What do you think of this NAS scheme...

[stevech]

Synology DS212 with 2 x 2TB drives.
Drive 1 is a "basic" volume. On it are all my home's PCs' files, videos, etc.
Drive 2 is also a "basic" volume. The Synology (DSM) "time machine" backup is configured so drive 2 has a 30 day history of files on drive 1 that have changed. That is, drive 2 is a time machine history of drive 1.

Seems to me that this has several benefits: (1) protection from drive failure, (2) protection from file system corruption and (3) time history to get any prior version of a file, up to 30 days.

I'm only using about half of the 2TB, and most of this is HD videos we chose to archive.

Been using this for just a couple of days.

Make sense? Pitfalls?

 

[ntm1275]

The only draw back is no off site backup for the possibility of theft, fire, water damage, but if the data is not critical, then yes it's fine

 

[stevech]

thanks... my offsite scheme is the USB3 port and a USB3 drive/enclosure. Really important files are also on a 32GB thumb drive.

I really like the Synology time machine - having used it a while now. It just runs. Keeps time series of file versions on volume 2, from those on volume 1, of the DS212.

 

[ntm1275]

As you have an off-site backup, then I think your are sorted

I've never used time machine as I never get rid of files, and don't care about files changes, but in a work environment, I can see the advantages of this to recover previous versions or deleted files

 

[stevech]

My rationale for the Timed Backup on Synology is to protect me from my own idiocy - in the large number of personal financial records files I have (I'm almost paperless), my copies of software CDs (.iso files), family photos (3GB), and software I write. Perhaps unwarranted, I do feel safer with the two independent volume scheme that RAID1.

 

[grazzt]

I am also thinking of something similar since I almost lost everything the other day.

The only thing I would consider is getting a 3rd 2TB drive and rotate the 3rd drive in every 30 days and bring the 2nd drive to work locked away for safe keeping.

Thoughts on that approach?

I am thinking of pulling the trigger this weekend on the DS212+, But I am looking at the DS411+II as well, but I do not think i have enough to warrant that, maybe 3 years from now.

 

[teknojnky]

its fine if it works for you, the downside I can see is that if drive 1 fails, you would need to replace and restore it from drive 2, which could cause some inconvenient down time.

In a mirrored scenario, you would still have access to your data without a restore process.

 

[teknojnky]

I am also thinking of something similar since I almost lost everything the other day.

The only thing I would consider is getting a 3rd 2TB drive and rotate the 3rd drive in every 30 days and bring the 2nd drive to work locked away for safe keeping.

Thoughts on that approach?

If you're third drive is an externally connected (usb/sata/whatever) then that would be great.

However most raid devices will not accept a pulled drive out of the raid, so if you intend on pulling and rotating the drive 2 out, this is not a good idea.

In other words, if you pull a drive to rotated it out as backup, you normally won't be able to put it back in to restore any lost data.

 

[stevech]

If you're third drive is an externally connected (usb/sata/whatever) then that would be great.

However most raid devices will not accept a pulled drive out of the raid, so if you intend on pulling and rotating the drive 2 out, this is not a good idea.

In other words, if you pull a drive to rotated it out as backup, you normally won't be able to put it back in to restore any lost data.

In my setup, Drive 1 and Drive 2 are not using RAID. They're independent volumes, independent file systems. The external USB3 drive is just that.

So far, I like this scheme. I've done RAID1 before and always worried that if the file system gets corrupted, RAID is no help. I suppose this is true of any RAID system. Which is why they say RAID is not a backup, hence the USB3 drive backup.

 

[teknojnky]

In my setup, Drive 1 and Drive 2 are not using RAID. They're independent volumes, independent file systems. The external USB3 drive is just that.

the volumes may not be RAID'd to together, but they are still parts of a raid system. As such, you are limited by whatever flexibility (or inability) of the system itself.

So far, I like this scheme. I've done RAID1 before and always worried that if the file system gets corrupted, RAID is no help. I suppose this is true of any RAID system. Which is why they say RAID is not a backup, hence the USB3 drive backup.

yeah, raid is not a cure all, nor is it infalliable.

Oh, two other downside to your approach could be considered;

* You will never have storage volume space that exceeds the size of a single drive.

right now that may be all fine and dandy, however once your data set starts to exceed the space of the largest available drives (at that particular point in time), then your only options are to attempt to split your data into separate volumes, or a RAID5/6 (or similar) solution.

* you won't be able to easily expand your volumes. When you run out of space, you will have to have a current backup, then replace and initialize a new drive and volume, then restore data.