NAS as backup vs. simple backup?

[mgh-pa]

I'm trying to decide whether I really need to go the NAS route or not. I understand the basic difference of a NAS solution vs a standard backup system. While many people double the NAS usage for both backup and remote file storage/retrieval, I'm not sure how much I would make use of the latter, but at the same time, I'm wondering if I would use it more if I had it.

Anyways, here's the deal.

I'm a hobbyist photographer. Not doing this for a living, but I do accumulate my fair share of photos. I'm also starting to dabble in some videography as well. Right now, my setup if very rudimentary. I have on SSD for OS/Apps, one for storage, one for a scratch disk/project file for PS/Premiere as well as my LR catalogs.

I have one internal 2TB HDD for additional storage if need be. I'm also using a 2TB USB external WD HDD as the main backup.

I don't have any system for backing up set, though, and it makes me a bit worried. Ideally, I want to keep an offsite backup, and I don't like public cloud storage, so I was thinking of a hot swappable external enclosure. Then I realized some NAS systems allow that as well.

I'm not really an owner of much stream worthy content, and being on a DSL service, it doesn't make much sense to stream through the NAS even within my own home (I don't have cable or fiber where I live, and my house is well beyond the point where I'm going to make 1gb cable runs).

Anyways, from a pure price point, (~$400), what's my best option for this situation?

 

[blastingcap]

http://www.code42.com/crashplan/

 

[Throckmorton]

If you can't do 1gigabit ethernet, it will be too slow unless you're just using it for incremental backups.

But the first transfer will take a long time, assuming you have several hundred gigs of photos

I like USB 3.0

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm trying to decide whether I really need to go the NAS route or not. I understand the basic difference of a NAS solution vs a standard backup system. While many people double the NAS usage for both backup and remote file storage/retrieval, I'm not sure how much I would make use of the latter, but at the same time, I'm wondering if I would use it more if I had it.

Anyways, here's the deal.

I'm a hobbyist photographer. Not doing this for a living, but I do accumulate my fair share of photos. I'm also starting to dabble in some videography as well. Right now, my setup if very rudimentary. I have on SSD for OS/Apps, one for storage, one for a scratch disk/project file for PS/Premiere as well as my LR catalogs.

I have one internal 2TB HDD for additional storage if need be. I'm also using a 2TB USB external WD HDD as the main backup.

I don't have any system for backing up set, though, and it makes me a bit worried. Ideally, I want to keep an offsite backup, and I don't like public cloud storage, so I was thinking of a hot swappable external enclosure. Then I realized some NAS systems allow that as well.

I'm not really an owner of much stream worthy content, and being on a DSL service, it doesn't make much sense to stream through the NAS even within my own home (I don't have cable or fiber where I live, and my house is well beyond the point where I'm going to make 1gb cable runs).

Anyways, from a pure price point, (~$400), what's my best option for this situation?

I'll throw in some thoughts. I can only illuminate some on this. It is the focus of my efforts at the moment. I'm rebuilding my server, but our LAN of four workstations has grown so that this "rebuild" must proceed while the server continues to remain online a good portion of the day.

I dropped by a computer shop the other day -- a storefront that does repairs and sells peripherals. And I had an exchange with the proprietor. We seemed to agree that the mainstream public, for purposes of backup, might just as soon use a USB external drive or the various "cloud" services.

But, like you, I don't like this "cloud business." I have a personal document archive, accounting files, all sorts of "stuff" that I would sooner trust to the IRS or NSA than some commercially orchestrated "cloud nebula." But this is a mainstream direction; it parallels the public's preference for mobile devices, because a tablet doesn't require much maintenance -- or so it seems.

I've had a LAN file server sucking power in our house for fifteen years. It probably isn't all that MUCH power, but it's a 24/7/365 addition to the utility bill. Further, whether it be a NAS or a server in the more traditional sense, it will cost you something for the parts. You may get five or so years in life out of it, and discover you need to upgrade software, or hard disks, or a network card -- any number of things.

On the other hand, it is truly useful. My WHS server allowed me to recover my flagship workstation last week in a "bare-metal" restoration. At the same time, we reduce some of our electric power-draw by reducing the number of hard disks in our workstations. We've become used to having our individual user accounts in the family to folders on the server where we can store files and access them directly. The important stuff gets duplicated on the server drive pool. At the same time, there are daily backups ("full" for the first one; incremental after that) which occur in the wee hours. The rest of the machines go to sleep when not being used; the server wakes them, backs them up and puts them to sleep when finished.

If you can't deal with the occasional "crisis-mode" maintenance such as I've been doing for a couple weeks (after three years non-stop with little trouble) -- you may want to look into the NAS "all-in-one" solution. I just think there's been a lackluster response to the NAS device offerings.

MS dropped its $50 Home Server OS option because they couldn't adequately explain to "Mainstreamers" why you would want such a server -- which requires some maintenance and attention -- when you can have a NAS, a USB drive, or your "cloud service." I can understand whyI would, but I'm not your average Mainstreamer. I DO like the fact that I don't need to encumber our workstations with backups using USB drives, and I like the integrity or reliability of centralized storage which gets regular, automated backups, and which takes regular automatic backups of all the workstations.

And some of the NAS solutions are more like WHS file-servers, using Atom processors and other features you could also find in a somewhat dated computer that is otherwise perfectly serviceable. Truth is, if I devoted less time to my "hobby" of building computers and "administering" a network with entertainment streaming all over the house, I could spend more time doing photography with MY camera. But even so, I'd find myself in your own situation -- looking for a safe way to store and access my digital files.

 

[SeanFL]

I've been using a Synology nas (ds212) for a few years to store about 300 gig of picture files and have been very pleased. As mentioned above, with gigabit networking, it's very close to the feel of a local hard drive. And having the redundancy raid on the nas and a usb3 HD attached to the nas for weekly backups, I feel comfortable the files are safe.

Video files are different. If you're editing any video, I think you'll find it too slow and a bottleneck. Local drive with usb 3 would be a better choice for that. However, for storing renders and archiving the nas would be fine.

One other point that you're probably considering. If a fire destroyed your place including your local machine and nas, would you have a copy of your important pictures and files somewhere else? Consider rotating a drive to a relative or friend every few months to take care of that.

Sean

 

[Charlie98]

I wouldn't waste my time with the complexity and cost of a NAS, I'm in very much the same boat as you with the added issue of media storage for my HTPC. My solution is a non-RAID redundant drive in the HTPC (I actually have 3 drives, the primary storage split across 2 2TB drives and the backup on a single 3TB drive, ) and a series of internal, external and portable drives for my desktop with an automated backup (Acronis.) I don't like the idea of cloud anything, so I've already nixed that idea, but the concept of off-site backup is valid given the possibility of some sort of catastrophic disaster at home.

I would say, given your budget, add 2 2TB portables to your existing storage, rotating them out weekly or some other regular basis (after a big download of photos, for example.) Store the 'off' drive at another location... friends house, safe deposit box, etc. I would also include a recent image of the OS disk (if you have a separate OS drive like I do) using a utility like Acronis True Image, a full image as opposed to an incremental image(s.)

As an aside, as far as photos go, I have a separate file for all raw images coming off the camera (or, in my case, scanned negatives, etc) so I'll always have a super-redundant file of all my images before culling or editing, and then keep any images afterwards in a working file. You could even add a 3rd portable for the raw file storage, as budget allows.

 

[mgh-pa]

I think right now, I would be best served with possibly having backups sent to a Raid 1 enclosure that is hot swappable. Is it possible to have this setup where I have incremental/scheduled backups to these drives, then pull one for offsite storage (fire safe at my parents), and replace with a new one, then rotate it out with the one in the safe at the next major backup, etc.,?

Right now, my OS/Apps are on a 256mb SSD, my Premiere Scratch and Project files are on another 256mb (along with my PS scratch and LR Catalog). All my computer docs, RAW files, edited/exported JPGS, exported video files, etc., are on my HDD and backed up manually to my 2TB USB.

I just feel it could be better optimized.

 

[mgh-pa]

Just an update. Thinking of going with something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817576009

Then just doing scheduled (and manual) backups to it.

Thoughts?

Recommendations on a solid backup automation solution (Windows 7)?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Just an update. Thinking of going with something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817576009

Then just doing scheduled (and manual) backups to it.

Thoughts?

Recommendations on a solid backup automation solution (Windows 7)?

It apparently requires "port multiplier" from your computer (and whatever controller it has). Someone else may be more knowledgeable about this, but unless the "port multiplier" hardware is in the NAS box in your link, you may need an extra piece of equipment.

As I said -- "somebody more knowledgeable." Do I have that right- correct?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

It apparently requires "port multiplier" from your computer (and whatever controller it has). Someone else may be more knowledgeable about this, but unless the "port multiplier" hardware is in the NAS box in your link, you may need an extra piece of equipment.

As I said -- "somebody more knowledgeable." Do I have that right- correct?

The port multiplier is in the box. The controller that feeds the eSATA port on your computer has to support port multipliers, but most do. (I think there have been some driver issues with Intel chipset SATA, but it's been windows drivers specifically. I'm pretty sure everything since 4-series chipsets for socket 775 supported multipliers in hardware.)

If it doesn't work, a 2-port Sil3124 eSATA card is like $25.

 

[mgh-pa]

Unless someone suggests otherwise, I think I'm going this route:

http://www.amazon.com/LaCie-Quadra-E..._cd_al_qh_dp_t

I'll pick up an extra HD to swap in an out to store at an external location. Sound reasonable?

 

[corkyg]

Sounds very reasonable to me. That is similar to how I store my digital imagery.

 

[sao123]

I agree the NAS is the best way to go. Im currently using our sinology DS212j as our primary storage and making backups on USB my passport drives.

I wanted the NAS as offloading primary file storage from the main computer, as it makes future PC builds less complex and cost less, it also saves me electricity (19W vs 750W on 24/7). Synology NAS's are easy to setup, and they just work out of the box. Stick a pair of WD 3-4 TB reds in there with RAID 1, and make backups with a portable USB drive, and you'll have something that should last several years.

Best thing is if your main rig crashes... all your files are accessible from any other computer just the same.


NAS's do have extra things you might not use now, but might find eventually you might like, FTP access, print server, remote VPN access, Even Text your phone if one of your drives fail...


I like my 2 bay one so much, im considering getting a 4 or 8 bay one in the near future.


http://www.newegg.com/Synology-Inc-D...t/ID-11245-124
Newegg has a promo code, for most 2 bay Synology's for Memorial Day weekend.
AND WD Red 3TB's are $5.00 off with a promo as well.

I think you can get a DS213j and 2 WD Red 3TB's and be at your budget level.

 

[Unoid]

I agree the NAS is the best way to go. Im currently using our sinology DS212j as our primary storage and making backups on USB my passport drives.

I wanted the NAS as offloading primary file storage from the main computer, as it makes future PC builds less complex and cost less, it also saves me electricity (19W vs 750W on 24/7). Synology NAS's are easy to setup, and they just work out of the box. Stick a pair of WD 3-4 TB reds in there with RAID 1, and make backups with a portable USB drive, and you'll have something that should last several years.

Best thing is if your main rig crashes... all your files are accessible from any other computer just the same.


NAS's do have extra things you might not use now, but might find eventually you might like, FTP access, print server, remote VPN access, Even Text your phone if one of your drives fail...


I like my 2 bay one so much, im considering getting a 4 or 8 bay one in the near future.


http://www.newegg.com/Synology-Inc-D...t/ID-11245-124
Newegg has a promo code, for most 2 bay Synology's for Memorial Day weekend.
AND WD Red 3TB's are $5.00 off with a promo as well.

I think you can get a DS213j and 2 WD Red 3TB's and be at your budget level.

same here. I have a 212j I've had for 2.5 years with two 2gb samsung F3's.
SHR raid 1 and no worries. I backup my real important stuff to google drive with truecrypt encryption.

I've been lusting for a new 4bay with 4x4tb

 

[aigomorla]

If you can't do 1gigabit ethernet, it will be too slow unless you're just using it for incremental backups.

But the first transfer will take a long time, assuming you have several hundred gigs of photos

I like USB 3.0

+1

cant do 1gb Ethernet will make u sad.. very very sad.

no high speed internet will make your upload times take days and days...

You only option is USB 3.0.
USB2.0 is also slow IMO.... USB3.0 would be ideally my second choice after 1gb Lan.

 

[kommisar]

You want a couple of HD that you can easily attach to your main computer and backup your critical files. You also want to store one of these drives offsite and cycle it. So I recommend a USB 3.0 SATA dock ($40):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817153133

and two internal 3TB Hardrives ($139@):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...07&ignorebbr=1

Just attach the dock to a usb 3 port of your main computer and insert the bare drive into the doc. Backup your files using sync software and take the drive to your offsite location.

This set up will run you ~$300. A NAS will cost significantly more unless you can get a free donor computer(s) to host the hard drives. I currently use 3 boxes, 2 of which are donors and one of which sits offsite to do my backups. I use zfs on linux for backups. I attach the backup HDs to the same system as the originals using spare sata ports for the initial backups. Daily incremental backups are sent over my internal network/internet which doesn't take too long. I use zfs on linux for sending and receiving backups and the backup boxen are usually turned off and only turned on for a few minutes to perform the daily grab of the incremental backup. This minimizes power use as only the main box is on all the time.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't have any system for backing up set, though, and it makes me a bit worried. Ideally, I want to keep an offsite backup, and I don't like public cloud storage, so I was thinking of a hot swappable external enclosure. Then I realized some NAS systems allow that as well.

I'm not really an owner of much stream worthy content, and being on a DSL service, it doesn't make much sense to stream through the NAS even within my own home (I don't have cable or fiber where I live, and my house is well beyond the point where I'm going to make 1gb cable runs).

Anyways, from a pure price point, (~$400), what's my best option for this situation?

To my way of thinking, a user WITHOUT a large collection of photos would be fine to purchase a few USB(2 or 3) flash drives in various sizes, perhaps one of them 64GB or even greater. This user might acquire -- or build for as little as $50 -- a USB/SATA/[combo] external drive -- 500 GB would be more than adequate but modest.

Adding in the hobbies, the number of years over which document archives had been accumulated, media usage for audio and HD captures, movies and so forth, your hard disk requirements and backup requirements can increase in seeming exponential increments.

In your case, add up all these diverse types of files and accumulated sizes, decide on what losses you would survive and which you cannot afford. Double the size of the latter in the equation.

Your backup requirement would roughly assure a single copy --- [preferably with an initial full backup and a string of incremental changes that follow thereafter.] It would exclude file losses which mattered least.

If you're making regular full and incremental image backups of your system, I'd keep the system and program files on you boot disk and the data files and archives in either a shared solution, an "external" solution, or a drive you just leave running all the time the system is on --- unless it goes to sleep. Make your system image backups on one drive or drives. Make the extensive personal/professional data-file backups on another drive or drives.

With the right controller on either your motherboard or for $75 in an add-in slot, you might have the port-multiplier capability. So you could easily add an external multi-drive array or pool with such a box fitted with the port-multiplier.

If you have a family or live in an established arrangement with other people under the same roof, you might have a preference for networking the PCs, and you might want image backups stored in a central location. You could stream media all over the house, keep your own photo files secure and exclusive, protect the personal data of other household users and computers -- any number of options. But with that, I'd incline to stringing CAT-6 wire and picking up some switches. A wireless access-point to the network would then incorporate any laptops and tablets used in the household.

You'll have to decide on what you want and what you need, based on your data categories (persistent versus volatile, etc.), tolerance for data-loss, and priorities set for some files or folders over others. The available HDD capacities are now about 4GB, require MPT formatting and an OS that can accommodate a single logical volume on a drive that size. I wouldn't limit my resources to drives of a single size, though.

If you don't have certain TV options in your area, you won't have "DVR needs" but you could certainly capture OTA HD.

Also, "adequacy" versus "multiple fallback options" is an important trade-off you might want to think about.

You would routinize and automate backup as much as possible, but on less frequent schedules, you might want to make certain types of manual backups. More drives -- more redundancy -- more safety -- greater capacity. Less drives, less power-consumption, thoughtful application of resources to keep the risk at the same level -- better than adequate capacity for personal needs and habits.