if your that passionate about NASs, may I ask how does one negate data loss if a lighting were to strike? or fire?
I get Raid an all that, but I don’t care how many times my data got burnt if it ever will.
Same with lightning, lightning rods are a thing, so maybe that? Idk what would be dmged if an entire lightning passes thru your house in a wire or not, like electromagnetic fields are a thing.
I suppose remote backup is the only option for something that destroys everything in the area, but raid is essential anyway.
makes sense, I was hoping for a cheaper answer. Buying land (caz renting a server is the same as cloud storage isn’t it?) somewhere is probly expensive.
If you know someone who lives somewhere else and also has a NAS, you can help each other by using each other for remote backup.
raid is essential anyway
Why? If there are offsite backups that can be restored in an acceptable time frame, what’s still the point of RAID?
I’d say it depends on your circumstances and your tolerance to the possibility of data loss. The general answer to the question is that without using some kind of redundancy, either mirrored disks or RAID, the failure of a single disk would mean you lose your data. This is true for each copy of your data that you have.
i’ll have to look more into that. the obvious answer is “keep it off site”, but that only applies if you’re doing backups. if it’s a NAS with several different purposes like the one i want, i’m not actually sure. i’ll keep reading about it
Off-site backup is the proper answer to your question. All this really depends on your own tolerance or comfort with the possibility of losing data. The rule of thumb is that there should be at least three different copies of your data, each in a different physical location. For each of them, there should be redundancy of some kind implemented to guard against hardware failure. Redundancy is typically achieved by using mirrored drives or by using RAID of some kind. Also, if you’d like to know, using RAID in which you can only lose one disk in the array is not typically considered a sufficient level of protection because of the possibility of a cascading drive failure during replacement of a failed disk. It should be at least two.
“cascading drive failure” the what now? How do drives die in a domino effect?
three locations seem a bit much, but I totally understand it. Safe storage is tedious, huh.
Drives in a NAS age at about the same rate between them. If you had multiple drives around the same age or from the same manufacturing batch, there’s a higher chance they fail around the same age. After one disk in the array fails, you can insert a new drive and rebuild the array, but during the rebuild, all your drives are in heavier use than normal operation. If you only have one disk redundancy, you’re vulnerable until that rebuild is complete.
The calculations necessary to rebuild a failed drive from parity data stored on the other drives means that for the duration of the time that the array is being rebuilt (aka “resilvered”), you’ll have high activity on the other drives. So during that time there’s an increased chance that a drive that was already on the brink of failure is pushed over the edge. If that happens, your data is gone. Like I said it depends on your risk tolerance. You may not feel like it’s worth it in your situation. I personally only run a raidz1. I accept the risk that entails, just as people who use raidz2 accept the increased risk that entails over raidz3. There’s no limit to the amount of redundancy you can add. The level of redundancy that’s needed is a decision that only you/your organization can make.
