NAS 920+ : Set up 4 disks in SHR vs 3 disk in SHR + 1 single disk

Currently reading
NAS 920+ : Set up 4 disks in SHR vs 3 disk in SHR + 1 single disk

14
5
NAS
920+
Operating system
  1. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
I’ve set up my 920+ as follows:
3 no. 4T disks in SHR (vol 1) for important data + 1 no. single disk (vol 2) for downloaded movies.
My logic is that I’m not too bother about losing the downloaded movies in the event this single harddisk fails. I will not need to restore the movie files in vol 2 but simply replace with a new disk. For the 3 no disks, in the event of one of the disks failure, rebuilding the raid and vol. 1 should theoretically be faster and easier than if I use 4 no. disks in vol 1 and 2, which would restore all files, including downloaded movies which are not important data to me.
I wonder if my understanding is correct? Or is there a better alternative setup which suits my usage better?
Thx.
 

fredbert

Moderator
NAS Support
Subscriber
1,865
760
NAS
DS1520+, DS218+, DS215j
Router
  1. RT2600ac
  2. MR2200ac
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
I'm not sure rebuilding a 3 vs 4 disk array will be shorter as there will still be the same number of parity bytes (1 disk worth). But you have left flexibility for a future change should you decide to use bay 4 for either a 4th SHR-1 disk or making the array SHR-2 with 4 disks.

With my 5 bays I've currently got a SHR-1 with 3x 8TB, spare bay, and 3TB single for Time Machine. Like you I'm not overly bothered if the single bay volume, TM, data is lost. I also have a 4th 8TB disk as cold spare: I could have added as a hot spare but it would be powered up and probably spinning; I could add to the SHR-1 array but I don't yet need more space. So I'm waiting to find out what way I will need to use bay 4, and even bay 5 if it comes to that.
 
Upvote 0
14
5
NAS
920+
Operating system
  1. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
I'm not sure rebuilding a 3 vs 4 disk array will be shorter as there will still be the same number of parity bytes (1 disk worth). But you have left flexibility for a future change should you decide to use bay 4 for either a 4th SHR-1 disk or making the array SHR-2 with 4 disks.

With my 5 bays I've currently got a SHR-1 with 3x 8TB, spare bay, and 3TB single for Time Machine. Like you I'm not overly bothered if the single bay volume, TM, data is lost. I also have a 4th 8TB disk as cold spare: I could have added as a hot spare but it would be powered up and probably spinning; I could add to the SHR-1 array but I don't yet need more space. So I'm waiting to find out what way I will need to use bay 4, and even bay 5 if it comes to that.
Thx for your clarification. In my current setup with two separate volumes, one for important data and one for movies, do you think this is a preferred setup than doing it all in one single volume on all 4 disks.
 
Upvote 0

fredbert

Moderator
NAS Support
Subscriber
1,865
760
NAS
DS1520+, DS218+, DS215j
Router
  1. RT2600ac
  2. MR2200ac
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
If you’re happy with the Vol2 rebuild/restore then you’ve scope to increase that single drive if/when you need to, without having to increase Vol1 disks. But with a single 4disk array you’ll have to cost in at least two disks to increase space.

I’d say there’s nothing wrong in how you’re using the bays, it’s a matter of what works best.

If you do decide to migrate the shared folders from Vol2 to Vol1 you just have to have enough free space on Vol1. If you can do it then it’s an easy task in Control Panel to move them. Then you could expand the SHR volume with the freed-up drive.
 
Upvote 0
1,214
405
NAS
DS418play, DS213j, DS3621+, DSM 7.0.4-11091
In my current setup with two separate volumes, one for important data and one for movies, do you think this is a preferred setup than doing it all in one single volume on all 4 disks.
Here's the deal... presuming the solo disk is the same size as the other 3... adding the solo disk to the SHR 3-disk pool, would give you the same total storage capacity, plus... the "movies" disk would have redundancy.

Net, net... the same storage capacity, with expanded redundancy. It also makes storage management easier. If your movies overran your present movie disk capacity, a single pool would relieve that constraint. I see no advantage in separate volumes, but that's me!
 
Upvote 0
14
5
NAS
920+
Operating system
  1. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
Last edited:
Here's the deal... presuming the solo disk is the same size as the other 3... adding the solo disk to the SHR 3-disk pool, would give you the same total storage capacity, plus... the "movies" disk would have redundancy.

Net, net... the same storage capacity, with expanded redundancy. It also makes storage management easier. If your movies overran your present movie disk capacity, a single pool would relieve that constraint. I see no advantage in separate volumes, but that's me!
-- post merged: --

Here's the deal... presuming the solo disk is the same size as the other 3... adding the solo disk to the SHR 3-disk pool, would give you the same total storage capacity, plus... the "movies" disk would have redundancy.

Net, net... the same storage capacity, with expanded redundancy. It also makes storage management easier. If your movies overran your present movie disk capacity, a single pool would relieve that constraint. I see no advantage in separate volumes, but that's me!
The reason for my keeping movies in volume 2 is that I am not too bothered with redundancy for movies. I tend to access movies more frequently than the data in vol 1 (stored in the other 3 disks). As such, my present setup should put less pressure on vol 1 in the other 3 disks as less access to it means less spinning of the disks and lower chance of failure. Is my understanding correct?
 
Upvote 0
1,214
405
NAS
DS418play, DS213j, DS3621+, DSM 7.0.4-11091
my present setup should put less pressure on vol 1 in the other 3 disks as less access to it means less spinning of the disks and lower chance of failure.

Pretty much w/Synology, the disks all spin. One volume won't "sleep" while the other works. But cut your volumes how you prefer. I only posed a suggestion.
 
Upvote 0
1,693
721
NAS
DS220+ : DS1019+ : DS216+II : DS118 : DS120j : APC Back UPS ES 700 — Mac/iOS user
I’m with @Telos on this one. I’d have them all in one SHR pool. The befits of separating them the way you did is (to me) wishful thinking (prolonging the life of the disks).
 
Upvote 0
14
5
NAS
920+
Operating system
  1. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
I’m with @Telos on this one. I’d have them all in one SHR pool. The befits of separating them the way you did is (to me) wishful thinking (prolonging the life of the disks).
Thank you guys for pointing out the misconception I have been having on the Synology operation. Most helpful.
 
Upvote 0

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Welcome to SynoForum.com!

SynoForum.com is an unofficial Synology forum for NAS owners and enthusiasts.

Registration is free, easy and fast!

Trending threads

Top