What Synology RAID type to maximize storage without redundancy?

[jsmithe]

What RAID type should I choose to maximize use of the available disks in a Synology NAS (say DS 918+)?

I am not looking for redundancy, just max. storage space.

I thought JBOD should do the trick, but https://www.synology.com/en-uk/knowledgebase/DSM/help/DSM/StorageManager/storage_pool_what_is_raid appears to indicate that multiple disks are consolidated into a single volume, which means that one disk going bad will take out the whole volume.

My use case appears to be best served by the Basic type but that seems to imply only a single drive (not sure if I can have multiple independent Basic drives)?

Any Synology users here who can help?

 

[blackscorpio]

JBOD is what you are looking for. Create two volumes for two disks, so if one goes down then other still be available.

I haven't done it but seems like thats the way it works.

I own an 218+ in basic config.

 

[manniraj]

I hope you have seen this great thread with all the information on the NAS setup by @sam9s

Wealth of information is available

 

[reachkalyan.kr]

JBOD is what you are looking for. Create two volumes for two disks, so if one goes down then other still be available.

I haven't done it but seems like thats the way it works.

I own an 218+ in basic config.

No .imho it is other way around JBOD config just add a hard disk 2 or more hard disk and moreover it is not safer way.
" Raid "will give the mirroring option (if one head disk fails other one will have the mirror of other hard disk)

 

[blackscorpio]

No .imho it is other way around JBOD config just add a hard disk 2 or more hard disk and moreover it is not safer way.
" Raid "will give the mirroring option (if one head disk fails other one will have the mirror of other hard disk)

OP is not looking for fail safe... but max storage. He wants two volumes so that even if one volume fails other will be available.

..............

I am not looking for redundancy, just max. storage space.

.......

 

[reachkalyan.kr]

He wants two volumes so that even if one volume fails other will be available.

My bad ! its my mistake .I thought u are mentioning about data

 

[jsmithe]

JBOD is what you are looking for. Create two volumes for two disks, so if one goes down then other still be available.

I haven't done it but seems like thats the way it works.

I own an 218+ in basic config.

Thanks. The manual is a bit confusing though when it says JBOD "Combines a collection of drives into a single storage space, with a capacity equal to the sum of all drives' capacity. ". That's a bit ambiguous as to whether it will allow me a volume per disk which is what I want.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Synology as yet, to try out. This is pre-purchase research. Hopefully someone who has tried this will chip in.

I hope you have seen this great thread with all the information on the NAS setup by @sam9s

Wealth of information is available

Yes, I remember sam9s epic Synology threads , but don't remember him talking about the volume per disk case. I'll go dredge those threads up and see anyway.

 

[Naturelover]

Sam suggested SHR for my 4 bay Synology.

 

[blackscorpio]

Sam suggested SHR for my 4 bay Synology.

SHR is the best compromise, AFAIK. The other best thing about SHR is, even a novice like me can configure it & have peace of mind. I no nothing about RAID.

 

[blackscorpio]

this should give a fair idea. At the disk selection, just select one for the first volume & the other for the second volume.

 

[jsmithe]

this should give a fair idea. At the disk selection, just select one for the first volume & the other for the second volume.

Awesome. That video cleared things up. Thanks.

 

[sam9s]

What RAID type should I choose to maximize use of the available disks in a Synology NAS (say DS 918+)?

I am not looking for redundancy, just max. storage space.

I thought JBOD should do the trick, but https://www.synology.com/en-uk/knowledgebase/DSM/help/DSM/StorageManager/storage_pool_what_is_raid appears to indicate that multiple disks are consolidated into a single volume, which means that one disk going bad will take out the whole volume.

My use case appears to be best served by the Basic type but that seems to imply only a single drive (not sure if I can have multiple independent Basic drives)?

Any Synology users here who can help?

No that's not how JBOD works, JOBD (Just another bunch of disk). JBOD means that your data is on single, stand-alone hard drives. If one of your JBOD disks fails, only the data on that disk is lost. RAID, on the other hand, is a method of spreading data between hard disks and creates it as a volume. But that does not mean in RAID if one disk fails you lose the entire volume. It depends on the type of raid you set. Another thing to note is you can combine JBOD and RAID if your machine allows.

Another thing I would like to mention here is that in JBOD say if you have one disk failure you cannot just remove that disk and reconstruct the volume by slapping another empty one. So even though the data will be available for your "other uncorrupt disk" you have to copy the salvaged data first, then slap new disk, reconstruct the volume and the copy data back. Otherwise, if you slap a new disk machine will not recognise any volume and you will not be able to access any data at all. Hope you getting me.

All these are cons of JBOD

Assuming you have 4 disks of 4TB and do not want any redundancy and also do not care for any data loss, then the BEST option is to go for RAID 0. This seriously speeds up data access, however as I said there is no disk fault protection. If the disk fails you lose all.

SHR (which is close to RAID 5) is the best of both worlds. You have one disk fault protection but you lose some space. This is what I highly recommend. Trust me I am in this server setup for ages. Every HDD (the only exception is SSD) be it RED, Green, Blue, any rainbow ultra high-quality HDD, ALL WILL FAIL sooner or later (eventually). It can be due to any number of reasons. So back up to some extent is highly recommended, especially on these mechanical HDDs. SSDs are much much better in terms of data storage.

To summarize:: With SHR if you lose one disk your entire data comes back. With SHR 2 if you lose two disk your entire data comes back, With JBOD, if you lose a disk you loose data for "that" disk only. (but JBOD has other drawbacks I mentioned) With RAID 0 you will lose all but performance will be top botch.

The decision is yours.

Hope I was able to explain what was required here.

Regards
Sammy

 

[jsmithe]

.....
The decision is yours.

Hope I was able to explain what was required here.

Regards
Sammy

Nice to hear from you sam9s. Thanks for the detailed answer, the cautions and the recco's. I'll give them some thought. Good to see you are true to form .

The statement from the Synology manual that JBOD "Combines a collection of drives into a single storage space, with a capacity equal to the sum of all drives' capacity. " was what threw me off until the YT video from blackscorpio showed that disk per volume is possible in JBOD contrary to what the manual appeared to indicate (at least to me).

 

[sam9s]

You are still missing many things........what Synology manual says is true and nothing confusing, the capacity is equal to the sum of all drives. So if you have 4 drives of 4 TB JBOD will give you 16 TB simple ... . You statement "disk per volume" is incorrect. Not sure what you mean by that. Synology "will" create one volume, with 2/4 disks and the capacity will be sum of both disks and as I said if you lose one disk you lose data for that disk only. HOwever since Synology does create a volume, in JBOD you cannot simply slap in a new disk into volume and expect to get it going. It will not work. You will not be able to access anything in that case. You have to copy your data first, slap a new disk and recreate the entire volume and copy data back. This will believe it or not too time-consuming and irritating. Also not to forget you will not know what data is in which disk, you cannot explore the disk content like in windows (where you know which partition is on which disk) So you will have to copy all possible data and then replace the HDD then recreate the volume and copy data back ..... . .... I would strongly suggest Go for SHR even if you lose some space. With SHR if one disk goes bad you slap in a new one and Synology takes care of the rest and all data is always available. (unless you lose 2 disk simultaneously, probability of which is less very less)

Regards
Sammy

 

[jsmithe]

You statement "disk per volume" is incorrect. Not sure what you mean by that.

Thanks sammy for taking the time to answer.

Let me see if I can illustrate what I said in the OP. If have 2 disks in a Synology NAS, can I create volumes like so:

Volume 1: Disk 1
Volume 2: Disk 2

From reading the manual I thought it wasn't possible, hence the question.

From the YT video blackscorpio posted. at around the 1:34 mark ,it looks like it is possible to have just one disk in a volume by unchecking the others, or am I missing something. I am aware that dealing with individual disks rather than a pool is a headache, but I am just checking whether Synology allows what I am looking for or whether it is a complete no-go.

One other question, can I run VM's on a DS418 Play or will I need the DS918+. A web search seem to indicate that it is possible on the DS418 Play but not officially supported by Synology.

(unless you lose 2 disk simultaneously, probability of which is less very less)

Nearly ran into that once. A disk dropped out of a RAID 5 (equiv.) array. I replaced the bad disk and during the resilver yet another disk started throwing errors. Luckily the rebuild completed and I was then able to replace the second disk subsequently and rebuild the array. Whew! It was touch and go for a bit.

 

[sam9s]

Thanks sammy for taking the time to answer.

Let me see if I can illustrate what I said in the OP. If have 2 disks in a Synology NAS, can I create volumes like so:

Volume 1: Disk 1
Volume 2: Disk 2

From reading the manual I thought it wasn't possible, hence the question.

From the YT video blackscorpio posted. at around the 1:34 mark ,it looks like it is possible to have just one disk in a volume by unchecking the others, or am I missing something. I am aware that dealing with individual disks rather than a pool is a headache, but I am just checking whether Synology allows what I am looking for or whether it is a complete no-go.

One other question, can I run VM's on a DS418 Play or will I need the DS918+. A web search seem to indicate that it is possible on the DS418 Play but not officially supported by Synology.

Oh ok now I get it what you want, I couldn't understand as no one does that, just one disk per volume. You can, but there is absolutely no purpose with just 2 disks. Multiple volume should only be used if they serve a specific purpose, than single volume cant.

About VM I am not sure about 418 Play, but a quick google should give you an answer, DS9 series can run VMs and is better equipped for the same.

Nearly ran into that once. A disk dropped out of a RAID 5 (equiv.) array. I replaced the bad disk and during the resilver yet another disk started throwing errors. Luckily the rebuild completed and I was then able to replace the second disk subsequently and rebuild the array. Whew! It was touch and go for a bit.

See more so reason for you to go for SHR or SHR 2..

 

[sam9s]

BTW I forgot to mention, it came into my mind, so thought to let you know ...... if you planning to get DS9 series for VM.....then make sure you chose BTRFS file system and not ext4, as Synology does not support VMM on ext4.

 

[jsmithe]

BTW I forgot to mention, it came into my mind, so thought to let you know ...... if you planning to get DS9 series for VM.....then make sure you chose BTRFS file system and not ext4, as Synology does not support VMM on ext4.

Thanks for the tip. Will keep that in mind.