Seagate ST4000DX000-1C5160 [3726 GB] 4TB

GibsonLP wrote:
TeknoJnky wrote: ... If you have 15tb of data and no backup, your priorities are totally out of wack! :shock: I totally disagree.

absolutely within your choice, but tell me that again, *after* you have lost the 15tb of data.

It takes a long long time to re-rip/re-aquire/re-download that amount of data.

Heck, even if you were restoring from backup, it would over a week or 2 just from nas to nas.

Good luck with that plan.

TeknoJnky wrote:
... If you have 15tb of data and no backup, your priorities are totally out of wack! :shock:

I totally disagree. I have a few friends running Readynas pro (one even runs a readynas 3200....) as a server for their highdef library. They don't need backup for this information (if it dies for some reason - it would be a pain in the *** to re-download everything but it is doable and investing in another storage just to backup movies and TV shows is a waste of money) and erasing the entire array is a big problem.
AFAIK this is a limitation in the ext utils, hopefully it will be rectified in the near future... (does anyone have any information regarding this really annoying limitation?)

longshot94, using it in RAID-0 if one disk fails all data on the volume is lost. Four RAID-0 volumes would be a good option provided you can split your backups into separate backup jobs with each backing up less than 4TB.

It's 4TB not 4GB. Similarly 3TB not 3GB.

I am looking for these drives to use in my Ultra 4+ (4TBx3 in RAID0) that my Pro Business Edition (3TBx6 in Dual Redundancy) backs up to. I know it sounds a little extreme but like PapaBear said with 12TB for all my family pictures, music, movie collection, and all my VM's running on off it for my home lab I can't afford to loose data.

cubewebsolutions - That is why the backup solutions are getting more and more difficult. You may want to think about your storage needs with the backups in mind. For many years I had only a single NV+ for my data, but as I added more and more (and the third drive and then the fourth) my previous backup plan which was not consistent became almost untenable. I was manually backing everything up to drives connected to my PC via eSATA. So I added an NVX in June of last year as my primary storage and the NV+ became by backup target. Later, when the prices dropped on the NVX (being discontinued) I added a second NVX for future growth. Each NVX now has 2x3TB and 2x1TB drives, with the second being the target of several rsync backup jobs every night. My backup is thus never more than 24 hours old. The rsync jobs only take minutes.

Unless you need 12TB of storage, you might want to consider two 4 bay units with one backing up the other. The backup target does not have to be as fast as the primary storage, for example you could go with a Pro4 or Ultra 4 Plus as the primary unit and an Ultra 4 as the secondary. The drive set could even then be moved intact from one to another since they are all x-86 system. If you had a problem you were not sure whether it was the chassis or the drives, you could shut down both, remove the drives from the one not having problems, move the drives from the one giving problems in the same order, and reboot. (If you have custom device names, that will go with the disk set. When I moved the drives from NAS1 to the brand new NVX BE, it came up as NAS1 and all my drive maps were intact).

When I upgraded two of my drives from 1TB to 3TB, I did the backup unit first and after a week, I did the primary unit. That gave me time to know there were not any problems with the drives and the backup was intact and stable. Unfortunately for our pocket books, once you reach a certain point in data volume, the only really efficient way to back up is NAS to NAS (IMO) unless you happen to have other large volume and fast backup devices laying around.

14884gb is actually about 14.5TB. The GB measurements shown in Frontview treat 1KB = 1024 bytes, so your calculations should show 14884 / 1024 = 14.54 TB. Using 1KB = 1000 bytes you'd get 14884 / 1000^3 * 1024^3 / 1000 = 15.98TB. The overheads are actually quite minimal, it's the differences in measurement units that explain most of the discrepancy. Of course there is a 4GB OS partition on each of the disks that is on a separate partition.

My estimate of 11TB in my post above was an overestimate, I had been thinking about number of GB / 1000 too, so i would actually be a bit under 11TB with 6x3TB disks.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense. So that means that if two drives failed, you don't loose any data... I know that's probably a rare event to happen (safely using a good UPS of course)...

Dual redundancy uses 2 disks worth of space for parity.

So, with a 6 bay device, minus 2 drives, the amount of usable space is 4x the drive size, minus overheads etc.

Ch 1 : Seagate ST4000DX000-1C5160 [3726 GB]
3721 GB allocated

using the above drive, 3721 * 4 = a little less than 14884 gb or 14.8ish tb usable

assuming a 3tb drives gives ~2790 gb, 4x 2790 = 11160 gb or 11ish tb usable

6x3TB would give about 11TB, 6x4TB probably around 14.5TB.

Remember NAS considers 1KB = 1024 bytes, i.e. 1TB = 1024^4 bytes whereas disk manufacturers consider 1KB = 1000 bytes, i.e. 1TB = 1000^4 bytes

There are of course overheads as well so you end up with the figures I gave above.

that 15GB was just a hypothetical.... as I'm looking at having the ReadyNAS Pro 6 with either 6x3TB or 6x4TB drives..... so I'm assuming that dual redundancy is the best way to go from what I've read on here?

So with 6x3TB or 6x4TB drives, with dual redundancy, what's the easy way to work out the true capacity you'll be able to utilize?