Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose
Seems crazy to lose 1/3 of your storage then 1/4 when your enclosure is full, but I guess I am in the minority about JBOD with offline mirrors. I would recommend only buying the space you need. Spinning a drive with no data on it still ages it. When you do need more room at least your warranty will last longer then spinning an empty drive from the start.
seems like a strong word to describe a NAS setup to use RAID 5 (or some other). I get your concern. You are more concerned about enclosure space being taken up. I get that's a significant concern. And I agree that in addition to maximizing enclosure space you also have a better backup plan because you are fully redundant so no matter what happens to your NAS or the drive therein, you are fully backed and ready to roll.
But I don't understand why you don't see the weaknesses of that arrangement that would cause somebody like me to at least consider
other alternatives. #1
- The cost is significantly higher because you have to buy at least twice the number of physical drives. For most of us, money is the biggest limitation. That's why I'm not running a rack server with 90 drives in my closet. #2
- You have a bunch of physical drives you have to store in addition to your NAS. For 4 drives, I agree this isn't a bid deal. But for some of these guys, I could see it being an major impediment. #3
- You have to treat each physical drive as its own volume. This is the same for point #2
. Probably no big deal for smaller number of drives but horrible for a large number.
As to your statement about the warranty, I just don't get it. Ok, I understand the drives may
last longer if you aren't spinning them up all the time. But the warranty is unaffected by their use or non-use. I'm not aware of any warranty that goes by the amount of time your drive is actually active. All of them are a specified time period from the date of purchase.
Originally Posted by pepar
Sooo, the benefit you see in your scheme, @jasonkennethrose
, is not that you aren't paying for "redundency"/"lost" storage, it's that your offline drives aren't spinning (wearing) all of the time?
I didn't understand his point here. He certainly is paying for redundancy. In fact, a lot for it. I can understand wanting to maximize enclosure utilization. Having offline storage means he gets every last GB of storage available. Also, an offline redundancy is extremely safe. If lightning fries his NAS he gets a new one, puts in new drives and restores.
But the warranty? I don't get that. Unless he means he wants the drives to outlast their warranty?