NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
Likely Readynas 3-series
Hello,
I plan to upgrade from my ReadyNAS Duo that served me well for 5+ years running 2x2TB in Raid 1.
Consider to buy 2- or 4-bay (or even 6-bay hope not) NAS and it is for home use with small office.
I have questions concerning the advantage of separating data on different disks
or more software division in volumes and share provide enough separation.
Typically I need on the NAS for the coming years
A : Archive data - photos, media etc - accumulate over time does not change - about 1.5 GB growing
B : Backup of 3-4 Macs - need about 1 TB for that - change as backups do
C: Shared folders in the LAN - need about 0.1 TB for that - change a lot
D: Shared folders externally over internet with business clients - need about 0.2 TB for that - change a lot
- need encryption and security
E: Web-page - 0.01 TB or so - need internet security etc
Today I only have A-C but consider to expand the use with D and E with the new NAS
The old Duo likely will be the new backup destination.
Questions (after reading briefly in Readynas Software Manual 6.2):
1) Enabling bit-rot protection is mainly interesting for A and perhaps B
Should this be on typically 2 raid1 diska and physically separated from another 1-2 disks (for C-E)?
Hear that it should perhaps not be enabled where data is changed all the time
since that would lead to disk fragmentation, but I may misunderstand this.
2) Enabling encryption for a part D (for business sharing over internet) is that possible? and if so
recommended to have that for a separate disk? or enough with a separate volume on a disk
that is otherwise not encrypted?
3) Security against un-friendly internet access. Consider to house a web-page or two on the NAS
but worried for that it opens up for attacks from outside. Does it help in anyway to
have such stuff on a separate disk? or enough with separate volume?
4) I know the volume can be divided up in shares and each share can be password protected
and so I actually work today. Is there any advantage of dividing more physical into separate disks
or share separation is enough? So would a 2-bay system with shares for A-E give about
the same integrity, security, performance?
5) I read in the manual that enabling checksum and bit-rot protection decrease performance.
If i have I have 2 disks raid1 configured and divide into two volume one with checksum and bit-protection
enabled and the other without, will they then have different performance? Or do I need to
have the volume without checksum and bit-rot-protection on a separate disk to get the performance gain?
b) Same question for disk fragmentation?
6) Last question Is the limitation to 4TB disks on 3-series a hardware or software-constraint, i.e.
can a future upgrade of OS 6 open up for larger disks?
Generally speaking I do not think performance is an issue. My focus is mainly on data-integrity and
internet security if I open up for internet access option D and E above.
The questions span a large range and would appreciate also partial response.
Thanks
I plan to upgrade from my ReadyNAS Duo that served me well for 5+ years running 2x2TB in Raid 1.
Consider to buy 2- or 4-bay (or even 6-bay hope not) NAS and it is for home use with small office.
I have questions concerning the advantage of separating data on different disks
or more software division in volumes and share provide enough separation.
Typically I need on the NAS for the coming years
A : Archive data - photos, media etc - accumulate over time does not change - about 1.5 GB growing
B : Backup of 3-4 Macs - need about 1 TB for that - change as backups do
C: Shared folders in the LAN - need about 0.1 TB for that - change a lot
D: Shared folders externally over internet with business clients - need about 0.2 TB for that - change a lot
- need encryption and security
E: Web-page - 0.01 TB or so - need internet security etc
Today I only have A-C but consider to expand the use with D and E with the new NAS
The old Duo likely will be the new backup destination.
Questions (after reading briefly in Readynas Software Manual 6.2):
1) Enabling bit-rot protection is mainly interesting for A and perhaps B
Should this be on typically 2 raid1 diska and physically separated from another 1-2 disks (for C-E)?
Hear that it should perhaps not be enabled where data is changed all the time
since that would lead to disk fragmentation, but I may misunderstand this.
2) Enabling encryption for a part D (for business sharing over internet) is that possible? and if so
recommended to have that for a separate disk? or enough with a separate volume on a disk
that is otherwise not encrypted?
3) Security against un-friendly internet access. Consider to house a web-page or two on the NAS
but worried for that it opens up for attacks from outside. Does it help in anyway to
have such stuff on a separate disk? or enough with separate volume?
4) I know the volume can be divided up in shares and each share can be password protected
and so I actually work today. Is there any advantage of dividing more physical into separate disks
or share separation is enough? So would a 2-bay system with shares for A-E give about
the same integrity, security, performance?
5) I read in the manual that enabling checksum and bit-rot protection decrease performance.
If i have I have 2 disks raid1 configured and divide into two volume one with checksum and bit-protection
enabled and the other without, will they then have different performance? Or do I need to
have the volume without checksum and bit-rot-protection on a separate disk to get the performance gain?
b) Same question for disk fragmentation?
6) Last question Is the limitation to 4TB disks on 3-series a hardware or software-constraint, i.e.
can a future upgrade of OS 6 open up for larger disks?
Generally speaking I do not think performance is an issue. My focus is mainly on data-integrity and
internet security if I open up for internet access option D and E above.
The questions span a large range and would appreciate also partial response.
Thanks
You could put a suggestion in the Feature Request & Feedback subforum.
You could also make a request at rnxtras.com (not a netgear site)
28 Replies
- (1) Bit-rot protection can be enabled on a share by share basis. Snapshots and bit-rot protection shouldn't be enabled on shares where there is a lot of data churn. They can lead to heavy fragmentation.
(2) You might be confusing disk encryption with network encryption. Encrypting the data on the disk will not make business sharing over the internet more secure. Disk encryption will make it less likely that someone stealing the NAS hard drives can get the data. If I were in your shoes I'd be looking at hosted web services to handle your business client sharing - it will probably offer better performance, and eliminates any chance that a business client can reach the other data. Part of the answer here depends on whether you have long-term relationships with your clients (e.g., is it practical to give them user accounts on the NAS or not).
(3) More volumes will not be more secure. The most significant security vulnerabilities allow access to the operating system itself. In-house web pages won't create extra risk unless you allow the NAS to be reached over the public internet.
(4) It sounds like you might be using share security. That is deprecated even on your duo, the current mode is user-security. Each user can have different access, and has his/her own password.
More volumes will not be more secure (repeat after me... More volumes will not ... :-) )
(5) You can't divide the RAID-1 array into multiple volumes. You can set the checksum/bitrot protection for each share though. If they are turned off on a share, then the extra overhead shouldn't be incurred. The performance loss is only on writes btw.
(5b) Same answer.
(6) The 300 series HCL has 6 TB drives, I am not sure why you are thinking only 4 TB. - Thanks for a good and comprehensive answer!
A few follow-up questions.
1) Bit-rot etc. I read in the manual pg 27 that checksum function is
enabled on volume level, and then I understand on pg 40 that bit-rot protection
is set per share or even per folder. Then I wonder if turning on the checksum
function for the whole volume does not slow down it all, even though I may
use bit-protection only for a part of the volume?
1b) Also wonder if regular backup-up of a few Macs should be characterized
as too much “data churn” - and usually you would not care to do bit-rot protection on?
1c) In my scenario question is whether A (which naturally would have bit-rot protection on)
and B (which perhaps should have bit-rot protection off) should be allocated to the same pair of raid1 disks?
2) Good you emphasize the difference between disk encryption and network communication encryption. Those customers I work with over 1-2 years I thought
it would be simple to share a folder with common documents with over my own NAS, rather than using a hosted web-service. But maybe not a very good idea.
2b) How much would encryption slow down?
3) Internet web-page. For these years with my old ReadyNAS Duo I have hesitated with sharing photos or even a web-page over internet, since the Duo has been my golden archive. Just a gut feeling. Now with a new NAS and much improved security I wonder if this hesitation is still valid?
4) Good. I will look more into user-security.
6) Good I see that hard ware compliance sheet does allow 6 TB, although the Netgear comparison sheet etc only state 4 TB (while the new 200-series boasts with 6 TB).
7 new) Looking for good reasons to buy 4-bay rather than 2-bay. Yes, much cheaper to expand later on with 4-bay, but I would like to see something more, and perhaps is among the answers above.
Would be good with a follow-up answer before this forum pages are totally changed, any day :) - 1) We link enabling Bitrot protection to enabling/disabling CoW (Copy on Write). So the main reason for not using bitrot protection for some shares would be if using CoW is inappropriate for those. If you are going to make a huge number of in place changes to file then CoW is inappropriate. CoW makes a copy on write so with a huge number of writes you will get a lot of fragmentation.
2) Disk encryption is encryption of the disks, whereas network communication encryption is encryption of the data in transit from one location to another e.g. backing up over the web.
2b) It does depend on what you are using it for, but you would need a more powerful NAS than if you are not using encryption.
3) I wouldn't recommend forwarding ports, but using e.g. ReadyCloud would be good.
4) The Duo only had user security.
6) You are probably looking at an old comparison sheet. When the 300 series was first released 4TB disks were the max available.
7) You can have a volume of 3x the capacity as if you were using smaller disks. You get a nice LCD screen on the front. The CPU and RAM are the same as for the 2-bay. - Thanks a lot!
1a) I guess you must enable check sum on the volume in order to later be able to enable bit-rot protection etc for folders, right? Or do I misunderstand the role of the check sum function?
1b) Does this enabling of the check sum of the volume slow down even if I do not user bit-rot protection at all, or only for smaller part of the volume, and then I mean the performance of the not bit-rot protected part?
7) I try to find arguments for when 2 separate volumes may be a good idea. Then a 4-bays system makes additional value to me. Or you would say the main argument is raid5 and less redundancy and you more “effectively” use your disks.
The bit rot protection is a differentiating feature of Netgear's, so the available details are a bit sketchy. But I think you are correct that the checksum is needed for it to work.janpeter wrote: 1a) I guess you must enable check sum on the volume in order to later be able to enable bit-rot protection etc for folders, right? Or do I misunderstand the role of the check sum function?
Of course it is an extra step, and it needs to be computed/saved for every disk write. I have it enabled on my RN202, and have not seen any obvious slowdown. Of course if you want best performance you could get a RN516. That also provides error correcting RAM (ECC).janpeter wrote: 1b) Does this enabling of the check sum of the volume slow down even if I do not user bit-rot protection at all, or only for smaller part of the volume, and then I mean the performance of the not bit-rot protected part?
First - it is always cheaper to expand the NAS later on if you have an empty slot. For instance, if you have an RN312 with 2x4TB disks, then increasing the capacity to 6 TB requires you to buy two new replacement drives( $500 US at the moment), and stop using the old ones. If you have an RN314 (or an RN316) with empty slots, then you can get grow from 4 TB to 8 TB by adding a single 4 TB drive to the array ($160 US at the moment).janpeter wrote: 7) I try to find arguments for when 2 separate volumes may be a good idea. Then a 4-bays system makes additional value to me. Or you would say the main argument is raid5 and less redundancy and you more “effectively” use your disks.
So in this example the RN312 upgrade costs $250 per added TB, while the RN314 upgrade (with an empty slot) would only cost $40 per added TB.
Second - having 4 or more slots available lets you use some of the more advanced RAID modes. These modes don't increase storage efficiency, but they have other advantages. RAID-6 provides dual-redundancy (survives all combinations of 2 disk failures) and RAID-10 (better performance than RAID-6; survives some combinations of two disk failures but not all).
But to get to your question - Using two RAID-1 volumes lowers capacity, but recovery of data if the array fails is generally easier, because the mirroring allows each drive to be independently mounted. Writing to RAID-1 is also somewhat faster than writing to RAID-5.
Also if you are considering RAID-0, having one volume per disk is much more reliable than creating a single RAID-0 volume that spans multiple disks. If any disk in the RAID-0 array fails, the entire volume is lost. So if you want maximum capacity in an RN312, I recommend having 2 volumes (and would recommend 4 in the RN314).
Keep in mind that RAID is not a form of backup. It will keep your data available through "routine" disk failures and it allows you to expand your storage while keeping your data on-line - both of which are great. But RAID arrays can fail, and there are other system failures (and of course disasters) that result in data loss. So you should invest in a backup solution as part of the purchase.- Checksums are needed for bit-rot protection, yes.
- Thanks again!
If I buy 314 then I consider 2 disks raid1 and a 1 disk separate volume and 1 empty slot for future.
When I google on “btrfs raid5” I get the feeling that this in some implementations is not that well working and some fundamental development are going on. I see that the Linux Kernel version plays a role and some key improvement came with Kernel 3.19 but hard for me to judge this information, even though I searched our forum on kernel too. What Kernel does OS 6.2.4 have?
I guess this link is relevant https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 right?
I guess raid1 is more “safe” sort of right now, but would be good to hear something that lessen my worries.
Closely related here is whether improvement for raid5 requires some hardware upgrade,
or it is rather about firmware updates and fundamental ones like in the Linux kernel?
From the conversation I somewhat realize that I may be able to continue live with a 2-bay system 312 for a few years and then invest in a multi bay system when raid56 and necessary hardware is more mature. janpeter wrote:
When I google on “btrfs raid5” I get the feeling that this in some implementations is not that well working and some fundamental development are going on. I see that the Linux Kernel version plays a role and some key improvement came with Kernel 3.19 but hard for me to judge this information, even though I searched our forum on kernel too.
Those articles are talking about the vanilla kernel found on kernel.org. Moving to a new kernel has its advantages and disadvantages.janpeter wrote:
What Kernel does OS 6.2.4 have?
6.2.4 is using a 3.0.x kernel but it has a large number of BTRFS patches backported amongst other things.
The 6.3.x firmware (currently early access for the 300 series) uses kernel 3.12 again with a large number of BTRFS patches backported amongst other things.
A new kernel brings new features and other enhancements. There was an annoying bug present in early 3.19.x kernels. By steering clear of kernels while they are bleeding edge we can hopefully avoid most of the unexpected issues that a new kernel series brings and backport important fixes that are stable.janpeter wrote:
I guess this link is relevant https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 right?
We are not using the in-built BTRFS RAID. We are using md raid. We have a much more limited exposure to the RAID-5 write hole, since we use a transactional filesystem and we respect barriers. So we can get very close to doing atomic writes. We can also repair the data if just one chunk is out of sync. Our competitors are much, much, much more exposed.janpeter wrote:
I guess raid1 is more “safe” sort of right now, but would be good to hear something that lessen my worries.
I'm using RAID-6 with my 516 and I'm comfortable with using that. We have users who have been using RAID-5 and RAID-6 since we first released our OS6 devices a few years ago.janpeter wrote:
Closely related here is whether improvement for raid5 requires some hardware upgrade,
or it is rather about firmware updates and fundamental ones like in the Linux kernel?
The RAID we use md raid is software RAID, this is very mature and we have been using it for a number of years. The in-built BTRFS RAID is also software based.
So a hardware upgrade will not be required to get improvements to the md raid we use. There may however be some hardware limitations e.g. for things like disk capacities supported. We can only guess as to whether higher capacities not available yet will work or not.janpeter wrote:
7) I try to find arguments for when 2 separate volumes may be a good idea. Then a 4-bays system makes additional value to me. Or you would say the main argument is raid5 and less redundancy and you more “effectively” use your disks.
I'm FAR from an expert when it comes to the ReadyNAS systems, but thought I'd share that I found a place that has the RN316 for not much more than the RN314 (and they are an authorized retailer, so the warranty is good). I chose that route myself to be able to expand to six disks in RAID6 later on. Don't know what the policy of "advertising" retailers in public is, or I'd just tell you the retailer here.
No issue here with quoting prices, though if a seller were to abuse that I'd at least warn them, or possibly ban. Not sure what other mods would do. Overall, policies here are quite permissive.CLHatch wrote: Don't know what the policy of "advertising" retailers in public is
Amazon US pricing today has a gap of only $40 between the RN314 and the RN316 (both diskless). That makes going with the 316 a no-brainer.
The gap between the RN312 and the RN316 is $140, so budget for home users might start to kick in there. Though if you look at the analysis I posted earlier, you recover that extra money (and more) the first time you need to expand your storage.
Mdgm replied, but the more succinct answer is "no".janpeter wrote: I guess this link is relevant https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 right?
BTRFS has some experimental features that integrate RAID into the file system itself. They are interesting for the future, but not ready yet - and Netgear isn't using them.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
