1019+ on the way. Planning set up. Should I use SHR or Raid 6? Any reason not to have just 1 volume?

[slobdiddy]

Hi there... I am excitedly preparing for my new toy to arrive and want to be able to get it up and running ASAP after it arrives.

I have watched some setup vids and there's a choice to make between 2 disc safety options on SHR (Quick set up) and Raid 6. I will have 5x 8TB, with 2 disc safety = 24 TB. What are the differences (if any) and which is better for me?

My use case is small business plus personal use for 4 family members, Plex server (lots of 4K vids and also some home vids), and QuickConnect remote (overseas) access for read-write in one folder per family member.

I want to keep things simple and think I only need one volume and don't really understand the advantages of going to more than one. Are there any?

 

[fredbert]

SHR (whether 1 or 2 disk redundant) allows for upgrading the array with bigger disks and as soon as conditions are met then the extra capacity will be available. With RAID 6 you will only see the extra capacity when all disks have been upgraded.

 

[slobdiddy]

OK I won't be upgrading for many years (if ever) as 24T is a huge upgrade from my existing 6 TB storage which is now full.

Is there any reason to chose RAID 6 over SHR with 2 disc redundancy? Many thanks

 

[fredbert]

Choose a RAID Type | DSM - Synology Knowledge Center

Synology Knowledge Center offers comprehensive support, providing answers to frequently asked questions, troubleshooting steps, software tutorials, and all the technical documentation you may need.

www.synology.com

 

[slobdiddy]

They both look similar to me - would one give better performance than the other? Many thanks

 

[slobdiddy]

Sorry - also is there any reason for me to have more than one volume given my use cases?

 

[jeyare]

Your base:
5-bay and 6TB of current data
5x8TB or 24TB expected data capacity

Your purpose definition (really simple):
"small business plus personal use for 4 family members, Plex server (lots of 4K vids and also some home vids), and QuickConnect remote (overseas) access for read-write in one folder per family member. "
This is a list/mix of too different services to use single disk group. And it does't matter what kind of redundancy you will use. Especially when you have 5-bay NAS.

Smart storage architecture is based on:

1. what kind of services for what kind of purposes and what kind of disk base
use same disks for data exchange service is really bad idea as for 4K Plex vids
valid for Docker containers
reasons:
a) for 4K Plex vids streaming you need average or basic data sources -- LAN bandwidth about 60Mbps (also for downloading from Internet you don't need more than 150Mbps, even when you have FTTh)
b) for data exchange or Docker you need fast storage source -- write speed >1200Mbps .. what is 20x more than for the Plex
then use same disk array for Plex and for the Docker is out of smart thinking, especially when you have 5-bay NAS

2. what was data growth plan until now (yearly increments) for:
a) the small business purposes
b) family members data spending
c) Plex server spending (split of home/movies vids)
d) another unmentioned data eating sources (photos, music, docker containers, ...)

3. What is expected plan for next 3-4 years for each of them separately? Use excel for them.
An example for your better understanding:
single photo can eats e.g. 6MB (jpeg) but it increase yearly +50%
yearly captured photos last year was 1000, but you will expect +20% next year
then you need 6 +50% = 9MB per photo x (1000 + 20%) = 9 x 1200 = 10.8GB or 10.55GiB / yearly just for photos
then for next 4y you need additional 4 x 10.8GB = 43.2GB
Also you need to count with some reserve for that (20%).

Don't forget for our advises in disk section, here

Conclusion:
- never start similar project with data capacity target only
- how many times repeatedly did you watch the downloaded 4K Plex Vids? Is it necessary to sore them all for next 4 years? Or just some of them. Because you have anytime possibility to download them again.

 

[slobdiddy]

Hi there. I will have five 8TB HDD. I want 2 disc redundancy. This is 24 TB under either option. I just want to understand the differences between SHR (quick set up) with 2 disc redundancy and Raid 6 (2 disc redundancy). All I know so far is that SHR allows expansion more easily. I don't know whether RAID 6 or SHR will perform better and which system is considered technically better.

I expect that by the time I need to exceed 24 TB I will be ready for my next NAS upgrade!

 

[WST16]

Hi,

SHR will give you the option to expand easily in the future. I know you said that you’re kind of pretty sure that you won’t need it, but once you start using the NAS, you’ll have all sorts of ideas coming up (we’ve all been there).

Some say that pure RAID offers a slight performance improvement (I doubt that it’s noticeable). So why not SHR and get it over with and keep your options open for future expansion. That’s what I would do

 

[slobdiddy]

Thanks WST, sounds like good advice to me. just as long as I'm not losing significant performance benefits.

 

[WST16]

You’ll have a lot of fun with this very capable new “toy” and you’ll discover (and learn) many uses for it. Don’t worry about performance. Your bottle nick will be the network most of the time.

As first steps you might want to read about securing your NAS, especially if you‘re going to enable remote access and think about what you’re going to do for backups (backup what’s precious and irreplaceable is my suggestion, not everything). You might also want to invest in a UPS ASAP.

Congratulations on a very nice NAS

 

[jeyare]

just to be sure:
RAID6 or same version of SHR2 for the Plex 4k movies downloaded from Internet = It's spectacular money wasting.
OMG, for such media storage is adequate single low cost HDD like Barracuda or WD Blue only. Why 2 disk redundancy?
Your money, your decision. No doubt.

 

[slobdiddy]

just to be sure:
RAID6 or same version of SHR2 for the Plex 4k movies downloaded from Internet = It's spectacular money wasting.
OMG, for such media storage is adequate single low cost HDD like Barracuda or WD Blue only. Why 2 disk redundancy?
Your money, your decision. No doubt.

I have a home business running off this plus family spread over three countries. I took extensive advice on various forums before committing to a solution for my own needs. I still have a 12 yr old DS 209+II running on my network and this hasn't missed a beat since new - possibly because I invested in decent HDDs at the time. I'm prepared to invest in my hardware to protect my business data, precious home vids, and kid's university work. I also want something that will stand up to several users streaming locally and remotely at the same time. I don't pretend to be a NAS expert but have listened carefully to a wide body of advice before buying. Admins should know better than to throw stones at polite forum users.

 

[jeyare]

I apologize for my perhaps rude tone, but I've seen so many people who tried find a way how to invest their time and money into multimedia content that can be downloaded at any time instead of investing into better NAS/network security. Then we can frequently read about ransomware attacks and so on.
You can find here more than pro grade recommendations. Many times in higher level than from the vendor(s) side(s).
Then you can take my personal reaction as stones throwing or more like as a topic for pragmatic discussion driven by “need more”.
In my first recocommendation you can find many answers for you = how to start thinking about your project. From pragmatic point of view.

 

[slobdiddy]

As my question makes clear - everything is bought and on the way - I'm not at the "thinking about" stage. This is a focused question on SHR v RAID 6 with 2 disc redundancy. I'm getting the impression that SHR might be preferred as it has an upside but no major downsides. Thank you for your apology - much appreciated.

I already have back up planned (plus second back up for critical data) before anyone jumps in. I value my data and would rather go too far than not do enough.

 

[Rusty]

I value my data and would rather go too far than not do enough.

I agree with this. Even if your content is partially repeatable content that can be acquired at any time, I see no reason not to double down on redundancy. Personally, I would go off the rails if I have to redownload something that I need right now, even though it's not the end of the world (this is along those lines "what's the best camera?", the one that you have on you), I would still hate myself. Personal reason is that I have a super slow connection and that would be a waste of time and money (at that moment). Some users here are running gigabit-speed net at their home or work, so their mindset is a bit different, and that's ok, but like people say, each his own.

 

[slobdiddy]

Thanks Rusty. My aim is never to need to resort to restoring from backup and I am hopeful that the worst that will happen is I need to replace one or two HDDs in the 1019+. I love that 2 discs can fail before you are screwed. But you never know, and so it's good to have the backup just in case. What if there's a fire...or what if the 1019+ goes mental on me and all discs fail?!

Believe it or not, I think my 209+II has been going for 12 years with neither disc needing replacement. I have no idea what HDDs I used in the 209+II but I tend to over-spec as I know you get longevity this way.

 

[GuiMSP]

Diskstorage to a Men is like a closet to a Woman... ;-)

 

[Rusty]

My aim is never to need to resort to restoring from backup

Agreed, same here.

Believe it or not, I think my 209+II has been going for 12 years with neither disc needing replacement. I have no idea what HDDs I used in the 209+II but I tend to over-spec as I know you get longevity this way.

Same with my 211j with 2x2TB WD drives in. One failed last November after running since 2010.

 

[mikelima]

I'm by no means an expert, but I've been running SHR-1 in three 8-bay Syno's for a while, with every sort of drive I ever own ending up in them (seagates, WD reds/blacks/greens, both shucked and bare) and just threw them all in, some as old as 2009.

When a drive dies, and given their age I do have, in fact expect, regular failures, so the flexibility to just go out and buy a new (CMR!) WD Red or Ironwolf of the desired capacity, and have it expand the volume size easily, is a real god send.

SHR is why I selected Synology in the first place.