LOL. it could have been 4x3tb :-)

I must stop talking about JBOD & Raid as shortly after I posted that comment, I had a drive die :-( I must give Ebuyer kudos as I ordered a replacement on Friday. it arrived this afternoon (I did not pay for next day delivery).

LOL. it could have been 4x3tb :-)

Not with 10.73TB of total room available. RAID 5 on 4 x 4TB drives means as much as have 3 x 4TB available space + 1 x 4TB for redundancy. 3 x 4 = 12, which is very close to 10.73TB. More close than 3 x 3 = 9.

Seagate shipped the new drive to me yesterday, it came in earlier today. It's been thawing out for several hours on my cough.
I've since put it in my NAS instead of the WD, and deleted the previous volume on there, then set up 4 Basic volumes, one on each drive.
Formatted those Films, Miscellaneous, Music and Series. At least the next time one of those goes, we'll know which one and only have to replace that one.

It was just an estimated guess :-) I only began to notice the differences when I could no longer purchase the Sumvision boxes so went to D-link. The Sumvisions settings were done by jumpers & only had 3 settings Raid0, Raid1 & JBOD. Didn't like the Raid options so went with JBOD. The beauty of that is that Windows format gave 931gb (1st drives in the nas boxes were 1tb).

The D-links uses ext4 & gave 914gb. Since upgrading all the boxes to 2tb, I get 1.81tb on the Sumvisions but only 1.7 on the D-links :-(

Are the quoted numbers for those drives using the same method of calculating disk size.

In my book 1,000,000,000,000 is not 1TB, and on my laptop, which in its spec says 640 GB, windows properties agrees.
Capacity - 640,132,479,232 bytes - 596 GB

My understanding was that drive manufacturers always quoted sizes in powers of 1,000: operating systems in powers of 1,024. They diverge quite quite quickly as the sizes grow.

Not sure if you're asking that question for me or Ageless. I always though that 1TB was 1024 GB :-) But manufacturers disagree. I still have a couple of 1TB drives in my main system & all show up in properties as 931GB after formatting. As for your 640GB that's nice. I recently replaced a 400GB that after formatting only showed as 372GB (only replaced because I've found that over the years my drives failed around the 7/8 year mark & that was 9 & an old IDE drive).

Say someone has ripped a few 1-5TB drives with films/music/tv shows onto usb HDD drives and wants to consolidate the whole lot into one neat little box. Knowing that drives fail, is there a NAS you could use that if a drive failed, all you would have to do is pop in a new one and bobs your uncle without losing anything?

This question asked for not only Ageless having to faff around with the recovery stuff, but anyone who would want basically the simplest "no worries, no downtime" so to speak in the future.

I had a drive make a godawful racket before dropping dead and the backup drive wouldn't even spool up. Had to re-rip my Stargate collection. Not summet I want to do again.

PS I know the folks in the lab have this kinda thing but is there something that wouldn't cost about three years wages? Lol :)

---

Knowing that drives fail, is there a NAS you could use that if a drive failed, all you would have to do is pop in a new one and bobs your uncle without losing anything?

That's a Raid option.

If Raid not your scene then a NAS box set as JBOD. 1 drive for your rips the 2nd as a backup copy. That's the way I have mine except that each box with 2 drives have an exact replica. AS I use Kodi, any drive that dies, it's backup drives once connected have their drive letters changed to what the dead drive was, so no issues with Kodi :-)

JBOD has no redundancy, neither has RAID0.
From my NAS's documentation:

* Use Basic with one disk. It has no fault tolerance.
* Use JBOD with two or more disks for maximum capacity. This is just a collection of disks with no fault tolerance.
* Use RAID 0 with two or four disks for maximum speed and no fault tolerance.
* Use RAID 1 to create an exact copy of data on one disk to a second disk. Use this with two to four disks to mirror primary data to another disk(s) with high performance.
You can add a hot spare to a 2-disk RAID 1.
* Use RAID 5 with three or four disks to balance performance and hard disk capacity usage with data protection in case of disk failure.
You can add a hot spare to a 3-disk RAID 5.
* Use RAID 6 with four disks for more data protection in case of disk failure.
* Use RAID 10 with four disks to get better performance than RAID 6, with slightly less data protection.

Hot spare is what my Friendo asked about. You just add a drive and when one in the array fails, that drive takes over.
However, your array is three disks big, so at maximum you have the space of two drives. One for redundancy.

RAID10 isn't ten, but 1+0, it's two disks running RAID1, two RAID0.

RAID10 isn't ten, but 1+0, it's two disks running RAID1, two RAID0.

Actually thought that it was two pairs running Raid 1, and the pairs were treated as a Raid 0 array.

Array? I don't use Raid in any option. The only semblance to Raid I ever used was Windows Home Server v1.0. Unfortunately, back in April 2014, an MVP on the WHS board at Microsoft informed me that I had come across the one flaw WHS (at that time) that compromised WHS - the WHS backup database if corrupted made it useless - Mine got corrupted.

Since then only operate NAS boxes as JBOD's which I believe I've already stated - 10x Sumvision 2 bay enclosures & 2x2 bay D-links Only have 5 powered up & connected to the network. The rest are backup copies of those that are powered on.

IMV, that is equivalent to raid redundancy, after all if under raid drives fail, they are replaced & array rebuilt. So looking at it from that angle, not much difference especially when there have been issues shown that the array rebuilds themselves sometimes failing.

Time to rebuild - Uncertain. Time to power up & connect backup copies & change drive letters - blindingly fast & no heavy loss of storage capacity that Raid endures. :-)

@Gary:

RAID 10, also known as RAID 1+0, combines disk mirroring and disk striping to protect data.

A RAID 10 configuration requires a minimum of four disks, and stripes data across mirrored pairs. As long as one disk in each mirrored pair is functional, data can be retrieved. If two disks in the same mirrored pair fail, all data will be lost because there is no parity in the striped sets.

@Sirius,
I read your post as if you suggested that JBOD has a form of redundancy, or auto-backup of all data on disk. Not that you do the backup yourself.

If Raid not your scene then a NAS box set as JBOD. 1 drive for your rips the 2nd as a backup copy.

So had to clear that up that it certainly doesn't.

Fair point. Most things in the computing world has many swings & roundabouts or as some would elequently state, pro's & con's.

Jord, I think that is what I said.

I realize however there are two ways to get there:

Disk 1 & Disk 2 Mirror as Array A
Disk 3 & Disk 4 Mirror as Array B
Array A and Array B striped.

or

Disk 1 & Disk 2 Striped as Array A
Disk 3 & Disk 4 Striped as Array B
Array A and Array B Mirrored.

https://www.acronis.com/en-us/articles/whats-raid10-and-why-should-i-use-it/ has a picture.

Disk 1 & 2 are mirrored RAID1, holding chunks 1, 3, 5 and 7.
Disk 3 & 4 are mirrored RAID1, holding chunks 2, 4, 6 and 8.
All disks are striped RAID0, holding chunks 1 to 8.

This way if one drive fails in either array, the data is still there on the mirrored disk in that same array.

That article gives (for me anyway) 3 reasons not to touch RAID especially RAID 10.
1: Raid is not Backup.
2: Storage capacity is cut 50%
3: ALL drives have to be the same make model & capacity ( making the chance that should one drive fail, the chance that another fails around the same time high).

IMHO, if one is a home user with 4x2TB drives (an example) & use RAID 10, it would be better to use 2x2TB for data & the other 2 as backup. The storage capacity is still the same but it cuts out all that time in having to rebuild an array. Yes the chances of drive failures are still there, but the backup disks have a better chance of lasting longer than the data drives as they are not constantly being accessed.

Kudos to the moderators. Thanks guys/gals.

Jerks who leave nails in the roadway ...

Newcomers really need to learn to read my signature.
Please do not private message me for tech support. Use the forums for that. Tech PMs will be ignored.
It's not that difficult.

(Deletes Tech support PM)

Yes Boss....