Synology Network Attached Storage (NAS)?

Did you mean 2TB or 4TB internally? That'd be a nice setup either way. Not sure what you'd want the external for if you had the NAS, though... since you could just back it up to a super cheap cloud service nightly, or weekly, or whatever you liked.

Example, if you used the internal app to back up to Amazon Glacier, it's $0.004 per GB per month. If you used S3 it's $0.023 per GB per month. I like S3 because I can go poking around and pull down an individual file or ten without messing with a restore on the NAS. You also pay some transfer fees if you ever have to download the whole thing back, but those don't kick in unless you do.

You can do a full estimate with their tool here, but we're talking single digit dollars for the most part here for a home NAS backup, monthly.

https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/

Of course, you could always plug your external drive into the NAS and back the NAS up into it also and then unplug it and take it somewhere... so there's that...

I would debate between either 4GB total (two 2GB drives) or 8GB total (two 4GB drives). Ahh interesting point...I thought cloud services were quite expensive if you were wanting more than 1TB, but wow that is quite cheap! Never heard of Amazon Glacier or S3.

Hmm...this is sounding better and better. So you think NAS + cloud backup instead of NAS + external HD would be the way to go?

The DS218J is a cheaper alternative...although I feel like if I am going to go the NAS route I might as well do it right the first time.
 
Just wanted to say that PoA really does have the answer to all of life's questions. I think I've got more good feedback on here about this topic than about 5 other sites combined LOL.
 
Just wanted to say that PoA really does have the answer to all of life's questions. I think I've got more good feedback on here about this topic than about 5 other sites combined LOL.

That or we just have bigger porn collections that need solid long term storage... LOL... Kidding... :)
 
Example, if you used the internal app to back up to Amazon Glacier, it's $0.004 per GB per month. If you used S3 it's $0.023 per GB per month. I like S3 because I can go poking around and pull down an individual file or ten without messing with a restore on the NAS. You also pay some transfer fees if you ever have to download the whole thing back, but those don't kick in unless you do.

You can do a full estimate with their tool here, but we're talking single digit dollars for the most part here for a home NAS backup, monthly.

https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/

This doesn't strike me as a great deal. For a 5TB source file collection, I calculated $115/month on S3. That is pretty hefty for personal use. Double your file totals in a couple of years, and now it's near 3 grand a year to store your vacation source videos. Ouch!
 
This doesn't strike me as a great deal. For a 5TB source file collection, I calculated $115/month on S3. That is pretty hefty for personal use. Double your file totals in a couple of years, and now it's near 3 grand a year to store your vacation source videos. Ouch!

Hmm so I guess NAS + external HD is still the way to go
 
I've had my synology NAS for about 9 years. Haven't had any issues with it.. Well worth every cent i spent on it.
 
This doesn't strike me as a great deal. For a 5TB source file collection, I calculated $115/month on S3. That is pretty hefty for personal use. Double your file totals in a couple of years, and now it's near 3 grand a year to store your vacation source videos. Ouch!

Yeah. Video sucks that way. I get it. Terabytes of data for home videos...
 
Mirroring really isn't that awful, you just lose half of the purchased disk space. But for home gamers, if you pay attention to any individual disk failures, the little two drive mirrored units are fine and have enough redundancy that if you're paying attention and swap in another drive when one fails, you can save some coin on the Synology unit, and just set it to backup off-site for the "lightning hit my house and friend the entire synology" moment... which I've had... not with a synology, but the lightning thing and fried drives...

Another reason to make offsite backups... or at least UNPLUGGED backups if you're too lazy to drive them somewhere else... crack, boom, all the computers and the TV are smoking... wheeeeee! LOL

True, before the Synology I was running a true raid-5 setup on a linux server. So in my case it was actually downsizing if anything. Offsite backups are nice but for folks like me who live in the woods and are shall we say bandwidth challenged it's not really a great option. I have a regular USB hard drive that I periodically back up everything to and stick in my theoretically fireproof gun safe. Probably would be smarter to stick it up in the pole barn instead of the same building but I have a feeling if I had to walk that far the period backups would never end up happening. Or better I should just buy a 2nd synology unit, keep it up there in the other building, and write a script or something to back it up every night.

Then again short of a very severe house fire I'm pretty well covered with everything in raid storage and backed up to another device...
 
So is there any benefit to going with something like this: https://www.lacie.com/products/big/2big/

It is not a NAS, just a RAID external HD.

Or maybe the better question, is there any benefit to NOT going with an NAS setup and just having it as a normal external HD in a RAID configuration.

If you only need to access your files from one computer or you don't mind swapping from one to another then it's probably faster. The real difference is the Network part of NAS(network attached storage). You'd only be able to use that device with one computer at a time unless I'm missing something.
 
If you only need to access your files from one computer or you don't mind swapping from one to another then it's probably faster. The real difference is the Network part of NAS(network attached storage). You'd only be able to use that device with one computer at a time unless I'm missing something.

Hmm...so I mean really...for the money it seems like NAS is the way to go. It's basically the same cost to do the DS418play with two 4TB drives (8TB total). So unless NAS is way slower then I can't see paying that much for a normal external RAID HD.
 
I have a Synology DS212+ that has two hot-swap drives in a RAID-1 configuration. It is as reliable as a rock and the software is amazing in its breadth of functions and in running totally problem free. I have several volumes set up for photos and backups, plus a volume that gives me a Dropbox type cloud storage system where the Synology box is the cloud. I have a SATA dock attached and I periodically back up the Synology box to a large SATA drive that lives in my gun safe. That is the ultimate backup for fire or theft of the Synology box.

I think I paid under $300 for the box on eBay, then bought new drives.

BTW, I think the general model numbering system is that the first number is the number of drives, then then next two are the model year, then the suffix tells more about the box. So my 212+ is two drives, 2012 model, and adds ("+") a high speed processor.
 
So...what is the easiest/most cost effective way for me to store/archive my video files/projects? Is it just external HDs (which have no redundancy) or an NAS?

If you value your data, you need both. Hard drives fail, and I've seen situations where raid can fail in a way that takes out multiple data. It can happen, even on RAID-6. Multiple drive failures or hardware/software failures can cause it. I even saw an IT shop ignore the drive failure warnings until two failed and the third was starting to throw errors. We got most of the data off, combined with 30 day old backup.

That's why off-site storage becomes important.

With the NAS I am afraid I am going to be quite limited by my internet speed and by the crappy Cox router I have right now?

Amazing how complex this stuff gets.

I'm thinking if you just put your NAS on the same switch as your computer, the router shouldn't really limit you. Gigabit switches are cheap.

Correct. Since the NAS is on your home network, it will never pass through the internet. Just put a fast switch on your network, plug your devices into that instead of the router, and run a single cable from router to switch. I have a bit more complex network here, but it works essentially that way.
 
This doesn't strike me as a great deal. For a 5TB source file collection, I calculated $115/month on S3. That is pretty hefty for personal use. Double your file totals in a couple of years, and now it's near 3 grand a year to store your vacation source videos. Ouch!

You may want to check out Backblaze B2. My guess is about $25.00 / month for 5TB. Downloads can be pricy; though they've recently reduced the price, so maybe not so much any more.

Rich
 
Re cloud storage, be sure to calculate how many days it will take to upload all your data. Then be sure to have a plan when you go to itty-bitty-cloud-storage-company's site and the browser gives you "server not found."
 
You may want to check out Backblaze B2. My guess is about $25.00 / month for 5TB. Downloads can be pricy; though they've recently reduced the price, so maybe not so much any more.

Rich

I’ve always wanted to support Backblaze somehow but haven’t ever seen a good reason for me to yet.

I love their hard drive annual reports of what stuff is failing early and what’s rock solid in their big ol’ storage machines they build. :)
 
I’ve always wanted to support Backblaze somehow but haven’t ever seen a good reason for me to yet.

I love their hard drive annual reports of what stuff is failing early and what’s rock solid in their big ol’ storage machines they build. :)

I use Backblaze B2 for secondary or tertiary backup because although uploads and storage are dirt cheap, downloads are (or at least used to be) pricy. I recommend it only to users who have at least one local backup destination. The cost to recover a large amount of data using the old pricing schedule would be considerable, so B2 should always be secondary or tertiary -- a doomsday backup, as it were.

On my PC, B2 is the destination after the daily Macrium clone to a second internal drive, the daily Macrium image to the ioSafe drive, and the critical files and folders backup to the ioSafe drive that ShadowSpawn and Robocopy make. That batch job is a holdover from before I started using Macrium Reflect, which also can make files and folders backups. At some point I'll get around to changing it. Or not.

The ioSafe is supposed to be resistant to everything short of an atomic bomb (and has a data-recovery warranty in case that turns out not to be true). But just in case that doesn't work either, I have a batch file that uses rclone to copy the new or changed files in the files and folders backup on the ioSafe to Backblaze B2. So even if my computer, the clone, and the ioSafe are destroyed, and the data on the ioSafe is irrecoverable, the most important stuff is on B2.

On my servers, the primary backups are daily and are stored on the servers themselves. They're mainly useful for self-managed users who hose their sites so thoroughly that they want to restore them from backup. Daily copies of those backups to Amazon S3 using cPanel's built-in tool are secondary, with three-day retention. Daily copies of the backups to Backblaze are tertiary with 14-day retention. The datacenter's weekly backups are quaternary. Recovery using anything other than the cPanel backup would require my assistance. The cPanel backups are directly accessible to the users (which is one of the main reasons I use cPanel).

So yeah, I really do have backups of my backups. Multiple ones, in fact. Because as every geek knows: You can never have too many good backups.

I like Backblaze. I've never had to actually use those backups, but I've done recovery tests using rclone, and they've always worked just fine. They're the backups I hope and expect to never need. Now that they've lowered the download price I suppose I could eliminate the Amazon backups and promote Backblaze to secondary; but eliminating any backup goes against my grain. Again, you can never have too many good backups. It's an impossibility.

Backblaze also has an unlimited, consumer-oriented backup that works very well. I have an affiliate free trial link somewhere if you ever want to try it.

Rich
 
My critical stuff goes to an encrypted (end-to-end encryption) cloud service.
 
So on these cloud services... and maybe I'm the only one who cares because I'm paranoid... how well are they encrypted? Or rather what's the implementation. What I want to see is that if I lose my password all is lost- the company is physically unable to recover my data without the password because it's not possible. If they can't, that means no hacker or government entity should be able to access it without my password either and that's the level of protection I would prefer.

Maybe others would rather have the safety of an admin being able to unlock their stuff if they lose their password. Nothing wrong with that, just know if you want truly bulletproof encryption then absolutely nobody should be able to access your stuff without the password no matter what.
 
... that means no hacker or government entity should be able to access it without my password either and that's the level of protection I would prefer.

Some things need that, some don’t.

Doesn’t matter anyway, Uncle Sam voted themselves the right to demand your unencryption passwords if you ever cross a border, at will, and no due process or 4th Amendment rights for Citizens.

If you don’t comply and they know you have something encrypted that they want to see, they can detain you indefinitely under the terrorism laws and hide your court case from public view under FISA.

And very few Citizens seem to care. Or even stupider, want it that way.
 
I don't have much advice that hasn't been expertly offered.
Only thing I'll add, is just be careful encrypting 'everything'. I've seen a couple of train wrecks, (in the wrong hands) and that's when the fat lady sings.
Cloud? yes
Local? No, unless there is a dire need.
And the more backups the better!

Hobbies aren't as much fun when they get to be work lol. Ask me how I know...
 
I originally started with Cineform proxies, which seemed great, but then someone told me that you should not be doing color correcting with proxies, hence why I went to a full transcode to Cineform YUV 10 bit. Realistically, you are probably right that I should just stick with the proxies. If I did this I could keep my system as is and not spend a dime. Although a slick solution would be external hard drives as one backup and then a NAS for a secondary backup.

Don't let me talk you out of anything :). I'm in close to the same boat as you as far as needing storage. Hadn't heard about the issue with proxies and color correction, though. I'm leaning towards some kind of local NAS with additional offsite cloud storage.

Amazon Cloud Drive had a killer deal on unlimited storage for $60/year. I got about 4 TB uploaded and then they changed terms on me; much more expensive now.
 
I use a configuration I haven’t idea seen mentioned instead of traditional NAS.

I start with a standard Linux computer with a motherboard that lets me have six SATA disks. I use a mix of 4 and 8TB drives for 40TB of storage, but if you opt for the newer 10TB disks, you can get about double this. This little server also has a pair of gigabit Ethernet ports that I run in a bonded configuration, so I generally get plenty of bandwidth. It can be pretty economical if you build it yourself.

Being Linux, you can use Samba, NFS, FTP or just about anything else you like for remote access from nearly any type of computer. If you’re bold, you can even open some of these protocols so you can access your files anywhere - just be sure you know what you’re doing with security. The other cool thing is that I also run a backup tool that transparently copies my data to Amazon Glacier...there are several to choose from - only issue gets to be the Glacier cost, especially if you get to tens of terabytes being backed up.

At really massive scale, don’t overlook modern tape backup. LTO-8 drives can store 30TB on a single low-cost tape cartridge, and it’s pretty easy to have an extra copy to stash in a safe deposit box or wherever. The only issue is that these tape devices run nearly $5K, but if you’re looking at something like Glacier, the cost adds up pretty quickly once you get to tens of terabytes. Glacier’s $.004 per GB per month is $48 per TB per year...40TB makes that LTO-8 drive look attractive after 2-3 years.
 
Don't let me talk you out of anything :). I'm in close to the same boat as you as far as needing storage. Hadn't heard about the issue with proxies and color correction, though. I'm leaning towards some kind of local NAS with additional offsite cloud storage.

Amazon Cloud Drive had a killer deal on unlimited storage for $60/year. I got about 4 TB uploaded and then they changed terms on me; much more expensive now.

Color correcting on the proxy isn't a big deal...just turn off the proxy and use the master file. That is the beauty of Premiere Pro is you can immediately turn off the proxy and turn it back on when needed.
 
If you value your data, you need both. Hard drives fail, and I've seen situations where raid can fail in a way that takes out multiple data. It can happen, even on RAID-6. Multiple drive failures or hardware/software failures can cause it. I even saw an IT shop ignore the drive failure warnings until two failed and the third was starting to throw errors. We got most of the data off, combined with 30 day old backup.

That's why off-site storage becomes important.





Correct. Since the NAS is on your home network, it will never pass through the internet. Just put a fast switch on your network, plug your devices into that instead of the router, and run a single cable from router to switch. I have a bit more complex network here, but it works essentially that way.

So what the heck is a "fast switch" and how do I implement that? Right now I have an AIO unit from Cox that is a router/modem combo and I just run an ethernet from that directly to my desktop. I wouldn't do the same if I got an NAS?
 
So what the heck is a "fast switch" and how do I implement that? Right now I have an AIO unit from Cox that is a router/modem combo and I just run an ethernet from that directly to my desktop. I wouldn't do the same if I got an NAS?

You could. What folks are saying is that most modems might have 10/100 ports for Ethernet speeds or they might have Gigabit Ethernet maybe.

A separate Ethernet switch known to be able to run Gigabit (or if you were doing something called “bonding” of Ethernet ports technically it has to run faster than gigabit speeds) plugged into one of those ports and then everything that needs fast access to the NAS plugged into that, eliminates the speed bottleneck of the built in switch inside the modem, if it has a bottleneck.

Kinda like building your own little local racetrack with an off ramp to the modem and the internet via one cable, since the internet pipe itself is very rarely gigabit speeds and the modems they provide often can’t go that fast either, internally.

If the modem has gigabit Ethernet ports it’s free to try your way first and measure the maximum file transfer speed. Many “gigabit” devices will really run about 300 megabits per second maximum if they’re old designs.

To go gigabit a little desktop gigabit switch is cheap. To start doing “bonding” of Ethernet ports into one fatter pipe requires a little more expensive switch.

And then, unrelated to home gamer setups usually is cascading multiple switches in a building and figuring out how fast to make those links and blah blah blah... you get that idea. We just put in our 10 gigabit backbone and switches that can handle that at work in the building as we built out part of the warehouse into office space.

And then there’s switches that can power things like phones with power-over-Ethernet from each port, yadda yadda yadda.

We’ve come a long way from my early days when a 10 megabit per second hub cost thousands of dollars. Most of this stuff is well below $100 for home use now. :)

We had a co-worker come ask us one day... “What Ethernet cards do you guys use in servers?” As we dug into why he was asking, he had built his own firewall for home using pfSense (smart guy!) and then moved into a house that has true gigabit (actually 2 gigabit if he pays for it!) internet speeds over fiber (I’m jealous!).

His cheap five dollar gigabit Ethernet cards in his mini PC running his firewall started “smelling bad” a few days later. Yep... they were overheating to the point they smelled. Given a few more days they probably would have let their magic smoke out, but he stuck a DC fan next to the thing and was blowing on them.

We laughed and told him to buy a couple of nice Intel cards for a few bucks and no more smoking home firewall. Hahahah.

Long story short, SOME consumer grade stuff can’t really do gigabit speeds. That’s why folks are saying you MIGHT need a desktop switch next to your modem.
 
You could. What folks are saying is that most modems might have 10/100 ports for Ethernet speeds or they might have Gigabit Ethernet maybe.

A separate Ethernet switch known to be able to run Gigabit (or if you were doing something called “bonding” of Ethernet ports technically it has to run faster than gigabit speeds) plugged into one of those ports and then everything that needs fast access to the NAS plugged into that, eliminates the speed bottleneck of the built in switch inside the modem, if it has a bottleneck.

Kinda like building your own little local racetrack with an off ramp to the modem and the internet via one cable, since the internet pipe itself is very rarely gigabit speeds and the modems they provide often can’t go that fast either, internally.

If the modem has gigabit Ethernet ports it’s free to try your way first and measure the maximum file transfer speed. Many “gigabit” devices will really run about 300 megabits per second maximum if they’re old designs.

To go gigabit a little desktop gigabit switch is cheap. To start doing “bonding” of Ethernet ports into one fatter pipe requires a little more expensive switch.

And then, unrelated to home gamer setups usually is cascading multiple switches in a building and figuring out how fast to make those links and blah blah blah... you get that idea. We just put in our 10 gigabit backbone and switches that can handle that at work in the building as we built out part of the warehouse into office space.

And then there’s switches that can power things like phones with power-over-Ethernet from each port, yadda yadda yadda.

We’ve come a long way from my early days when a 10 megabit per second hub cost thousands of dollars. Most of this stuff is well below $100 for home use now. :)

We had a co-worker come ask us one day... “What Ethernet cards do you guys use in servers?” As we dug into why he was asking, he had built his own firewall for home using pfSense (smart guy!) and then moved into a house that has true gigabit (actually 2 gigabit if he pays for it!) internet speeds over fiber (I’m jealous!).

His cheap five dollar gigabit Ethernet cards in his mini PC running his firewall started “smelling bad” a few days later. Yep... they were overheating to the point they smelled. Given a few more days they probably would have let their magic smoke out, but he stuck a DC fan next to the thing and was blowing on them.

We laughed and told him to buy a couple of nice Intel cards for a few bucks and no more smoking home firewall. Hahahah.

Long story short, SOME consumer grade stuff can’t really do gigabit speeds. That’s why folks are saying you MIGHT need a desktop switch next to your modem.

Hmm okay...I followed most of that I think. Maybe I'll watch some YouTube videos on it.

I am still a bit confused how I can get Gigabyte speeds when I only pay for 60MB/s from Cox...

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=12K-008X-00026
 
Hmm okay...I followed most of that I think. Maybe I'll watch some YouTube videos on it.

I am still a bit confused how I can get Gigabyte speeds when I only pay for 60MB/s from Cox...

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=12K-008X-00026
The 60 MB/s is only for that data that you are downloading from then internet. Data that you are uploading to the internet is probably nowhere near that speed. So it will take ages to upload your data to the internet.

But with NAS, you are not uploading or downloading to the internet. You are transferring data between nodes on your own network. If you buy a $99 multi-port gigabit switch, then any device you have that is gigabit capable can talk to each other at gigabit speeds.

Let's say you have a 4 port switch (I have a 16 port gigabit switch).
You can plug your router into the switch with an ethernet cable.
Plug your printer into the switch with Cat 6 (with gigabit you want category 6 cables).
Plug your PC into the switch with Cat 6
Plug your NAS into the switch with Cat 6
(Cat 5 + may be ok, but Cat 6 is better).

Now, you can send files to the printer or the NAS at Gb speeds,
but if you send data to the internet, it will be throttled back to the internet speeds.
 
Oh, and I believe you should be thinking Giga BIT, not Giga BYTE. There is a big difference.
Others may want to correct me here if necessary.
 
The 60 MB/s is only for that data that you are downloading from then internet. Data that you are uploading to the internet is probably nowhere near that speed. So it will take ages to upload your data to the internet.

But with NAS, you are not uploading or downloading to the internet. You are transferring data between nodes on your own network. If you buy a $99 multi-port gigabit switch, then any device you have that is gigabit capable can talk to each other at gigabit speeds.

Let's say you have a 4 port switch (I have a 16 port gigabit switch).
You can plug your router into the switch with an ethernet cable.
Plug your printer into the switch with Cat 6 (with gigabit you want category 6 cables).
Plug your PC into the switch with Cat 6
Plug your NAS into the switch with Cat 6
(Cat 5 + may be ok, but Cat 6 is better).

Now, you can send files to the printer or the NAS at Gb speeds,
but if you send data to the internet, it will be throttled back to the internet speeds.

Ahhh okay I gotcha now. Thanks for the explanation. I will have to pick up one of those switches. Thanks for the help.
 
@CC268

I have a Syno DS413 NAS (4-bay) with 2x 2TB hard drives and 2 open bays.

Here’s my use case: MacBook Pro and a Win 10 machine. Both machines backup to the Synology. I have a folder in the NAS the keeps common source files (docs, etc) that I want access to from either machine.

All our photos/videos/music sits on there, too and, our smart TVs (Ethernet connection) recognize it as source. So I can play stuff stored on the box directly from my TVs.

Our iPhones have the synology apps on it. As I visit my mom, I can access pictures on the NAS from my phone even though I’m several hundred miles from the NAS.

I can also email a link to the folder to my brother so he can see the pics from his house. And I can control if he can view, download, or upload.

All in all, pretty neat features and easy to use for someone that can’t spell IP with adding ‘freely’ to the end.

Those features are why I chose NAS over a giant hard drive. There’s a ton of other capabilities in there, but in the end NAS allows you to have one source accessible by many devices. If your use case doesn’t include access by multiple devices, the NAS may not be the best solution.
 
For a home nas I bought one of these: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Power...484961?hash=item283b69db21:g:AC8AAOSwR6RZ6PWR
Filled it up with 2TB drives in RAID-5.
Installed VMware ESXi.
Created a VM for the NAS running Ubuntu Server. Use NFS and CIFS (samba) for file storage.
Daily offsite encrypted backup using https://restic.net/ to https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html (it helps that I have a 1GB up/down internet connection in my house)

Hard to beat the bang for the buck.

Sounds cool, although I'm not familiar with any of that ha. Many years ago I played around with Ubuntu, but it's been many years and most that stuff is a bit over my head.
 
Sounds cool, although I'm not familiar with any of that ha. Many years ago I played around with Ubuntu, but it's been many years and most that stuff is a bit over my head.
Jesse must have a server rack installed in his house for that Dell. :)
 
Jesse must have a server rack installed in his house for that Dell. :)

LOL. He will be back in a minute to explain that he started out trying to install it under the stairs in the living room. No I’m not kidding. :) Right @jesse ? :) :) :)
 
Back
Top