Which type External USB Disk do you prefer 2,5 inch or 3,5 inch?

[BobW]

Hi all,
Which type for an external USB DISK do you prefer a 2,5 inch or 3,5 inch for Backup purposes.

What are the pro and cons of when it comes to use one of these types for backup of the NAS?

 

[EAZ1964]

3.5" disks"
* Larger
* Heaver
* Typically cheaper
* Typically faster
* Available in higher capacity
* reliability appears to be similar.

For NAS backup use I do not see much difference.
I do not like USB backup in generall, prefer a second NAS or a cloud backup, because of the attention needed, the fact that there is no backup at different location.

 

[BobW]

I do not like USB backup in generall, prefer a second NAS

I hear you, but I guess for as a second backup solution couldn’t hurt I think?

At the moment I backup to a second NAS, but I’m looking for a second solution and an external USB disk seems like a good alternative, only I was wondering which one I should take the 2.5 or the 3.5 version

 

[fredbert]

I use 3.5" USB drives, mostly for the reasons already given. A plus for a 2.5" USB drive would be that you'd be very unlucky to get one that can't be powered by the NAS... so your 2.5" drive would be protected by the UPS you use with the NAS.

I would avoid any USB drive that includes it's own encryption feature. The WB MyBook (IIRC) has it and is applied even if you dont' set a password ... not so good if the enclosure dies and you want to move the drive to a new enclosure. My preference has been WD Elements (think they are called something else in the US), cheaper than bare drives and you get a simple enclosure too.

Nothing to stop you using a USB drive connected to a second NAS. Which is what I do to air-gap the backup from the main NAS.

 

[fredbert]

To clarify, the WD Elements Desktop (3.5") is what I use. I had a 2.5" WD Elements portable ages ago when they were simple, straight sided boxes and the drive circuit board had a USB interface, not SATA with a screwed on SATA-to-USB board.

 

[EAZ1964]

I hear you, but I guess for as a second backup solution couldn’t hurt I think?

Agree, Just fine for a second backup solution.

 

[BobW]

To clarify, the WD Elements Desktop (3.5") is what I use. I had a 2.5" WD Elements portable ages ago when they were simple, straight sided boxes and the drive circuit board had a USB interface, not SATA with a screwed on SATA-to-USB board.

Thanks for clarifying. Personally I prefer seagate disk (internal and external), always used them without any problems. But I guess WD disk are the same quality.

-- post merged: 23. Dec 2021 --

So do you guys think an DS211j would be good enough to use for an offsite backup solution?
I still have one laying around somewhere...
I know it is very old and slow but it could still be useful for backups

 

[fredbert]

If the DS211j is still getting security patch updates then it should be ok. At least it’s worth a try.

 

[Rusty]

So do you guys think an DS211j would be good enough to use for an offsite backup solution?

When it comes to its speed of it, the only way to get its full 1G speed is to run it with DSM 4.3. Anything above that will kill the unit regarding performance. The unit still covers the latest DSM 6.2.4 UP2.

So it's more like security vs speed. Then again, if it's on a remote location and you don't have 1G WAN, then running it on 4.3 doesn't really matter, but having a DSM 4.x facing the internet is a huge security risk.

As a pure remote backup destination unit, it will serve its purpose for sure.

 

[fredbert]

having a DSM 4.x facing the internet is a huge security risk

If you do plan to use it like then then I would not rely on any of its packages to build the secure connection. Rather, use an up to date server/router to terminate a VPN from you home location and then access the old NAS through the tunnel. I'd also apply firewall rules on the remote Internet router that restricts (or denies) the old NAS connections to/from the Internet.

 

[BobW]

When it comes to its speed of it, the only way to get its full 1G speed is to run it with DSM 4.3. Anything above that will kill the unit regarding performance. The unit still covers the latest DSM 6.2.4 UP2.

So it's more like security vs speed. Then again, if it's on a remote location and you don't have 1G WAN, then running it on 4.3 doesn't really matter, but having a DSM 4.x facing the internet is a huge security risk.

As a pure remote backup destination unit, it will serve its purpose for sure.

I hear you, yes speed is definitely a problem with DSM 6.2.*, but I guess if I setup the backup first on my LAN and run the First backup then for the rest it will be incremental then the speed will be not won't be such a problem then, especially if I only run it at night. Of course, I only want to use it as a long-term backup for files that don't change daily.

-- post merged: 24. Dec 2021 --

If you do plan to use it like then then I would not rely on any of its packages to build the secure connection. Rather, use an up to date server/router to terminate a VPN from you home location and then access the old NAS through the tunnel. I'd also apply firewall rules on the remote Internet router that restricts (or denies) the old NAS connections to/from the Internet.

Thanks for the tip! I do everything already via VPN, and certainly for this I would not dare to backup without VPN;-)

 

[BobW]

If you do plan to use it

So I guess I should have asked for new disk under the Christmas tree , because it turns out one of the disks has some bad sectors (13).