Storage Options

A lot of RAID products allow the user to decide which RAID configuration to operate under, before the data is stored to the RAID during its initial setup. You can change RAID configuration, but data already stored is no longer accessible after the RAID configuration change, so the administrator of the RAID has to decide up front under which configuration to operate that RAID unit, then leave that alone.

There are advantages to a RAID system besides fault tolerance as well as some drawbacks. Data throughput is generally much better with a RAID-5 setup but on the negative side, all your drives should be the same size and type so a failure down the road might make it hard to find a replacement drive. (I had this happen). I have opted to run a simple RAID-1 setup for all my data drives and a SSD as my primary boot drive. Anything I want to back up is is on the spinning raid drives and I only have one SSD which I mirror from time to time that has only the software I can re-load. I can re-build my boot drive at any time without affecting any of my data drives.
The nice thing about RAID-1 is that as both drives are mirrors of each other. They can be split and data read from the remaining good drive in case of a failure. I also mirror one of the drives as a secondary external backup about every 2~3 months depending on how much shooting/scanning I have been doing switching between several drives. For all my photos and scans, especially the older stuff, I have a minimum of 4 copies of the images.

I used to be a desktop workstation user with RAID-1, but you know....my opinion is that current HDs are extremely durable. The only time in my life in which I had data loss was 20 years ago (where I'd back up with tape). Folks are transitioning to SSDs, but even the cost performance and durability of 7200 RPM HDs are great. I have portable ones in which say I accidentally drop them when they're plugged in, and still no data loss. I'm not saying you should be cavalier, but just one backup of your data should be enough in this day and age (where the original is even less likely to ever be corrupt). If you want a really large library, you could look into external drive solutions (NAS being more expensive or such things like WD network drives that have mirrored drives).

I've never had data loss as I have always had a backup strategy but I have had several disk losses. The way I figure it is that the $100 or so for a second drive is pretty cheap insurance for a real-time backup.

I run a 4 drive bank in raid 10. Kind of get the best of both worlds (mirrored and striped). That raid is of course backed up daily in 2 different locations.

Operating system is on 2 mirrored m2 ssd drives at full pcie speed.

Pretty happy with the set up.

I have been involved with personal computing since the very early days, in the 1980s. In that time frame I have had a 5.25 in hard drive, a 3.5 in hard drive, and 2.5 inch laptop hard drive fail on me. With loss of data, because the drive was no longer functioning in all 3 cases!!! I was saved by a second copy of the data.

And in none of the cases was the drive lost because of mechanical damage due to droppage. two internal hard drives in a desktop PC and one internal hard drive in a laptop being used in a home environment only, simply stopping to work, suddenly and unexpectedly.

Having a second copy of data from the failed hard drive is what saved from true loss of data, though.

I have also had one portable USB drive fail, but not due to the hard drive itself but due to a failure in the drive interface electronics of the enclosure. Moving the hard drive to a docking station resolved the issue and restored access to the data in that case.

So, am I understanding correctly, that a Raid 1 is one or more hard drive(s) duplicated in a NAS box? So, it's basically an automated version of exactly what I"m currently doing? As long as I have an even number of drives with one or more main storage drive with each one duplicated automatically. As opposed to a Raid 5 setup which is more efficient storage, but riskier with regard to a drive crashing (if more than one crashes I've lost everything).

Do any of you use Lightroom? How does it work with these systems? I assume that I'm able to configure it with one catalog and that if I have a Raid 1 with multiple main drives each will be its own volume, so I will need to remember where I put the data (photo's). I can't imagine how a Raid 5 works, unless it sees the entire NAS as one hard drive and the NAS figures out where things are stored.

Also with regard to the cloud storage, does anyone use Amazon? It was suggested by a colleague at work. I just looked it up and it seems very complicated (for my current knowledge base)

J-Blake wrote in post #18961585
So, am I understanding correctly, that a Raid 1 is one or more hard drive(s) duplicated in a NAS box?

Doesn't have to be a NAS box. Most motherboards these days do RAID. But yes, RAID-1 is a simple mirrored disk.

J-Blake wrote in post #18961585
So, it's basically an automated version of exactly what I"m currently doing? As long as I have an even number of drives with one or more main storage drive with each one duplicated automatically. As opposed to a Raid 5 setup which is more efficient storage, but riskier with regard to a drive crashing (if more than one crashes I've lost everything).

Not sure what you are describing. You can have as many drives as your hardware/software will support set as RAID-1 though it's normal to have 2 drives, mirrored. If you have three, and 2 can fail and you still have good data.

J-Blake wrote in post #18961585
Do any of you use Lightroom? How does it work with these systems? I assume that I'm able to configure it with one catalog and that if I have a Raid 1 with multiple main drives each will be its own volume, so I will need to remember where I put the data (photo's). I can't imagine how a Raid 5 works, unless it sees the entire NAS as one hard drive and the NAS figures out where things are stored.

RAID is independent of applications. It's done outside of the OS. All APPS still see a single storage device no matter what RAID level you are running.

J-Blake wrote in post #18961585
Also with regard to the cloud storage, does anyone use Amazon? It was suggested by a colleague at work. I just looked it up and it seems very complicated (for my current knowledge base)

A little bit of setup but once done, it's not very complicated at all.

BTW, if you are looking for the max in data loss protection, RAID-10 is the best of both as it has both mirrored and stripped. Downside is that it takes 4 drives.

Thanks JJ. I appreciate you're walking me through all this.

gjl711 wrote in post #18961590
Doesn't have to be a NAS box. Most motherboards these days do RAID. But yes, RAID-1 is a simple mirrored disk.

Got it.

gjl711 wrote in post #18961590
Not sure what you are describing. You can have as many drives as your hardware/software will support set as RAID-1 though it's normal to have 2 drives, mirrored. If you have three, and 2 can fail and you still have good data.

I was referring to my OP in which I stated that I'm using Karen's Replicator to duplicate my internal HD once a week. Can you elaborate on how you can have an odd number of drives mirrored? Are you saying that a RAID 1 will take the total amount of HD space no matter how many physical drives there are and cut it in half, mirroring one half to the other?

gjl711 wrote in post #18961590
RAID is independent of applications. It's done outside of the OS. All APPS still see a single storage device no matter what RAID level you are running.

This sounds encouraging! Though, it's leading me to thoughts of challenges setting things up in LR.

gjl711 wrote in post #18961590
A little bit of setup but once done, it's not very complicated at all.

Got you. How about pricing? How does it compare?

gjl711 wrote in post #18961590
BTW, if you are looking for the max in data loss protection, RAID-10 is the best of both as it has both mirrored and stripped. Downside is that it takes 4 drives.

Is that the only downside? I assume the increase in protection comes at a price, IE, the protection is taking up more HD space so the cost per MB of storage is greater? Still a viable option, just making sure I understand.

J-Blake wrote in post #18962048
I was referring to my OP in which I stated that I'm using Karen's Replicator to duplicate my internal HD once a week. Can you elaborate on how you can have an odd number of drives mirrored? Are you saying that a RAID 1 will take the total amount of HD space no matter how many physical drives there are and cut it in half, mirroring one half to the other?

3 drives in a RAID-1 config allows for 2 drives to fail and the RAID array stays intact without data loss. However, you only have disk space of one drive and the other two are mirrors. Very inefficient thus, almost never used. RAID-6 gives the same 2 drive fault tolerance though it does cost yo 4 drives. (I suppose you can do it with 3 if the controller allows it)

J-Blake wrote in post #18962048
Is that the only downside? I assume the increase in protection comes at a price, IE, the protection is taking up more HD space so the cost per MB of storage is greater? Still a viable option, just making sure I understand.

All RAID setups are compromises between speed, security, capacity.

J-Blake wrote in post #18962048
Is that the only downside? I assume the increase in protection comes at a price, IE, the protection is taking up more HD space so the cost per MB of storage is greater? Still a viable option, just making sure I understand.

Basically that is the only downsize. If you want 4TB of storage (which is what I have) then you need 4-2TB disks to run this set up. Under RAID 10 the 4 disk are split up into 2 pairs. Each pair are mirrors of the other disk in that pair, so effectively you get 2 disks of 2TB each. Data is then striped across those mirrored pairs for a total of 4TB storage.

You can have 1 disk fail with no issue whatsoever. Replace the disk and the RAID will rebuild itself accordingly (I've had this happen twice in 11 years).

You can have 2 disks fail with no issue, AS LONG AS they are not in the same "pair" that are being mirrored. If they are in the same pair then you have data loss. This is why I believe it still vitally important to have at least one separate backup of the RAID 10 volume.

There is also a RAID 01 configuration which reverses the order (mirrored striped pairs vs. striped mirrored pairs) although I have never used that configuration.

gjl711 wrote in post #18962075
3 drives in a RAID-1 config allows for 2 drives to fail and the RAID array stays intact without data loss. However, you only have disk space of one drive and the other two are mirrors. Very inefficient thus, almost never used. RAID-6 gives the same 2 drive fault tolerance though it does cost yo 4 drives. (I suppose you can do it with 3 if the controller allows it)
All RAID setups are compromises between speed, security, capacity.

I see, I was assuming the 3 drive setup expanded the storage as well, but that's incorrect. It's expanding the backup only. Makes much more sense. So, in a 4 disc RAID-1 system are two drives storage and 2 backup, or are 3 backup and still only one storage? If the latter is correct, I doubt very much I'll be going with a RAID-1.

jcothron wrote in post #18962127
Basically that is the only downsize. If you want 4TB of storage (which is what I have) then you need 4-2TB disks to run this set up. Under RAID 10 the 4 disk are split up into 2 pairs. Each pair are mirrors of the other disk in that pair, so effectively you get 2 disks of 2TB each. Data is then striped across those mirrored pairs for a total of 4TB storage.

You can have 1 disk fail with no issue whatsoever. Replace the disk and the RAID will rebuild itself accordingly (I've had this happen twice in 11 years).

You can have 2 disks fail with no issue, AS LONG AS they are not in the same "pair" that are being mirrored. If they are in the same pair then you have data loss. This is why I believe it still vitally important to have at least one separate backup of the RAID 10 volume.

There is also a RAID 01 configuration which reverses the order (mirrored striped pairs vs. striped mirrored pairs) although I have never used that configuration.

I think I'm with you. It seems to me the odds of two disks failing at the same time is very remote, though certainly possible. And as was pointed out when I was searching before I began this thread a virus could wipe out all drives making the importance of cloud storage all the more. So if I'm going to be running a 4 disk system the choice between going RAID 06 vs RAID 10 are that I will be getting a higher storage bang for the buck with RAID 06, but if two disks die I will lose everything whereas if I go RAID 10 I and lose 2 disks I will get everything back as long as I don't lose both the storage and associated mirror.

This option is as opposed to going with a none RAID system and solely relying on cloud backup. The only negative I've heard about this route is there's a possibility that the cloud storage could cease and if I lose a HD during this time I will have no backup. Another small, but real, possibility.

J-Blake wrote in post #18962136
I see, I was assuming the 3 drive setup expanded the storage as well, but that's incorrect. It's expanding the backup only. Makes much more sense. So, in a 4 disc RAID-1 system are two drives storage and 2 backup, or are 3 backup and still only one storage? If the latter is correct, I doubt very much I'll be going with a RAID-1..

RAID-1 realistically is only for a 2 drive mirrored setup. Some controllers will allow more, but it makes no sense. With 3 drives, RAID-5 makes more sense and with 4-drives, RAID-5, RAID-6, or RAID-10 depending on what you want to prioritize, space, speed, or security.

gjl711 wrote in post #18962146
RAID-1 realistically is only for a 2 drive mirrored setup. Some controllers will allow more, but it makes no sense. With 3 drives, RAID-5 makes more sense and with 4-drives, RAID-5, RAID-6, or RAID-10 depending on what you want to prioritize, space, speed, or security.

OK, makes sense so far.

Does choosing one RAID over another now have any impact on my upgrade options later? Can you paint a picture of what the process will look like in a few years when my current system is running out of space with these various RAID options? Or does it not matter?

Do NAS box drives remain on full-time with the drives spinning constantly, or do the shut the drives off after a period of non use?