off topic but I really like the design of the site
Instantly recognisable as Tufte https://edwardtufte.github.io/tufte-css
definitely cribbed from tufte, with a few tweaks.
P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
11–19 of 19 posts
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#12A NAS is not a backup device.
The author explicitly mentioned syncing to his parents house. Even the "RAID is not backup" should be more nuanced IMO once you are talking about FS that supports regular snapshots.
RAID is not backup. Snapshots on same storage are not backup. For “the oh I don’t like this edit of my Word doc, do I have a version from yesterday”, sure, snapshots. For momma giving birth photos, you need backup. S3 is $1/tb for backup. Blu-rays are metal not ink now, discs are $2/25gb which might work for older photos. LTO6 drives can be had for under $1000.
> i want to keep my data for my entire life.
NAS has very little part in this conversation. In this conversation, a NAS is the same category a desktop drive: it is better than a laptop that you can lose.
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#13off topic but I really like the design of the site
Came here to say this too. :-)
Thanks OP for making it so readable.
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author explicitly mentioned syncing to his parents house. Even the "RAID is not backup" should be more nuanced IMO once you are talking about FS that supports regular snapshots.
RAID is not backup. Snapshots on same storage are not backup. For “the oh I don’t like this edit of my Word doc, do I have a version from yesterday”, sure, snapshots. For momma giving birth photos, you need backup. S3 is $1/tb for backup. Blu-rays are metal not ink now, discs are $2/25gb which might work for older photos. LTO6 drives can be had for under $1000. > i want to keep my data for my entire life. NAS has ver…
the reason RAID is not backup, aside from snapshotting, is colocated drives (same faulty machine, same flammable location, same malicious thunderhead) have a far higher chance of failing at the same time due to evnironmental effects --- hence the decision to have half the drives stored remotely. having a third copy, stored cold (blu-rays are a good idea) helps, but only if its failure is sufficiently independent af the others to make a real dent in the probabilities (e.g., a safe-deposit box or a friend's house, not where any of the drives are!)
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#15To be honest, it seems rather silly to go this deep into probability calculations when your N = 4 (hard drives). I can present numerous wildly-differing anecdotes about how single hard drives I have owned have fared. I have some drives that are 20 years old that still apparently work fine. I've had brand new drives silently corrupt sectors after less than a year in use. Trying to put hard numbers to the probability o…
3-2-car is still the best model for your Average Joe.
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#16Anyone who mentions SMART and reliability in the one sentence isn't worth reading - sorry OP.
I hve had bazillions of drives with a perfect SMART - which were unusable, and mamy others which had SMART throwing OSHA at me - yet they worked for decades, literally.
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#17Anyone who mentions SMART and reliability in the one sentence isn't worth reading - sorry OP. I hve had bazillions of drives with a perfect SMART - which were unusable, and mamy others which had SMART throwing OSHA at me - yet they worked for decades, literally .
iirc i address this in a footnote --- absence of SMART errors has very little predictive power, presence has slightly more but it depends which errors they are and how they accumulate
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#18Anyone who mentions SMART and reliability in the one sentence isn't worth reading - sorry OP. I hve had bazillions of drives with a perfect SMART - which were unusable, and mamy others which had SMART throwing OSHA at me - yet they worked for decades, literally .
iirc i address this in a footnote --- absence of SMART errors has very little predictive power, presence has slightly more but it depends which errors they are and how they accumulate
BTW transfer errors aren't indicating the drive errors. SATA is a quite nimble protocol so CRC errors do indicate the problem between the drive and the controller.
Re: P[drive failure]: how reliable is your NAS?
#19off topic but I really like the design of the site
The overall design is fine, but I find the writing style of “fully justified with no capitals” difficult to read for something of that length.
The no capitals is really hard for me. Especially given the font "i" makes me think of the imaginary number and I get mentally derailed even though I know it's not. Or maybe it's just eyestrain
I understand why you might for stylistic reasons, but a toggle would be nice!