Home NAS recommendations?

[William Muriithi]

Giles

On 1 February 2010 11:41, Giles Orr <gilesorr-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I'm looking for a home NAS - essentially I want a glorified hard drive
> enclosure that has a RJ-45 port on it.  Unfortunately, I think that my
> ideal unit doesn't exist, but I thought I'd ask.  I'd like it to hold
> a single hard drive: dual HDs would mean higher reliability (assuming
> RAID 0) but also higher cost, higher power consumption, probably more
> noise ... and I don't need the extra reliability.  Here's where it

Just be careful with RAID 0. It does not offer any reliability
benefit. In fact, if you look at it mathematically, it actually make
the system less reliable. What I mean by this is, the more hard disk
space you have, the probability of having bad sectors increases. Since
that failure can make data in both hard disk unusable, one can deduce
that such a system is worse off than with a single hard disk. That
explain why ext4 has been deemed insufficient, considering the size of
current drives. And that is why btrfs seem to be the only way forward
for OSS.  Even xfs was not designed to sit on large low quality
drives.

My guess is, you meant to mean RAID 1. Your data is store in two
places, so you are  better off. RAID 1 do not however negate the need
for btrfs. Think about it. If data is corrupted because one drive is
failing, how can you tell which of the two drives have the clean data?
I think thats where btrfs will help.

Sorry for the diversion. Could not help pitching in for btrfs.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists