[el chupacabra]

Been looking at synology NAS storage such as the new 1 bay ds116. Then thought why not get a 2 bay ( ds 216 etc), and have one bay back up to the other bay. Anyone messed with these or know if such a feature exists?

I had hundreds of burned data DVDs and ~5 years after burning even with no use, 1 out of 6 has turned into coasters over time. I need a better backup solution than dvds, This NAS thing seems like a good idea and data can be accessed from anywhere in the world.

[turtle777]

Symbology NAS are great and rock solid.
Have had one for years. Much recommended.

Definitely go for the two bay. Set it up as one volume, and Synology will handle the rest (I.e. Copying all files to both drives, if one drive fails, you just swap the failed drive.

I'm not sure about the wireless option, mine is connected via Ethernet.

-t

[turtle777]

For built-in wireless, get the DS213air.

-t

[el chupacabra]

It seems the 213air is an older model from 2012ish. Supposedly the newer ones have port where you can add an upgrade that turns it into a wifi router. In any case when you say 'set up the 2 bays as 1 volume'; I want to make sure each drive has a mirror image of the other drive? Basically I want 1 of the drive bays to act as an automatic backup to the other bay, and am wondering if the drive's OS supports this. It sounds like it does. Not sure if I'd need only 1 volume setup. Maybe I'm making it more complicated than it is.

[OreoCookie]

I have a Synology DS214+ which I connected to my router. It's an amazing device: Synology frequently updates its OS as well as all the packages, and the thing just runs. I use it for Time Machine backups, network storage and I have it configured so I can access it from the internet. In some sense my Synology is so good, it actually disappears, I'm barely aware that it exists.

Regarding the configuration: I don't think what you have in mind is a good backup. I simply use two different on my two hard drives: one for storage and one for backing up my machines. When Backblaze has a Synology client for its storage service, I'll back up my network drives this way. However, you can connect external hard drives and back up to them.

In any case, I'd recommend a two-bay over a single-bay NAS: this way you can add more storage later if necessary.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

It seems the 213air is an older model from 2012ish. Supposedly the newer ones have port where you can add an upgrade that turns it into a wifi router.

You are right, I missed that the 213air is an older model.
I'm have no experience in turning a Synology wireless.

Do you have a wireless router with an ethernet port ? Just connect the Synology to that router and you're good.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You are right, I missed that the 213air is an older model.
I'm have no experience in turning a Synology wireless.

In principle you can also use standard USB wireless networking adapters with any Synology. The list of supported wifi adapters is quite long.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I have a Synology DS214+ which I connected to my router. It's an amazing device: Synology frequently updates its OS as well as all the packages, and the thing just runs. I use it for Time Machine backups, network storage and I have it configured so I can access it from the internet. In some sense my Synology is so good, it actually disappears, I'm barely aware that it exists.

Regarding the configuration: I don't think what you have in mind is a good backup. I simply use two different on my two hard drives: one for storage and one for backing up my machines. When Backblaze has a Synology client for its storage service, I'll back up my network drives this way. However, you can connect external hard drives and back up to them.

In any case, I'd recommend a two-bay over a single-bay NAS: this way you can add more storage later if necessary.

Why isn't it a good configuration? I have a DS214 set up exactly that way. One bay is for storage, and it automatically mirrors everything to the other drive (aka RAID 1).


Also, another +1 for Synology boxes. I've used several and they're great.

[turtle777]

I suspect that with "two drives", he means two network shares.
Both reside on the same RAID 1 or SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID ) with two physical hard drives.

That's how it should be.
I can't think of any scenario where it would make sense to set up a 2-bay Synology as two separate drives (non RAID).

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why isn't it a good configuration? I have a DS214 set up exactly that way. One bay is for storage, and it automatically mirrors everything to the other drive (aka RAID 1).

It's not a good setup for a backup of the data on the first drive, but it can be a good configuration for other purposes. A RAID1 will only protect you against drive failure, but you will still retain only one copy of your data. E. g. you will not be able to restore to an earlier point in time.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I suspect that with "two drives", he means two network shares.
Both reside on the same RAID 1 or SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID ) with two physical hard drives.

I have actually multiple network shares (several home directories, music, videos, backup, etc.), and they are spanned across the two drives. One drives houses the backup and the music. The other videos and the home directories.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I can't think of any scenario where it would make sense to set up a 2-bay Synology as two separate drives (non RAID).

There are definite advantages: you have more storage (obviously), but more importantly, you have better performance: if my wife's Mac has her backup, that doesn't impact me when I want to access my network home folder (as it sits on a separate drive and the drives don't have to seek as much). Since most of my data is backed up, I don't care that much about safety against drive failure. So in my case the setup and the partitioning is quite deliberate.

If money and weight had not been an issue, I had probably opted for a 5-bay or 8-bay model and set up 2 RAID1s (5-bay model) with free dive bays to spare. Instead, I went with HGST drives which have the lowest failure rate in the industry.

[subego]

I'm totally confused.

One drive gets Time Machine backups of your computers, the other drive has the overflow data which won't fit on your computers.

Where is that overflow drive backed up?

[turtle777]

I think he's using the Synology like two external HDs.

That's a waste of money, IMO. You pay a premium for the Synology w/o using one of the key functionalities.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where is that overflow drive backed up?

It's backed up to other external hard drives and in the future also the cloud (I'm waiting for Backblaze B2 support for my Synology).

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think he's using the Synology like two external HDs.

That's a waste of money, IMO. You pay a premium for the Synology w/o using one of the key functionalities.

No, not at all: RAID and NAS are not one and the same, you can also have a dumb RAID1 external hard drive enclosures — but that's not what I opted for (although I've considered it). The primary difference between an external hard drive and a NAS is that a NAS is a server. And that's how I use my Synology, I'm using plenty of the built-in functionality such as a private Dropbox (CloudStation), the TimeMachine server (so that I can back up wirelessly à la Time Capsule) and I do quite a few schedule test (e. g. for viruses). At times I even ssh into that thing to get stuff done. Those are the key functionalities to me, the drive/volume layout is an implementation detail. I'm distributing my shares across physical devices as I think fits my situation best, and I don't absolutely need to protect against drive failure because my NAS Time Machine volume is my second/third (depending on the data) backup. (I also use Backblaze cloud backups and have various external hard drives.)

PS As I wrote above, if money were no object, I would have opted for RAID1, RAID5 or Synology's hybrid RAID. But given the resources I have, I think it's be best solution for me. Each to his own according to their needs.

[subego]

How are you backing the Synology up to the external drive?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How are you backing the Synology up to the external drive?

Via USB and a Synology software package called HyperBackup (which is quite flexible, you can use it to backup to network volumes, Amazon S3 and a few other services as well).

[subego]

Okay, that makes sense.

In effect, you have three networked drives. I was doing the math with only two.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

In effect, you have three networked drives. I was doing the math with only two.

These backup drives are only connected when needed. And I don't exactly have three networked drives, I have many network shares that are spread across two physical hard drives. Some of shared between my wife and me (the videos and Time Machine shares, for instance) while other data is private (our network home folders).

[subego]

But it sounds like you have the shares broken up via drive.

Bay one: data shares
Bay two: Time Machine shares
USB: data backup

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

But it sounds like you have the shares broken up via drive.

Bay one: data shares
Bay two: Time Machine shares
USB: data backup

No, not at all: don't think in terms of physical drives, think in terms of services — and amongst those, the network shares. My NAS offers me services and capabilities, and it doesn't work like an external hard drive (wireless or not). With external hard drives, I'd have to connect to each hard drive separately even if the different network shares are realized as different volumes. The way the data is physically distributed amongst the drives is abstracted away from the user, it doesn't impact them functionality-wise. I could have an 8-bay Synology NAS with 1 big RAID6 or a RAID1 and a RAID5 (or whatever other configuration you can come up with), and distribute the data in another way — the users would be none the wiser. So I don't have three networked drives: my Synology backup drive is never shared (even though I could if I wanted to), and I am not sharing on a per drive basis, I'm only exposing network volumes to the users. They never see “three drives”. In fact I couldn't use several external hard drives the way I use my Synolgy.

Turtle said that I am not using some key functionalities of my NAS: if he is only referring to the various RAID levels, then he is correct. But apart from that, I'm using all the rest.

[subego]

I have to think of them as physical drives, because I'm the dude in charge of configuring the box.

AFAIK, there are three ways I can set up a two bay NAS.

I can have one drive copy the other (RAID 0). You said you're not doing this.
I can have it look like one giant drive (RAID 1). If this is what you did, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that was such a horrible idea I recommend you nuke and pave the box, like... yesterday.
I can set up each drive separately. Any share I create will reside on only one of the drives.

You did the third, no?

If you did, how have you broken up what goes on what? It sounds like you have data, data backups (via HyperBackup), and Time Machine backups. How are these distributed? Going by what you said, the HyperBackup goes to the attached USB drive. You also said Time Machine access isn't affecting data access, so it implies they're on separate drives.

[turtle777]

Oreo's setup sounds like disaster in the making.

Even with his "backup" on the third drive, it will bbe a major headache to get back to square one if any of the first drives fail.

E.g. A manual backup of a Timemachine backup is hard to restore.
Likely, you are going to lose your history.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oreo's setup sounds like disaster in the making.

Even with his "backup" on the third drive, it will bbe a major headache to get back to square one if any of the first drives fail.

That's because you assume this is the only place where I keep readily available copies. All of the hot data is available on other hard drives.

Originally Posted by subego 

E.g. A manual backup of a Timemachine backup is hard to restore.
Likely, you are going to lose your history.

You're assuming I have only one Time Machine drive — I don't. I have a second one at work. I have a second one offsite. In addition, I have a backup in the cloud (via Backblaze). And I have a fourth “backup” of some of my data because I keep those files on my Dropbox (I know it's not the same as having a proper backup, but at least within 30 days I can restore older versions of my files and folders). I keep even more copies of my photo libraries on 2 other hard drives. Hence, I don't care as much if one of these drives fails, I have at least two other backups in at least 3 locations. (That's of course all in addition to the source data on my or my wife's MacBook Pro.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

AFAIK, there are three ways I can set up a two bay NAS.

I can have one drive copy the other (RAID 0). You said you're not doing this.
I can have it look like one giant drive (RAID 1). If this is what you did, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that was such a horrible idea I recommend you nuke and pave the box, like... yesterday.
I can set up each drive separately. Any share I create will reside on only one of the drives.

You did the third, no?

What you are talking about is just the configuration of the logical volumes, but not really the configuration of the NAS. The benefit of RAID1 (where the two drives are mirrored) is that in case of drive failure you don't have any downtime. You can replace the broken drive and regain redundancy, too. Of course, you won't have any data loss in the event of a drive failure, but that can still be true if you use another storage strategy. You still have single points of failure, though, e. g. software or the NAS hardware, and a RAID1 (or any other RAID level with redundancy) won't help. In my case, I actually do keep copies of my data on both hard drives on my NAS, I just don't use a RAID1. I'll explain that below.

PS There is a fourth way to create a volume, you could create a JBOD volume. Also you mixed up RAID1 and RAID0. No biggie, though.

Originally Posted by subego 

If you did, how have you broken up what goes on what? It sounds like you have data, data backups (via HyperBackup), and Time Machine backups. How are these distributed? Going by what you said, the HyperBackup goes to the attached USB drive. You also said Time Machine access isn't affecting data access, so it implies they're on separate drives.

Maybe it's useful to spell out my storage strategy in detail. Currently, among my wife and I, we have three machines (in addition to iOS devices which are only clients), one of them being an older backup machine in case of our main machines break. Additionally, I have my NAS and several external hard drives. At home and at work we have 1 GBit internet connections, so connections to cloud services are fast.

I have meticulously worked out my storage strategy, and my NAS is part of that: depending on how hot or cold my data is, I have more or different ways to restore it. My movie collection, for instance, is cold data, I don't add movies that often and since nowadays I mostly use Netflix, I don't mind if it takes time to restore data. My photos are reeaaaallly precious, so I keep more copies of my photo libraries than, say, my movies. Nevertheless, since I don't change my old photo libraries anymore (I've split them by years), it's easy to keep them backed up. My hot work data is kept on my Dropbox. So when I wanted to set up my new desktop at work, all I needed to do was install Dropbox and wait for the sync to be done (takes a few minutes with GBit internet). If all I care about getting work done, this is all I need to do.

My NAS houses shared data (music and movies) as well as two backups (yes, on both hard drives separately). I have copies of my music on my old computer, on external hard drives in my parents' home and “on iTunes” (I'm subscribing to Apple Music). While technically this is not a backup, I have instant access to my whole music library even if I haven't downloaded all of the songs. Now to the backups. Apart from my movie collection all of my data is stored in at least three different locations on different devices. (For my wife it is just two locations).

Backblaze: The two active machines and external hard drives are backed up to Backblaze. I would also back up my NAS and my Time Machine drives to Backblaze, but they don't allow that (it's a policy decision). Once I can get Backblaze B2 support for my Synology, I will also back up my Synology to the cloud.

My NAS: I actually have two copies of my data on my NAS, one on each physical hard drive. I use Cloud Sync to have my private Dropboxes for me and my wife (which are located on Drive 1). Additionally, we have Time Machine backups on Drive 2. Given the problems I have had with Time Machine I found that this is the safer solution because drive failure is not the only way you can lose data. (Encrypted/networked Time Machine backups have been flaky for me in the past, sometimes there is irreparable Disk Image corruption, and I had to start afresh).

Backup drive at work: The drive contains manual copies of my old photo libraries and parts of my movie collection, and is backed up to Backblaze.

Backup drive for my NAS: It does what it says on the tin. I don't back up Time Machine, though.

Dropbox: While Dropbox is not a backup, I can still use it to recover old versions of my data. Only my active work files are on my Dropbox, though. So if I get a new machine and have a decent internet connection, I can get going very, very quickly.

Older hard drives in Germany: In case there is a natural disaster akin to the Great Tohoku Earthquake 2.0 (I live in the Tohoku area), I still have older backups of my data (in addition to my Backblaze backups).

If, say, my Time Machine backup drive dies, I still have another copy on my NAS. Recovery time: 0. I will lose my old Time Machine recovery points. I still retain 30 days worth of recovery points on Backblaze.
If my other NAS drive fails, I need to go to work, get the hard drive, copy over the video collection and start Cloud Sync. Recovery time: 1/2 day. (Of course it was deliberate that I put my home folder and my Time Machine backup on different hard drivers in my NAS: I still retain all data in case one of them dies.)
If my NAS dies, well, then I need a new NAS and copy all the data. Recovery time: probably longer since I need to pick a new NAS and fret over the configuration.
If one of my main machines die, I take out the spare machine, wait until Cloud Sync is done, and start working. Recovery time: 1/2 at most. If all I want is get some work done, recovery time is less than 20 minutes.

As you can see, I have at least 3 copies of my data (with the exception of movies) on at least 2 different media and at least 1 copy offsite (aka the [url=http://blog.wisefaq.com/2010/01/05/backups-with-the-3-2-1-rule/]3-2-1 rule[url]). And I always do worry about losing data. So here are some

Weaknesses of my current strategy:
- Backblaze retains only 30 days worth of past backups and refuses to back up Time Machine drives. This really bugs me. I wish they gave me an option to keep indefinite number of recovery points. Once I can use B2 on my Synology, this is no longer an issue. The second point is more subtle: I could live with the fact that they exclude Time Machine data from their backups, but as soon as the Backblaze client detects Time Machine data on the volume, I will refuse to back it up. Ugh.
- Having Time Machine backups is a good no-nonsense solution, but I really wish Apple would get their file system strategy sorted out. (If you just use Time Machine onto a directly attached HFS+ drive and you do not encrypt the Time Machine backup, it has been very reliable, but as soon as you need to create a Sparse Disk Image, things start to get wonky.)
- Lack of redundancy on my NAS. Of course, I'd like to have redundancy. Once I decide to upgrade my NAS (probably in 2-3 years when I run out of space), I'll get a more powerful NAS with 5 or 8 drive bays. I plan to keep my old NAS around, but leave it at work (Synology allows you to sync NASes ) As I wrote above, the main reason for not getting a NAS with more bays was just cost (we needed to pay for a wedding and a move to another country …). Also, a larger NAS would have been more of a pain when moving (a 2-bay NAS still fits in the carry-on luggage).
- New Intel-based Synology NASes have btrfs support — and mine has an ARM SoC. I really want my data on btrfs volumes, because apart from ZFS, btrfs is the only main stream file system that detects and (in case you have redundancy) protects you against bit rot. btrfs also supports snapshots, so restoring to older versions would be a breeze.
- The backups to the external hard drives are manual, i. e. they don't happen as often as I would like and are prone to error.
- A complete recovery via Backblaze would take days. (You can order a hard drive with your data. Once they send it back, you get refunded for the cost of the hard drive. Obviously, I haven't tried that yet.)

Feel free to add to the list.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's because you assume this is the only place where I keep readily available copies. All of the hot data is available on other hard drives.

You're assuming I have only one Time Machine drive — I don't. I have a second one at work. I have a second one offsite. In addition, I have a backup in the cloud (via Backblaze). And I have a fourth “backup” of some of my data because I keep those files on my Dropbox (I know it's not the same as having a proper backup, but at least within 30 days I can restore older versions of my files and folders). I keep even more copies of my photo libraries on 2 other hard drives. Hence, I don't care as much if one of these drives fails, I have at least two other backups in at least 3 locations. (That's of course all in addition to the source data on my or my wife's MacBook Pro.)

Sounds like a system that can't possibly fail.

-t

[subego]

My system is I have computers backup to a Time Capsule and CrashPlan.

I have my Synology backup to CrashPlan and... another Synology.


Weaknesses: not frugal.

Strengths: uncomplicated.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have my Synology backup to CrashPlan and... another Synology.

Do you use Synology's built-in tools for syncing the two NASes? And do you keep one NAS offsite?

[subego]

Yes, and they're both on-site.

They're in different rooms though.

[subego]

I consider cloud backup as ticking both the "offsite" and "different media" 3-2-1 checkboxes.

[el chupacabra]

… .