NAS With Multiple Controllers?

[allanc]

One of my clients who is quite technical is interested in a NAS with RAID 1 and dual controllers for his small office.
The NAS would be used for file sharing only for 3 computers and 1-2 Gb should be sufficient.
We are looking for a quality/reliable solution such as Synology and I do not want to build by own.
I have read the tech specs on the DS213 and dual controllers are not mentioned, so I assume that there is only one.
All suggestions as to a good fit for this scenario are appreciated.

 

[Markverhyden]

FreeNAS

 

[allanc]

FreeNAS

I have never used FreeNas and don't think that I will have the time for the learning curve, set-up, etc in the near future.
As stated in the original post, I really don't want to build my own... but thank you for the suggestion.

 

[Markverhyden]

I have never used FreeNas and don't think that I will have the time for the learning curve, set-up, etc in the near future.
As stated in the original post, I really don't want to build my own... but thank you for the suggestion.

Sorry missed the no DIY thing. I'm not aware of any standalone NAS appliance that has dual controllers. Everything I have ever seen that has more that one controller is basically a server setup as NAS and they are expensive.

Some of the appliances have provisions for things like dual nics and dual AC adapters. I bought a WD DX4000, when they were on firesale a year or two ago, and it has those features. But it's not cheap, around $700-800 now a days. It run M$ Storage Server '08.

 

[gikstar]

Well then, just go with two separate units if no one has a solution.
I have found that the lower-end units are pretty slow, even the Netgear NV+ units only get about 15Mbs which may be fast enough for a few people to file share.

 

[allanc]

Well then, just go with two separate units if no one has a solution.
I have found that the lower-end units are pretty slow, even the Netgear NV+ units only get about 15Mbs which may be fast enough for a few people to file share.

'Separate Units' literally or do you mean to connect another NAS to the first and configure the first to 'backup' to the second?

 

[drjones]

I think the better question is - WHY does he want that? What does he think that would provide?

 

[allanc]

I think the better question is - WHY does he want that? What does he think that would provide?

Redundancy in case a controller fails.

 

[BrentfromZulu]

Redundancy in case a controller fails.

There are NAS Units that have a USB Connection for the purpose of the the Array fails.

 

[lcoughey]

In my years of doing data recovery from failed NAS units, I've yet to see one come in because the controller failed. Most NAS units are software based RAIDs anyway.

The odds are, you have a higher chance of a multiple drive failure, accidental file deletion or cryptolocker infection. So, my advice is to invest in a solid backup routine.

 

[SAG]

Redundancy in case a controller fails.

That should be the least of his worries. Even with dual controllers there is ALWAYS a single point of failure, be it the PSU, mainboard, etc.

In all my years I have seen one controller failure on a NAS from a reputable manufacturer - was replaced and back up in no time. I can't speak for the cheaper units though.

RAID1 NAS with backup to a USB disk (or cloud) should be fine - just because this guy is 'quite technical' doesn't necessarily mean his train of thought is on the right track.

 

[Markverhyden]

In my years of doing data recovery from failed NAS units, I've yet to see one come in because the controller failed. Most NAS units are software based RAIDs anyway.

I was about to make the same comment. All of the appliances I have seen are software raid. When one thinks about it a "real" RAID controller costs more than the micro/mini itx boards being used by these appliances.

 

[SAG]

I was about to make the same comment. All of the appliances I have seen are software raid. When one thinks about it a "real" RAID controller costs more than the micro/mini itx boards being used by these appliances.

A lot of people never really "think" about what is in those little NAS units.
I remember seeing a discussion (argument) on a forum once where they were trying to compare SMB sharing with the NAS to sharing with Linux/SAMBA - in all the pages on that thread not one person mentioned the fact that the NAS is actually using SAMBA.

 

[allanc]

In my years of doing data recovery from failed NAS units, I've yet to see one come in because the controller failed. Most NAS units are software based RAIDs anyway.

The odds are, you have a higher chance of a multiple drive failure, accidental file deletion or cryptolocker infection. So, my advice is to invest in a solid backup routine.

I agree re the backup.

 

[allanc]

[QUOTE RAID1 NAS with backup to a USB disk (or cloud) should be fine - just because this guy is 'quite technical' doesn't necessarily mean his train of thought is on the right track.[/QUOTE]
Of course, I agree.
It was just an interesting concern that I thought I would pursue.

 

[drjones]

I agree that virtually any NAS on the market uses software RAID and doesn't even have a single controller, let alone two.

What's he ultimately trying to achieve? Zero downtime, backup/redundancy, what?

Depending how much he's willing to pay for, a Windows server coupled with a Datto would give him what he's looking for.

Or you could get two NAS & have them replicate/sync to one another. Both Netgear & Synology offer this feature, though I'm moving away from Netgear.