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

Perhaps, but not an answer to my question.
______________________________________

RAID1 is for disk redundancy, not data backup, but sometimes that's enough...

Last edited by alan.pieroway (2010-07-28 02:39:19)

What I'm really concerned about is that the DNS-323 that I  bought based on it's promise of easy, breazy, swap out the broken hdd, and insert a new hdd, and sit back and breath easy as it rebuilds the RAID1 mirror setup isn't so eazy, breazy as it is said to be.

Wheter I rely on it as my main storage device, or as the backup to my laptop's internal drive, or as a doorstop - it should do what it is supposed to do, as it was sold to do.

It's somewhat annoying to ask a question here and have to filter through all the die-hards lecture about the true meaning of backups vs redundancy. 

I see that this is how ALL new member questions are handled here - if i asked what is the meaning of life, the answer would probably be, "Redundancy isn't a backup! A split personality isn't a form of backup. Get a second body so you don't lose your mind when your body wears out."

And for the record, I agree with you all that RAID1 isn't a valid backup process.  But is what I'm willing to go with for now given my needs, money, space, and in-ability to eat/breath/sh-t the question of 'is my data safe'.

Sure, I can do more, but I refuse to have 3 NAS drives backing up my data, stored in 3 different buildings, in 3 different cities.  Sorry to dissapoint guys

It's funny, but I've read post that say it's better to set up the 323 as two seperate drives and, on a regular basis, replicate one to the other myself.  In that scenario, I'm surprised that no one jumped on the person and said, "but what if there's a lightning strike and the whole unit is fried" or "what if there's a flood, and your 12th story apartment is flooded - you're going to lose all your data, man!"

Consider that a RAID1 setup, on 323, is more data backup than most people have ever had - especially for the average user.

All I'm saying is - be a bit nicer guys.... the average user doesn't need to be ganged up on if they ask a question.  Answer it without the lecture, and applied guilt slash your so dumb trip, and then if they want/ask for more information you can give it - with less 'i know what i'm talking about and you're a fool for not having the same setup as me' attitude.

Sorry for the rant... but it's a bit fustrating at times to be told/implied that I'm a fool for not backing up my data as if i were a multi-national, multi-billion dollar, corporation.

I do appreciate all the valuable information, and knowledge to be found from the members here.  And, someday, i may invest in a backup of my backup of my backup.

Al

(oh, and i don't care if i lose a file because i accidently deleted it - a backup, to me, is a long term thing, not a protect the idiot from deleting a file today thing.  if i cared about one particular file i'd buy a mac, and use the time machine - or some PC equivilant that i've read about around the net )

Last edited by alan.pieroway (2010-07-28 17:01:45)

Yes, i've read other post along your experience.  I think i got from them to remove the good drive before starting and laying it off to the side so it's not part of the process of setting up/formatting the new drive. Once the new drive is in place and formatted, I think I then insert the orginal good drive and hope it rebuilds the RAID1 mirror.

At the very least when it comes that time, i will try that, and see if i can continue.

Worse case, just to be sure, I'll BACKUP all 323 data to a completely new external drive via an external usb drive case with a 2TB drive. I have the case, but will need to buy yet another drive. That will be my less used archival backup after that. Then, in complete process failure, i'll still have a backup to restore to the 323 from.

But for day to day 'backup/redundancy/whatever' I'll rely on the 323.

When was this, btw, and with what firmware version?

Thanks for your story.

Al

Can you give more information on doing if via fun_plug, or is there a specific post you can reference that explains the process?
You are talking about rebuilding a RAID1 setup? And not about having them setup as two SEPERATE drives that you manually backup from one the other periodically.
Thanks,
Al

Thanks. This unit is fairly new.  But, that being said, when a drive fails sometime down the road I will remember to review my notes, all post on the subject, etc, as welll as consider the funplug and manual approach. Hopefully all will go well. I'll cross all my body parts.
Hopefully, by then, DLink will have listened to the end users and figured it all out and fix it in a future firmware update.
Thanks,
Al
(who will also do the backup before rebuilding idea with a seperate drive)

alan.pieroway wrote:

I've been reading the forum on the 323 and there were issues back around firmware update 1.05 or so, in post from 2007, stating that trying to restore the failed drive can lead to confusion and result in formatting both drives.

Has this issue been solved as of the later, or latest, firmware updates?

NO, your data is at risk during RAID1 rebuild with all firmware versions.

alan.pieroway wrote:

What I'm really concerned about is that the DNS-323 that I  bought based on it's promise of easy, breazy, swap out the broken hdd, and insert a new hdd, and sit back and breath easy as it rebuilds the RAID1 mirror setup isn't so eazy, breazy as it is said to be.

NO, RAID1 rebuild on a DNS-323  is not so eazy, breazy.

alan.pieroway wrote:

Hopefully, by then, DLink will have listened to the end users and figured it all out and fix it in a future firmware update.

NO, Dlink does not really acknowledge a RAID1 rebuild problem (take a look at the firmware release dates and notes).

alan.pieroway wrote:

I'd hate to loose everything should/when one of the drives fails on me.

The DNS-323 has some severe limitations with RAID1 rebuilds, your data is at RISK!
Having a backup is the only way to protect you data during a RAID1 rebuild on a DNS-323
You can backup your data after one of the drives fail, or you can make a periodic backup strategy for your data now (your choice, it's your data)
Either way, I suggest you run a simulation of your backup and RAID1 rebuild procedure so there are no surprises when you have a failure.

If you find the DNS-323 limitations too restrictive, or feel the product description (marketing) misled you, you should return your DNS-323 (if you still can).

karlrado wrote:

mig: Very well put!!!!!
I don't need or want RAID 1 and I would not have purchased the 323 if I couldn't run it with two independent volumes. But I can see why people who really need RAID 1 have a valid complaint.

The primary reason my signature says what it does is that many of the people who think they need RAID1 (and I believe alan.pieroway falls into this category) do not in fact need it - they see it as a form of backup, to prevent the loss of data in the event of a disk failure, that is not what it's intended for.

On the matter of reduced availability ...

One of the early RAID implementations I did, back in the days of Pentium IIs, was a RAID5 array using (the latest at the time) 3x4.5GB FAST/WIDE SCSI "non-hot-swap" disks - the system ran for almost six years as the sole server in a small business, and sustained three, possibly four disk failures in that period, without a single second of unscheduled down time.

Most SOHO businesses don't run 24/7 and can afford the downtime for maintenance, provided they can schedule it for a convenient time, and that is what RAID allows.

Loose Gravel wrote:

If you compare the pros and cons of  time-machine-backup and raid1, I do believe that many of the people would be better off with backup.

On the other hand, don't underestimate the coolness factor of raid1. "What, your are still backing up your data? Lamer! I already have raid1!!!!"

If I might be permitted to reprhase your comparison...

                                                                   Backup  Raid1
Is done automatically                                                yes    yes
Uses half of availible disk-space                                    yes    yes
Let you recover deleted files                                        yes    no
Let you revover overwritten files                                    yes    no
Let you go back 15 days to recover important email                   yes    no
Is user-error-save (accidentally delete folder, not file)            yes    no
Is user-blackout-save (rm *, del *.*)                                yes    no
Protects you when virus infects all your files                       yes    no
Let one of the two disks power down most of the time                 yes    no
Uses less energy, produces less heat                                 yes    no
Reduces risk of simular disk failure                                 yes    no
Needs manual steps to recover from disk failure                      yes    yes
Let you schedule these steps to off hours                            no     yes
Is disaster-proof (lightning strike)                                 no     no

Reduces or eliminates downtime caused by a disk failure.             no     yes

If you have a disk failure in a non RAID system, that system is rendered unusable, until such time as action can be taken to make the data available from the backup - the impact of this down time can range from being a mere inconvience to having severe financial impact, depending on the nature of the affected system and the data.

You do have a table entry that deals with this (Let you schedule these steps to off hours), but I find this does not make clear the potential impact of the down time.