping shared files/data up-to-date.

That maybe you will find easier to setup than a SyncThing, and if you are to buy a NAS anyway and not build your own box for it....you can always try their own solution that come with.

Ya, for sure, was just more relating it to most NAS systems like QNAP/Synology/TrueNAS use nix based options to do their raid (Raidz et cetera) vs the typical hardware raid most are used to thinking (Raid 0//5/6/10)

 

[SamirD]

The accounting for, is the 3-2-1 backup rule, a single NAS should not be the only source of important data.

Doing a proper NAS and using their built in raid methods, is better for redundancy and performance along with removing bad bits (ZFS for example) and you can get to use included tools they often have. I have a QNAP that is 7 years old, still going strong, I have a TrueNAS system, going strong. When something dies, it is usually the hard drives, not the QNAP/Synology device it's self.

Not sure how many people have had to take a single drive out of a NAS and connect it to another system to recover data, and if they did, they are not doing proper 3-2-1 backups anyways so they created their own single point of failure.

If they went wit TrueNAS they could take all their drives, move them to a new system, and import the config and done, have full access to everything again...

Yes, thank you for bringing that up as 3-2-1 is what really should be done, whereas most people will get a single nas, use raid, and then complain about the rebuild times, data loss, or both.

I do like it how truenas is 'portable' like that since it is not dependent on any specific hardware. Most of the open source NAS platforms are like this too.

 

[SamirD]

That not what we mean by raid too (or maybe it is so much more common than RAID 1, 5, etc... that what people mean by it now ?), that a complete file system that bring a lot of extra value over the simple drive copy. Performance can be a nice boost, but if you are working with large video file on a 1gb ethernet, a new single regular harddrive will ~double that speed I think, sustain 200MB/s is not exceptional anymore.


If you want to be able to do this without the 2 (or more) computer always running and ready to sync at all time you will need a NAS for sure, QNAP and Synology offer solutions that look a lot like what described:

https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/feature/drive
https://www.qnap.com/en/software/qsync
Simply install the Qsync Central app to use your NAS like a private cloud storage environment (such as Dropbox®, Microsoft OneDrive®, or Apple iCloud Drive®) for real-time file sync and sharing without compromise. Your NAS centrally stores files and distributes them across all your authorized devices. With the companion Qsync utility on your computers and Qfile Pro mobile app on your phones, your devices are linked with the NAS for file syncing and keeping shared files/data up-to-date.

That maybe you will find easier to setup than a SyncThing, and if you are to buy a NAS anyway and not build your own box for it....you can always try their own solution that come with.

ZFS is simply something that Truenas (and some others?) have as an option. Personally, I don't like them as it again comes back to 'who determines what the uncorrupted/correct bit is? I would rather have 3+ copies of the data myself and make that determination personally (as I have done for decades now). Still zfs does add one more element of availability to a storage volume that's already running raid for additional availability.

Personally, I see the proprietary solutions by these companies starting to have growing pains from the constant phone, etc updates that break their solution so they also have to play update game and then the other problem is a completely locked ecosystem. It's a lot more safe imo for these to be just simple files on a drive somewhere that can be easily accessed.

 

[Peat Moss]

Has anyone here used Unraid? I'm looking for something simple, an OS that's easy to learn. Is Qnap's QTS easy to learn?

 

[Peat Moss]

Thanks everyone.

I decided I probably don't need a NAS. I should be able to get by with syncing software and a multi-bay external HDD.

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

Has anyone here used Unraid? I'm looking for something simple, an OS that's easy to learn. Is Qnap's QTS easy to learn?

I vote for Synology and I’ve used Qnap and Unraid. Synology was the easiest to learn and was seamless. In fact Synology reminds of Apple in the sense that it’s basically set it and forget it. And the OS is easy to learn and very well supported. They have a very robust support community.

But yes a DAS plus some copy software would probably achieve what you seem to want.

 

[kirbyrj]

I vote for Synology and I’ve used Qnap and Unraid. Synology was the easiest to learn and was seamless. In fact Synology reminds of Apple in the sense that it’s basically set it and forget it. And the OS is easy to learn and very well supported. They have a very robust support community.

But yes a DAS plus some copy software would probably achieve what you seem to want.

I'm actually going the other way. Moving from Synology to Unraid. I'm kind of outgrowing 5 bays, and I don't like what I'm seeing with the branded drive requirements for higher end devices. From what I've seen on a trial basis, Unraid isn't that hard to learn. It's just different.

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

I'm actually going the other way. Moving from Synology to Unraid. I'm kind of outgrowing 5 bays, and I don't like what I'm seeing with the branded drive requirements for higher end devices. From what I've seen on a trial basis, Unraid isn't that hard to learn. It's just different.

There are pros and cons to each. They threatened branded drives when the 2024 models were first teased and quickly retreated. No doubt they are testing the waters but I doubt they’d shoot themselves in the foot like that.

With high capacity drives 5 bays isn’t too much of a limitation imo.

Also having multiple synology boxes that back each other up relatively seamlessly is nice. But you pay for that simplicity. I’m sure other solutions can do similar but it would require a fair bit of configuration.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Synology and QNAP do offer applications to connect to external services also like backblaze and others with supported methods, so they can make it pretty easy to back up to a cloud provider for cold storage.

Synology does tend to get more votes for generally better OS/UI and feel vs QNAP.

TrueNAS has also partnered with HexOS which is supposed to create a really dumbed down UI with TrueNAS backend which could be nice for people. https://hexos.com/

 

[kirbyrj]

Synology and QNAP do offer applications to connect to external services also like backblaze and others with supported methods, so they can make it pretty easy to back up to a cloud provider for cold storage.

Synology does tend to get more votes for generally better OS/UI and feel vs QNAP.

TrueNAS has also partnered with HexOS which is supposed to create a really dumbed down UI with TrueNAS backend which could be nice for people. https://hexos.com/

The problem with TrueNAS in my use case (from what I can tell) is that it doesn't let you add single drives easily. Synology...I just added a disk. When I ran out of space, I could take out the smaller disk and add a bigger one. Looks like Unraid is similar. I'm somewhat more unlikely to just go out and buy 8x20TB+ drives than I am to add them one at a time when I run out of room and have extra cash for example. I used to do the same thing with Stablebit Drivepool a few years back and Windows Home Server before that.

But maybe I'm missing something with TrueNAS.

 

[MrGuvernment]

The problem with TrueNAS in my use case (from what I can tell) is that it doesn't let you add single drives easily. Synology...I just added a disk. When I ran out of space, I could take out the smaller disk and add a bigger one. Looks like Unraid is similar. I'm somewhat more unlikely to just go out and buy 8x20TB+ drives than I am to add them one at a time when I run out of room and have extra cash for example. I used to do the same thing with Stablebit Drivepool a few years back and Windows Home Server before that.

But maybe I'm missing something with TrueNAS.

You can do that with TrueNAS but it depends on how you configure your vDevs, some methods will allow it, other configurations do not.

Synology and that certainly make it easier to do which is what makes them more appealing for most users who dont want to tinker around.

 

[LukeTbk]

I should be able to get by with syncing software and a multi-bay external HDD.

If you have no issue with the computer connected to the multibay to be always open and available to sync the work yes (that computer become a NAS for the other)

 

[kirbyrj]

You can do that with TrueNAS but it depends on how you configure your vDevs, some methods will allow it, other configurations do not.

Synology and that certainly make it easier to do which is what makes them more appealing for most users who dont want to tinker around.

I'll have to play around with it. I don't mind trying unraid but the $250 price tag is kind of steep for what I would use it for.

 

[Peat Moss]

After looking around at USB external storage drives and reading reviews, and comments on other forums, it seems the general opinion is that the USB connections on multi-disc external storage units can be somewhat unreliable, and that it's recommended to use ones with thunderbolt. But thunderbolt DAS boxes seem to be just as expensive as turn-key NAS boxes. And the multi-bay DAS boxes I've seen so far have very mixed reviews. There's no positive consensus around any models.

So I may end up back looking at NAS options after all.

 

[kirbyrj]

After looking around at USB external storage drives and reading reviews, and comments on other forums, it seems the general opinion is that the USB connections on multi-disc external storage units can be somewhat unreliable, and that it's recommended to use ones with thunderbolt. But thunderbolt DAS boxes seem to be just as expensive as turn-key NAS boxes. And the multi-bay DAS boxes I've seen so far have very mixed reviews. There's no positive consensus around any models.

So I may end up back looking at NAS options after all.

I was kind of in this predicament, and I'm just rolling my own NAS with a Jonsbo N case (N1 through N5 for different form factors available). If I didn't do that, I'd probably have ended up with one of the Ugreen NAS boxes. You can use your own OS on them.