Thread: Drives for NAS

I'm still trying to resurrect my Synology 1019+.

The newest problem is another failed WD Red 4TB HDD.

In looking for a replacement I have discovered that Western Digital, the maker of the drives that I have been using has changed their drive structure. Apparently this was a few years ago without really letting it be known of the change.

I know very little about drives and computers so what I am posting is new to me today after reading about the subject.

First my question for you computer experts. Should I be using CMR (Conventional Magnetic Recording) HDD drives WD40EFRX over SMR (Shingled Magnetic Recording) HDD drives WD40EFAX.

The basic difference is in the SMR the information is overlapped when stored. It was described as overlapped the way shingles on a roof are.
The testing showed the CMR to be more reliable, better quality and better functioning.
I will now have replaced 4 of them in the last 3 years.

Should I start changing out the SMR drives one at a time letting them rebuild the information on themselves?

From what the article and YouTube video said most all other NSA driver manufacturers are only using CMR versions.

Any opinions and information would be appreciated.

Brad

When I got my Synology DS716+ back in March 2016, I went with these (2 of them) hard drives (I think they were the Ironwolf drives that had come out around then) - Seagate 3.5" NAS HDD 8TB SATA 6Gb/s NCQ 256 MB Cache Bare Drive

The NAS is configured in RAID 1 and I probably have about one TB, give or take (have not looked in a bit but deleted some stuff (e.g. where I had one high res version already) about 18 months back when I got a warning that I hit 80% capacity. I'd think probably sometime in the next year or so (depending on whether things are still functioning) I'll be looking at 12TB drives or bigger (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-IronW...1&s=pc&sr=1-11) and I would think that with 4TB+ of additional capacity that I'll be set for quite a bit.

I’ve been using WD Reds - 12 TB each for my Synology 920+.

I would recommend CMR over SMR in all cases. Technically SMR will work okay if your load is light but it's the "inferior" technology. The datasheet of the drive should indicate CMR or SMR. Although sometimes a manufacturer gets caught on that.

Yes, swap out drives one at a time, allowing the storage pool to be rebuilt each time.

When you shop around, one of the easiest metrics to compare is MTBF (mean time before failure). The larger this number, the more reliable the drive should be. Technically there are other numbers you can pay attention to, but if you don't want to spend a lot of time comparing just go with MTBF.

Western Digital Gold and Ultrastar (Gold and Ultrastar are the same, just two line names due to legacy branding) and Seagate IronWolf Pro drives are good choices. I recently purchased a set of Ultrastar drives for a new NAS build. IronWolf The Western Digital Red and non-Pro IronWolf lines are a less expensive alternative suitable for lighter workloads (workload rate) but correspondingly less reliable (MTBF).

If you want to get deep into the details and actual field results, you can check out StorageReview and the Backblaze Drive Stats (e.g. Q2 2021).

I have been using 4 and 8 TB WD Red drives for several years without failure. Are you using WD Red Pro drives? They are supposed to be more durable and are for commercial applications. They have a longer warranty.

I have been slowly switching to SSD's and SSD M.2 drives for the music that I listen too the most. But I built a custom audio computer that can handle several drives.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

I would recommend CMR over SMR in all cases. Technically SMR will work okay if your load is light but it's the "inferior" technology. The datasheet of the drive should indicate CMR or SMR. Although sometimes a manufacturer gets caught on that.

Yes, swap out drives one at a time, allowing the storage pool to be rebuilt each time.

When you shop around, one of the easiest metrics to compare is MTBF (mean time before failure). The larger this number, the more reliable the drive should be. Technically there are other numbers you can pay attention to, but if you don't want to spend a lot of time comparing just go with MTBF.

Western Digital Gold and Ultrastar (Gold and Ultrastar are the same, just two line names due to legacy branding) and Seagate IronWolf Pro drives are good choices. I recently purchased a set of Ultrastar drives for a new NAS build. IronWolf The Western Digital Red and non-Pro IronWolf lines are a less expensive alternative suitable for lighter workloads (workload rate) but correspondingly less reliable (MTBF).

If you want to get deep into the details and actual field results, you can check out StorageReview and the Backblaze Drive Stats (e.g. Q2 2021).

Hi Neko,
I want to build a NAS for my home audio. I will be transferring vinyl to digital and will be using the flat output of a Lino C, a Lynx Hilo, Mac Mini, and Pure Vinyl. I am trying to balance drive size, speed, and redundancy. So, I'm not sure which RAID is typically recommended for this application. My background is large enterprise environments which obviously have different requirements than a small home setup.

You eluded to a recent NAS build and since your comment is on this audio board I assume that build was done for a similar application to what I want to setup. Do you have specific recommendations regarding an enclosure? I've read your comments on some of the various drives.

I, too, read the Backblaze drive stats as I have been using them for a few years now to backup my home desktop and laptop.

Originally Posted by allvinyl

You eluded to a recent NAS build and since your comment is on this audio board I assume that build was done for a similar application to what I want to setup. Do you have specific recommendations regarding an enclosure? I've read your comments on some of the various drives.

I use Synology enclosures. One thing to be aware of is the supported migration paths for their different models, since you'll probably eventually want to upgrade. Given your use case of primarily audio I/O, I doubt you'd need a powerful CPU or much RAM so the J series would still be fine. For larger files that require higher transfer speeds than audio, the J series has worked for me although the CPU usage will saturate and RAM utilization will be much higher.

If you don't already have a NAS, you might end up wanting to also use it for local computer backup. In which case a Plus series model might be better so your music streaming is less likely to get interrupted while a backup is happening.

In general I've found Synology works well and has good feature support, although I don't use them for much more than NAS purposes (i.e. I don't install many of the other software packages). I've personally never had a problem using Synology's SHR drive configuration. I would guess you're more familiar with RAID 5, and that's still what I'd use in a home or small business setup if you're not using Synology and therefore don't have SHR.

If you want something that will keep your local data safe in event of an emergency, then you could invest in an ioSafe product. They run Synology OS.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

I use Synology enclosures. One thing to be aware of is the supported migration paths for their different models, since you'll probably eventually want to upgrade. Given your use case of primarily audio I/O, I doubt you'd need a powerful CPU or much RAM so the J series would still be fine. For larger files that require higher transfer speeds than audio, the J series has worked for me although the CPU usage will saturate and RAM utilization will be much higher.

If you don't already have a NAS, you might end up wanting to also use it for local computer backup. In which case a Plus series model might be better so your music streaming is less likely to get interrupted while a backup is happening.

In general I've found Synology works well and has good feature support, although I don't use them for much more than NAS purposes (i.e. I don't install many of the other software packages). I've personally never had a problem using Synology's SHR drive configuration. I would guess you're more familiar with RAID 5, and that's still what I'd use in a home or small business setup if you're not using Synology and therefore don't have SHR.

If you want something that will keep your local data safe in event of an emergency, then you could invest in an ioSafe product. They run Synology OS.

Yes, I'd likely use this NAS solution for my local computer backup. After looking at the Synology site, I agree a plus series is what I should do. Do you think a 4 core DS920+ would suffice or is the DS1621+ more appropriate?

Also, you seem to indicate that you'd rather run RAID 5 than SHR. I'm fine with that, but am also comfortable using their SHR which might simplify things going forward. Would you still buy the unit populated with their drives or use something else?

Originally Posted by allvinyl

Yes, I'd likely use this NAS solution for my local computer backup. After looking at the Synology site, I agree a plus series is what I should do. Do you think a 4 core DS920+ would suffice or is the DS1621+ more appropriate?

Between the two I think a DS920+ would work fine if you're just doing I/O. The DS1621+ would probably make sense if you wanted to run some application services on there. The model I most recently got is the DS420+.

Originally Posted by allvinyl

Also, you seem to indicate that you'd rather run RAID 5 than SHR. I'm fine with that, but am also comfortable using their SHR which might simplify things going forward. Would you still buy the unit populated with their drives or use something else?

Sorry, I must have been unclear. I would use SHR on Synology devices as it basically provides the same reliability as RAID 5 but is more flexible to use. I prefer to pick my own hard disks and install them myself.

For regular music storage you don't need anything more fancy than DS420+. In fact, even the older DS418 which you can get even cheaper will do.

Just stick to the enterprise HDDs.

Some of the new WD RED mentioned here from the EFAX range are garbage. They have nothing to do with the older, much more reliable WD RED EFRX.

Have new WD Red EFRX drives.

Hopefully I will start installing them one at a time this weekend.

I will look it up but what is SHR?

SHR stands of Synology Hybrid RAID.

I replaced the first CMR drive in the #5 slot and the #1 drive instantly said it was bad.
I called a person that is a Dealer and installs HT systems I had used before and he offered to log in via TeamViewer and show me what to do.

He logged in and told #1 to repair itself and though it took 27 hours it did.

After #1 was working again, I followed his directions and initiated #5 and 38 hours the NAS is working fine.

He said that there is a good chance that the old #5 drive could repair itself so I should save it in the unit static bag for a future try.

Now it makes me wonder if last time I had 3 drives say they were bad they could have been repaired? Oh well, better to find out late than never.

Thanks for all of the suggestions.

Another diploma in the school of hard nocks.