Schmill

Drive / Volume Arrangement in N54L

Recommended Posts

I understand this is probably down to personal preference, but I was interested to know other peoples arrangements, thoughts, and reasons...

 

So I purchased the N54L when it came in the 2GB memory / 250GB HDD configuration.

So firstly I installed DSM on the 250GB drive, as /volume1 SHR and 'played' with it.

After this I decided to strip one of my external USB2 WD drives, and took the 2TB WD Green and installed that in the server.

 

I now have it configured as:

/volume1 'n54L' 250GB

/volume2 WD 2TB

 

Generally I install packages to /volume1, and have my home folders, media etc all created on /volume2, but generally this is because I am thinking of disks = volumes, which I know isn't the case

I'm now in the situation where I am going to re-configure the server, and install 2 drives (2TB or 3TB) as a single SHR volume to provide redundancy - of course I still have the 250GB drive, and the 2TB drive...

 

So what is the best configuration?

Is it a good idea to keep the 'installed packages' and the 'data' on separate volumes, (perhaps packages on /volume1 (250GB), and data on /volume2 (2/3TB SHR with redundancy)), or am I better just 'lumping' everything together as one volume?

 

Thanks for any thoughts / replies - I'm interested to see what comes from this :smile:

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently have an N40L with 5x2TB disks & a N54L with 4x2TB disks, both have a single SHR volume which hold the applications & data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks fjf - I'm relatively happy with how the drives combine under the SHR system, this was more a question add to how people arrange it LOGICALLY.

At the moment (in hindsight) I don't really see why you would run more than one volume...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reason why you wouldn't want to protect applications and data with RAID.

 

>At the moment (in hindsight) I don't really see why you would run more than one volume...

 

Flexibility. You may want to have a fast non RAID volume for a responsive use case, a SHR volume for redundant data, and a flash volume for something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with running drives as single volumes without RAID if you're data isn't mission critical? Maybe you want maximum storage and don't want to lose any to redundancy? Any critical data can simply be backed up to another volume and if it's ultra critical you can repeat the process across another drive. You don't have to wait for arrays to rebuild in order to manage your data with traditional backup methods. Lots or users are using single servers with limited budgets as a media server. In that case much of the data is recoverable from alternative sources. Business or creative users would require a different strategy to protect their unique and valubal data. One server in a RAID configuration probably wouldn't be ideal in the event of possible hardware failure in a business environment.

 

I'm not saying that RAID isn't great it's just not the only option in every case. RAID isn't a backup solution in the traditional sense it's a recovery/redundancy solution which can fail leaving you with a degree of data loss. It can give people a false sense of security if they assume RAID is a one hundred percent fail safe backup. RAID is nothing more than a layer of protection against data loss.

 

There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong way to me...there is only the way that meets your backup/storage requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAD - you're right. In fact the redundancy part isn't primarily why I run SHR, I use it because for the flexibility it affords in abstracting away from the HW I'm using - I can easily grow volumes as the requirement arises in a way JBOD (puke) and other RAID options might not. That I also get some level of HDD redundancy is a bonus.

 

And at that stage creating a new volume/new disk just for applications (say) seems like a bit of a ballache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID is the best option when you don't have money to buy 2 storage units and replicate the data. Yes if you have not critical data put it on a single disk volume for fast write but the rest of your data? SHR FTW

If you have a problem with 1 disk it is normal, you can swap it and you don't loose anything. It is very unlikely that 2 disk die at the same time on your NAS.

You can have only 1 disk or 2 disks without RAID, and without you knowing one fails on you and you would wish you had RAID.

Yes it is not a backup solution, you can have your SHR or RAID volumes being uploaded to AMAZON, or other service, but if you have money for that why wouldn't you buy 6 disks and RAID it?!

Thats just common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo.... a couple of questions.

 

I currently have a 250GB drive and a 2TB drive. Now the calculator on Synology doesn't go down as far as a 250GB drive, and I think it also indicates what happens when you install the drives, NOT if you change them.

So if I setup volume1 as SHR with 250GB and 2TB drive now, will I then later be able to remove the 250GB drive, and replace with a 3TB drive, let it repair / rebuild/ whatever, and then add another 3TB?

 

Lastly, before I go ahead and flatten my server in order to change the drive setup... is there anyway to move packages installed on /volume1 to /volume2, or am I better off just starting again?

 

Thanks :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites