DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum

Yeeeeeah I'd recommend NOT trying this.  I tried to pull off a similar upgrade but I ended up with a frigging mess.  I finally gave up, backed everything up, then started from scratch.

If you had a SATA HD USB enclosure, you could attach one of the 500GB disks directly
to the DSN-323 via the USB connection and copy the data to the 1TB RAID1 drives.

kaymm2 wrote:

Thanks.  Never thought about using that method but is the USB port 2.0?  If it's 1.1, it would take a very long time to copy 500GB of data.

It's USB 2.0 - http://dns323.kood.org/hardware:usb

I think i'll go the external USB route to copy the files.   My current DNS has ffp installed.   Thanks guys.

PaulieG wrote:

Also, is the general consensus that it's better to run two drives and sync daily instead of RAID1?

No. They accomplish different objectives. For more information, consult fordem (or his signature).

jmjansen00:  I don't really want to risk something happening to the 500G drive still in the NAS, while I take the other one out and format it.  Instead, I was going to copy everything from the NAS to the 1TB HD, then verify, then format ONE of the 500's, copy copy the stuff to it, verify, then set up the 1TB RAID1, then copy it there.  It just seems like an awful lot of work, hence I was searching for a better way.

kaymm2:  Yes, assuming you can mount one of the drives.  Hardy Heron didn't mount the partition, though it recognized the drive.  Will have to try this again.

blahsome:  Thanks, I'm familiar with fordem's signature.  I think rsync'ing two hard drives provides redundancy just as RAID1 does, though not instantaneously.  I've always had RAID1, but now I'm leaning toward the other option because I don't really need redundancy for ISOs that I have backed up on optical media.  It's nice to have them on the NAS for convenience, that's all.

PaulieG wrote:

blahsome:  Thanks, I'm familiar with fordem's signature.  I think rsync'ing two hard drives provides redundancy just as RAID1 does, though not instantaneously.  I've always had RAID1, but now I'm leaning toward the other option because I don't really need redundancy for ISOs that I have backed up on optical media.  It's nice to have them on the NAS for convenience, that's all.

You may be familiar with my signature, but it's quite clear that you don't understand it - rsync'ing two hard drives can provide data backup, but never disk redundancy - the big difference is that with redundant disks a disk failure does not bring the system down and no data is lost as a result of the disk failure, whereas with your rsync'd disks, failure of the primary disk will cause both.

With RAID1 - the failure of either disk results in an alert being sent to the system administrator - the users are unaware of the failure.

With an "rsynced pair" the failure of the primary disk will result with all processing ceasing until the system administrator either replaces the failed disk and restores the data - or - remaps the share to point to the secondary disk - in either case - ALL - data saved after the last sync point will be lost, if the secondary disk fails there is no impact.