Question Best hard drives for 4-bay raid 1 backup?

Steelbom

Senior member
Sep 1, 2009
349
7
81
Hey,

Right now I'm backing up to two internal SSDs and periodically one external USB HDD.

I'm thinking I should invest in an Orico 5-bay system w/ raid 1 (only two drives initially). Maybe use raid 10 later w/ 4 drives.

Is there an ideal brand of hard drive for backups?
This is what is available at the store I'm looking at:

Seagate Ironwolf
WD Black
WD Red Plus

I would appreciate any input!

Cheers,
Steel
 

Steelbom

Senior member
Sep 1, 2009
349
7
81
Thanks for the input! I didn't know about non-SMR/SMR drives.

Do you happen to know if it's possible to setup 2x RAID 1 with the Orico (or other raid bays). I'd rather 2x drives in RAID 1 and another 2x drives in RAID 1, in the same unit. But not sure if that's a thing or not. Orico's description didn't mention it.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,577
1,162
136
Do you happen to know if it's possible to setup 2x RAID 1 with the Orico (or other raid bays). I'd rather 2x drives in RAID 1 and another 2x drives in RAID 1, in the same unit. But not sure if that's a thing or not. Orico's description didn't mention it.
It does say RAID1 only works with two drives, but I have no idea. If it doesn't work, I suppose you can always use RAID10 or software RAID. Avoid RAID5, it's not great for safety.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,210
7,662
126
I have severe hesitations on using one of those "non-smart" RAID slave drive USB RAID chassis. Generally, they are way more limited than a NAS, and if something goes wrong, the limited configurability and reporting that they do, would seem to me to be a liability to your data.

I've used 1/2/4-bas NAS units for some time now (Even RAID-5, bah humbug on the haters), and they've been reliable for me.

They're not even really that much cheaper than a NAS, and WAY less functionality.
 

Steelbom

Senior member
Sep 1, 2009
349
7
81
It does say RAID1 only works with two drives, but I have no idea. If it doesn't work, I suppose you can always use RAID10 or software RAID. Avoid RAID5, it's not great for safety.
Yea, true. I could do RAID 10 if it doesn't work. Thanks.
I have severe hesitations on using one of those "non-smart" RAID slave drive USB RAID chassis. Generally, they are way more limited than a NAS, and if something goes wrong, the limited configurability and reporting that they do, would seem to me to be a liability to your data.

I've used 1/2/4-bas NAS units for some time now (Even RAID-5, bah humbug on the haters), and they've been reliable for me.

They're not even really that much cheaper than a NAS, and WAY less functionality.
Pardon my ignorance, what is a non-smart RAID bay? Do you have an example link of a smart one?
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,210
7,662
126
Pardon my ignorance, what is a non-smart RAID bay? Do you have an example link of a smart one?
I'm saying, that a NAS has a little CPU inside, running a (usually Linux-based) OS. Those little DAS RAID boxes, who knows?

For example, what happens when the power goes out? Do those DAS RAID boxes, know enough to re-scan the array? Or do they blindly continue to use it "damaged"? A NAS will notify, and optionally, auto-rebuild/re-scan.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: killster1

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,577
1,162
136
(Even RAID-5, bah humbug on the haters)
As long as you're aware of the pitfalls, there isn't anything wrong with using RAID5. It just isn't a panacea for everything, as some would have it.

Personally I prefer RAID6 when doing multidrive arrays, but it does require an extra drive, so isn't always possible. RAID1 is fine for protection against drive faults, when coupled to a backup solution.

Those little DAS RAID boxes, who knows?
Those usually use some of those USB-to-SATA chipsets with some sort of RAID capability. But yeah, who knows what's in them. Manufacturers do tend to be shy about the specifics.
 

mikeford

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2001
5,620
147
106
My first go round I bought new Seagate NAS rated drives, LOTS of issues, some are least, bad firmware on drive circuit board, Seagates fault. OTOH there support was very good, still net massive fubar.
Next I went with WD Red in 2TB and 3TB sizes, five years later still seem fine, but outgrown for main backup, still used for other stuff.
Budget and need for more TBs, I decided to go with well tested and no issues ex enterprise grade drives, namely HGST. So far, so good, just bought 3 more 6TB for about $80 each, https://www.ebay.com/itm/133955025787?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649

Modern drives have something called SMART that tracks issues at the hardware level of the drives, and ideally predicts nasty failure before they happen. A good NAS will have software that periodically checks the SMART status and emails you a notice if trouble is detected and/or takes the failing drive offline.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,208
473
126
wd easystore 18tb drives. (can be had for around 300 each) dont mess with raid

the 10 got left off somehow, raid 10 will require 4+ drives but id use more than that since im paranoid.
 
Last edited:

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,577
1,162
136
wd easystore 18tb drives. (can be had for around 300 each) dont mess with raid
Normally, I'd agree with you. But if the drive goes south, you loose 18TB of data. So there should be some form of redundancy for a backup solution. The whole point of RAID is drive fault tolerance and uptime. Nothing more and nothing less.

The old maxim that if data doesn't exist in at least three copies, it doesn't exist.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,208
473
126
Normally, I'd agree with you. But if the drive goes south, you loose 18TB of data. So there should be some form of redundancy for a backup solution. The whole point of RAID is drive fault tolerance and uptime. Nothing more and nothing less.

The old maxim that if data doesn't exist in at least three copies, it doesn't exist.
lulz the size of the drive is irrelevant right? they already said they are doing raid1 so.... why not start with 2x18tb instead of 18x2tb? how will that solve any issues? the raid1 x2 drives is what you should be arguing not the size of the drives or what am i missing.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,577
1,162
136
lulz the size of the drive is irrelevant right?
Completely. As long as it can hold what data you need it to.

they already said they are doing raid1 so.... why not start with 2x18tb instead of 18x2tb? how will that solve any issues? the raid1 x2 drives is what you should be arguing not the size of the drives or what am i missing.
Weren't you arguing for getting a single 18TB drive instead? Not to mess with RAID?

For redundancy purposes you'd need 2 18TB drives, in a RAID1 setup. A single drive that large is simply asking for trouble if there is important data on it. It could fail completely while you're copying data f.x., and reading 18TB from a HDD is going to take a while no matter how you do it.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,208
473
126
Completely. As long as it can hold what data you need it to.



Weren't you arguing for getting a single 18TB drive instead? Not to mess with RAID?

For redundancy purposes you'd need 2 18TB drives, in a RAID1 setup. A single drive that large is simply asking for trouble if there is important data on it. It could fail completely while you're copying data f.x., and reading 18TB from a HDD is going to take a while no matter how you do it.
lulz i did say drives with a S and 300 EACH.. /shrug never said single drive but what ever then i guess we can agree 18tbx2 is fine and best bang for buck $/gb ratio. (especially since you don't want to buy more and more enclosures the bigger the drive to start the better)
 

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,142
319
136
Normally, I'd agree with you. But if the drive goes south, you loose 18TB of data. So there should be some form of redundancy for a backup solution. The whole point of RAID is drive fault tolerance and uptime. Nothing more and nothing less.

The old maxim that if data doesn't exist in at least three copies, it doesn't exist.
The 3-2-1 rule. There should be at least 3 copies of the data, stored on 2 different types of storage media, and one copy should be kept offsite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Insert_Nickname

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,760
285
126
I recommend none of the ones you posted. You want either a HGST HUH721212ALE600 (12TB) or Toshiba MG07ACA14TEY (14TB). These are easily the most reliable large size drives with the proper support for use in RAID.
 

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,403
95
91
i would forget RAID for backup. Raid is for high availability and highly ineffective if not dangerous as a back up.
just copy to two separate, preferably different drives stored on different places.
Indeed. One could use RAID arrays as those "two separate, preferably different drives". That is not cost effective though.
Point is, RAID is just a "bit more fancy" drive, not a silver bullet.
 

YuliApp

Senior member
Dec 27, 2017
395
108
116
desirehive.com
Indeed. One could use RAID arrays as those "two separate, preferably different drives". That is not cost effective though.
Point is, RAID is just a "bit more fancy" drive, not a silver bullet.
Yes. By having the drives on same location and powered by same power supply in same housing, having content written or deleted on them a the same time is actually reducing reliability of your backup a lot.

Before i got "internet" i used to have 2 USB drives i would cycle between home and atelier and just use copy with "overwrite older" setting on them. Next time i would go to atelier i would take drive 1 with me and take home drive 2.

At home i also had no raid, i had a copy on a server drive and backup on cloud.

Quite often it happened that for example i deleted or overwrote bunch of files, only to regret it later so i went for a copy i had on the other USB drive. Raid would just clone my mistake.

Nowadays i just have one USB drive, one local copy and cloud backup. Cheap and "good enough" for what i use it.
 

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,403
95
91
Quite often it happened that for example i deleted or overwrote bunch of files, only to regret it later so i went for a copy i had on the other USB drive. Raid would just clone my mistake.
That is, if the two USB had been replaced with one RAID.
If the two USB had been replaced with two separate RAID systems ... costs more, harder to carry, and no substantial increase in security.

Furthermore, you emphasize very important point about backup. One reason to have a backup is to protect against hardware failure.
You show the perhaps more important reason: the other events that corrupt data.

It is quite easy to notice when hardware breaks. You only need ability to restore intact copy of current working data.
With user mistakes you don't know when the error is noticed and therefore you don't need just the current data, but versions from past too.
That is, backup has inevitably more data than the working copy. From that "more data" you want the three independent copies ...


More on topic: got two 12TB WD Red Pro during Christmas for low end Synology. Their rattling is unnerving. (Had gone for HGST or Toshiba if any had been in reach.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuliApp

YuliApp

Senior member
Dec 27, 2017
395
108
116
desirehive.com
I had a WD Red 4TB failing on me just few days ago too. But it was well used and abused with over 32000h. I quite liked them, but i do not have my server in same room as i sit in so...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY