Discussion about
dave

How do you backup and manage all of your valuable data?



When it comes to backing up my data, I consider myself to be pretty savvy. I have a CrashPlan subscription to store data in the cloud, there's a number of portable USB drives that I use to keep duplicates of important data. We even have a Synology NAS unit that I've offloaded a lot of data to that provides additional storage, duplication of important data, and remote access as well.

That's why I was really surprised when my entire data management strategy came crashing down around me on Friday night.



After hearing the beep, I logged into my Synology DS213+ to see that "Volume 1 has crashed." Crap! That means this hard drive is probably on its way out (it's a 3TB WD Red which I bought a year ago, specifically for the NAS).

To make matters worse, I'm only running 1 drive inside it at the moment. I've kept putting off getting a second drive for redundancy through RAID 1. (I'll admit, I have no one to blame but myself.)

Anyway, I figured that things were probably okay, after all, I recently figured out how to get the CrashPlan service running on my Synology box through an unofficial method. Of course, it turns out that the service hasn't been running for the last month or so due to some unknown issues, so only 35% of my data has been backed up. Argggghhhh!

I've pulled the affected drive out and am still able to mount it through an external enclosure, so I'm currently frantically copying data off there, onto another drive and hoping I can get everything off before it decides to go.

Needless to say, it's been a crazy weekend! It's really made me think of the sort of data that I prioritize keeping:
  • Important documents and records: Anything related to education, finances, work stuff, etc (to be fair, a number of these were scanned or are placed inside a file cabinets).
  • Digital photo collection: We have about 50,000 photos that date back to 2001. Excessive? Sure. But there are some great photos that I'd like to keep and be able to look fondly back to.
  • Music: Thanks to the days of things like Napster as well as legitimate services, I've managed to accumulate quite a collection of music -- a lot of which involves CD's that I ripped and then later sold! I'm sure there are ways to get it back, but it'd be a shame to lose out on all the time spent ripping, organizing, or acquiring through various methods.
Going forward, this is what I'll probably be doing (and continue to do):
  • External desktop drive connected to computer: Some sort of huge USB 3.0 drive that offers quick loading times and is permanently connected to my computer. This is important for offloading storage, since my Mac mini and Macbook Pro have limited capacity thanks to SSDs.
  • Cloud backup to CrashPlan running off my desktop: CrashPlan's desktop client will back up data from any connected USB drive, so this is really important. And let's not forget that it's much more reliable running off my Mac mini than it is on my NAS, so this is probably the way to go.
  • PictureLife backup for photos: Paying for a yearly subscription to PictureLife that specifically backs up my photo library to the cloud. It's kind of redundant with CrashPlan, but PictureLife makes it easy to remotely browse your photo library and find those special moments. (Apple or Google should buy them.)
  • Dropbox for important documents: This isn't a true backup service and I don't want to keep EVERYTHING in Dropbox, but it's handy for storing important documents and making them available from every machine.
  • Rsync from external drive to Synology NAS: Have to setup some sort of script or cronjob that will periodically backup my data and keep things in sync.
  • Finally add a second HDD to the NAS for RAID 1 redundancy: Can't be too careful I guess! Grumble grumble grumble.
Anyway, this list makes me thing that people like my parents or grandparents (and even many close friends) aren't going to go to the trouble of properly backing up their data. It's a tough problem. And if something happens, you can be really inconvenienced!

What sorts of ways or you keeping your valuable data backed up?

sort by

55 replies
HughesNet

I am curious, why do you state that you don't consider Dropbox to be a backup solution?


What I personally use for my personal data is the following.

UnRaid NAS (self built) with 4 4TB drives. UnRaid is nice because you can bring up the drives from an Unraid config using any hardware booted from UnRaid. Thus no worry about proprietary controllers or hardware.

On the UnRaid NAS I run Dropbox as well as Plex. I store on the NAS many different types of media including lossless versions of my 300+ BluRay collection, Music, Family Photos, Documents via dropbox, home movies, and the like. The NAS keeps them save and Plex serves them all up in a nice UI on any device I want to use.

For my Family Photos I also have them in Google+ and in Flickr. Flickr's 1TB free storage is nice for this. I also keep a copy on an external drive as well as a copy of my home movies and digital ISOs of all of my software.

I use Dropbox for all of my non media data. I fully consider it a backup service that trumps others given its revision history as well as its deleted file recovery options that are much easier to use then OneDrive or Google Drive.


I even use Dropbox in the workplace for some of my clients. With large their network shared folders actually being housed within dropbox accounts on the server to provide far more responsive restoration in the event things go south.
3 like dislike
dave

I am curious, why do you state that you don't consider Dropbox to be a backup solution?

I think it's fine as a backup solution for documents and stuff, but it doesn't effectively scale for me when I add my photo and music collections -- that's a lot of space to pay for. There's the other fact that it will want to sync all that data to each of my computers. I don't necessarily want to the sync 300GB of media to my desktop machine that only has a 500GB drive. (I know you can selectively enable and disable syncing of specific folders on specific machines, but I just haven't wanted to mess with it.)

Maybe I'm just being stubborn about it and should look into it further.
0 like dislike
HughesNet

No, that answers it. I don't use it for media either.
0 like dislike
AdeasTridae

Over the last 5 years I've had an external HDD killed (someone tripped over the power cord and shocked the drive, never recovered) and and another external stolen (laptop/SLR bag taken - lost HDD, work laptop, DSLR, phone chargers, etc). I lost 3 years of photos with this loss, so I've gotten fairly anal about this.

Today I back up all of my & girlfriend's machines via CrashPlan to a network share (Running on an old laptop with USB 3.0 and 5TB backup drive). They all backup daily. I seeded the backups with HDD plugged into each machine, then mounted via CrashPlan remotely. The nice thing is this use of CrashPlan is free (Free to drive, another machine or to a friend - you only pay to use their cloud service).

I then backup all of the machines to CrashPlan Central (Their cloud) as well (I got a family account). Takes FOREVER to get everything synced (When you're doing 2TB per machine), but plug into GigE hardlined to your router and it will speed things up. Prioritize your important files first (photos, school papers, finances, etc), then add in less important files. CrashPlan does also have a seed service (But I think they cap it at 1.5 or 2TB, and it costs a boat-load).

Future upgrades to my system will be adding RAID 1 to the network share for drive redundancy (Or some higher level RAID because I'm super paranoid now). I'd also LOVE to get a fireproof NAS as well for a DR backup. But they're prohibitively expensive (Check out ioSafe's products). Instead I will probably at some point setup some form of RAID 1 box and have my parents hook it up on their network (They live 350 miles away, so probably fairly safe for DR purposes). I'll seed all of my backups to it first, so my parents Fios connection doesn't get saturated :-) I may also start using TimeMachine on my Mac, but I have it's CrashPlan service setup to run constantly, so I'm not sure I need to double up when i already backup to two locations.

The lesson I learned from losing drives is that in backup land, one is none and two is one. The cost of the drives will be much less than your pain & loss should you lose this stuff, ESPECIALLY your photos.
2 like dislike
TgD

I probably have a terrible system, but I have never seen failure yet. I have a 4 step system:
  1. Once a week time machine backups
  2. All photos uploaded to Microsoft OneDrive
  3. Mozy backup for photos and documents
  4. Crashplan subscription covering my entire system
Yes I use 3 online services for backups. So for every photo I take I am uploading it 3 times to 3 different places. Not efficient, but redundant.

I also don't really have a large media library, so this works for me. With a photo collection the size of yours Dave, ths system would get expensive quite fast
1 like dislike
wildta

How much data are you backing up into the cloud and how much are you paying? Just curious.
0 like dislike
TgD

I have about 20gb going to OneDrive, of which I have amassed 38GB free by owning Windows Phones and a Microsoft Surface

I use slightly more on Mozy. 25GB uploaded with a 50GB cap. I get this free through my work,.

Crashplan is $60/year for unlimited data and I have probably around 150-200gb backed up on it
1 like dislike
Dignan17

I'm so sorry to hear about the problems you've had, Dave.

You'll definitely want to get that second drive in there, and it's a good lesson that you should regularly check your backups by attempting to restore a random file and/or a recent file.

Like you, I had looked into the arduous process of getting Crashplan running on my Synology. My conclusion: it's an awful mess that just doesn't work, and nobody is any help. I followed the available instructions to the letter, and it simply didn't work, and nobody seemed to be willing to help with it.

What I ended up doing instead was to use my main desktop computer as the backup engine. One of the annoyances I've always had with Crashplan is that it doesn't back up external drives if you're on Windows. There's a helpful tutorial, though, on mounting drives as the system user, which lets the Crashplan engine see those drives as sources. The downside is just that it doesn't back up when the computer isn't on. (that tutorial, in case anyone needs it, is located here: goo.gl­/A5oDQy )

But you have a Mac, don't you Dave? I was under the impression that Crashplan could back up a network drive if it's running on OSX.

In the end, I'm happy with my setup. I have a four-drive Synology with three 3TB drives installed, so I have redundancy along with 6TB of space. Crashplan is set to back all of that up (about 4TB of photos, music, etc), and I've tested it to make sure it was working. I'm knocking on wood furiously as I type this, but so far I feel pretty secure with this setup.
1 like dislike
frankspin

Crashplan doesn't officially support network drives on Windows (support.code42.com­/CrashPlan­/Latest­/Backup­/Backing...). I have to rely on a login-script (what is this 1999?) to auto mount the drives at login in order to access them for backup with Crashplan.

Now I think since OSX offers "Login items" (there version of reconnect at log-on) it should work, but I never tested it out.

And don't worry, even getting Crashplan to run on unRaid is a nightmare. Install this, then get this GUI config, then spin around 30 times. Blech. This is why I'm hoping to move to Synology. It's not that I'm not capable of tinkering and making things work, it's just I'm tired of doing that with every piece of tech I own.
1 like dislike
Dignan17

Yup, that's the same process I went through (you'll notice the same link in my post). I should have mentioned it was unsupported, but the instructions make that pretty clear. It works well for me, though.

I've been immensely pleased with my Synology. It's a cinch to set up and administer, and most changes require very little effort. I'm especially loving the "DS Cloud" app, which essentially turns my DiskStation into my own private DropBox. I have one set up to instantly copy over new files to my tablet, which has been the easiest way I've found so far to accomplish such a thing.

I've even gone so far as to set up another unsupported process: I have Picasa set up to load the photos AND database from the NAS. I can even set it up so that multiple users can open the same database, making it far easier to create a shared family photo album. (The software I used is called "PicasaStarter")
0 like dislike
dave

But you have a Mac, don't you Dave? I was under the impression that Crashplan could back up a network drive if it's running on OSX.

(I have both Windows and Mac, but yes, Mac is my primary machine unless I'm gaming...)

You're correct! This is another nice thing about CrashPlan and one of the reasons I initially signed up for it. My issue is that OS X would drop network shares once the machine went to sleep, so you'd have to manually remount the share every time the computer wakes up. This causes CrashPlan to stop backing up these drives. Ridiculously frustrating!

It seems there's some scripts and terminal hackery to trick OS X into remounting these, but I always thoughts it was too much trouble. (So instead, I went through the trouble of trying to get CrashPlan running on the NAS -- what a mess).
0 like dislike
bernstein82

My issue is that OS X would drop network shares once the machine went to sleep, so you'd have to manually remount the share every time the computer wakes up.

No what i am seeing... OSX always automatically reconnects to my samba server. perhaps your shares have some timeout configured?
0 like dislike
frankspin

I have a 4-drive unRaid set-up that contains all our important stuff. Pictures, movies, music, documents, etc. None of the daily driver computers house data beyond misc documents, if there is anything worth keeping it's in Dropbox. Crashplan is on my HTPC which is on 24x7 and that is constantly backing up my unRaid set-up.

Eventually I plan to move to Synology and use their connected services to eliminate dropbox.

Side note, your situation is why I refuse to buy a 2-bay NAS. It's weird, but even though both need two total drive failures I just feel safer with a multi-drive.
1 like dislike
HughesNet

It isn't just about multidrive. Unraid is simply a million times easier to recover from then most other raid solutions when you have either drive failures or hardware failures of a different nature since the data on the drives isn't dependent on any specific hardware and can be read by any unraid.
0 like dislike
frankspin

Most hybrid raid systems are easy to recoup your data from, even Synology's SHA/SHA2 set up.
1 like dislike
Met

Mine's a pretty lazy setup, but it works.

All photos are on Dropbox.
My docs are all on GDrive.
Everything on my iMac is backed up via Time Machine on an external HDD.
1 like dislike
48kRAM

First: Yes - shame on you for running a single drive in a NAS :( Why shell out for a Synology and cripple it with a single HDD? Also, Synology publishes a warning about the Red drives -- they don't have vibration sensors and may not be as reliable for 24/7 operation. I went with WD enterprise drives for our Syno units.

When I was a kid we made some great "garage" recordings and I no longer have them because I was too cheap to buy decent tapes and make copies. I've learned that data is either worth spending the money on decent media or it's worthless and should be considered gone.

Now, to the question. My home net connection is FAR too slow for "cloud" backup so we run local backup software to USB drive from our PCs. I've been manually backing up my Msuci archive but I need to fix that. I run software called 'BackupPC' at work to back up our fleet of laptops and it works very well. I plan to set up a home server to do that as well. Data volume is small -- I suspect a low-power ARM server would do the trick.
1 like dislike
dave

Completely agree. :(

What sorts of drives should I be looking at for replacing this?
0 like dislike
frankspin

The WD Reds have been getting pretty good reviews over on the unRaid Forums and I've seen people praising them for Flexraid too. Seagate has an equivalent and they work just as well.

One thing I do notice with harddrives, all of them, is they have terrible quality assurance. Some people have ordered 20 WD Reds and no issues. Some people order 1 and it's busted on delivery.
0 like dislike
adalbore

All files on a QNAP NAS in RAID5, 4 hdd in it. Weekly RSync to external HD (total two of them) that is kept in bomb-proof place. HDD for external backup rotate every week. External HDDs are replaced every year. HDDs of NAS are replaced every two years.
1 like dislike
frankspin

I know you're replacing the drives but I would highly recommend looking int Crashplan or Backblaze. You just never know when one of those externals are going to be a fluke drive and fail on you.
0 like dislike
adalbore

Hi Frankspin, unfortunately I live in a small town and with the bandwidth I have is impossible to use any cloud. I have already tried Amazon S3 (sent to them HD with initial bucket data) and others, uploaded for weeks and never complete the operation.
0 like dislike
frankspin

Backblaze and Crashplan let you mail them a drive if you have bandwidth constraints. There is an added costs for this but it might be a good way to get the initial one done.
0 like dislike
adalbore

No way, already tried with Amazon S3, sent HDD to them for initial bucket but the update is never ending. I live in Italy in a place with poor DSL infrastructure.
0 like dislike
bnrstnr

tisk tisk tisk lol... RAID 5 is a big no-no. Depending on how large your drives (and array) are and what line (RE, Red, Green, etc..) they are, if you ever have to recover your array you're almost guaranteed to get an URE and lose everything.

Good to see you're backing up to external regularly though. If your QNAP is a 4 bay you might want to consider getting a 4th drive and switching over to RAID 10. If not, I believe no parity (raid 1) is still better than raid 5 if you're limited to 3 drives. It's expensive to go raid 10, but 5 is 100% certainly obsolete with disks being as big as they are now. If you have 1-2TB drives, you may be fine recovering the array without seeing an unrecoverable read error. Anything larger is certain death.
0 like dislike
adalbore

Hi, why you say that RAID 5 is not a good idea? I am using 3TB HDD.
0 like dislike
bnrstnr

Because drives experience what's called unrecoverable read errors. Each drive is expected to see an URE every so many bits read. WD Red drives are spec'ed to see URE every 10^14 bits (12 TB). So if you have (3) 4tb drives in a raid 5 array, that means you have 8tb of storage. So if you lose a drive, and you are recovering 8tb of data and don't have that parity disk then you have a 66% chance of getting an unrecoverable read error. Add another drive and you're 99% going to get an error.

Since you have 3tb drives, you're basically looking at a 50% chance (6tb/12tb)that you'll see an URE while recovering an array (hopefully you'll never have to do that though).. Here are some links that discuss the subject more in depth.

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/12­/the­-history­-of­-array­-...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/11­/one­-big­-raid­-10­-a­-new...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/11­/choosing­-raid­-for­-har...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/11­/choosing­-a­-raid­-level...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/11­/hardware­-and­-software...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/08­/nearly­-as­-good­-is­-not...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/07­/hot­-spare­-or­-a­-hot­-me...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2012­/05­/when­-no­-redundancy­-is...

www.smbitjournal.com­/2011­/09­/spotlight­-on­-smb­-stor...

www.zdnet.com­/blog­/storage­/why­-raid­-6­-stops­-workin...

www.zdnet.com­/blog­/storage­/why­-raid­-5­-stops­-workin...

queue.acm.org­/detail.cfm­?id­=1670144
0 like dislike
adalbore

Thanks bnrstnr, a lot of stuff to read. Before anything else, backup on external HD and then building a R10 volume. Thanks a lot!
1 like dislike
bnrstnr

If you're limited to 4 drives RAID 10 will be your best bet. You're going to get the same space regardless, and R10 is significantly faster. If you are going 5+ drives then, as a consumer, I would say R6 as it is more cost effective. Right now R10 is the best you can get for performance and redundancy. It's only downfall is that it's very expensive to get large arrays.
0 like dislike
frankspin

I'm not following how RAID 10 is the same drive space? Using the RAID calculator on Synology it shows that RAID 10 with 4, 2TB drives would only give you 4TB of space whereas RAID 5 would give you 6TB. Also here (www.adaptec.com­/en­-us­/­_common­/compatibility­/­_educa...) it states: "Usable capacity of RAID 10 is 50% of available disk drives."
0 like dislike
bnrstnr

He said he was considering either RAID10 or RAID6. Either of those options give you a 6TB array with (4) 3TB drives.............

Did you read the other comments about how RAID5 is obsolete??
1 like dislike
frankspin

I did, but my concern here is you saying that Raid 10 or 6 still gives you the same space. From what I read 6 requires 2 disks and 10 requires 50% of your storage space. The reason people probably still use RAID 5 is that it maximizes the disk space for people while still giving some protection.
1 like dislike
bnrstnr

I never said that raid 10 or 6 gives the same space as raid 5.. Once again, the OP said his primary goal was backups and to get another drive to go with either raid 6 or 10.... A 4 drive array in raid 6 doesn't make sense..

Hence, my stating that if you have ONLY 4 DRIVES, raid 10 and 6 give you the same amount of space. Again, repeating myself here, but if you are building an array with 5+ drives raid 6 becomes more cost effective, but you take massive write performance hits.. Most consumers aren't going to have more than a 4 bay device anyway, that's why I said what I said. I replied specifically to one persons post giving them a suggestion to better their chances of safety.

MY concern is that you are suggesting that raid 5 still a viable option (unless you're working with <1TB drives). If you have 3 drives do RAID 1 mirrored across all 3, if you can afford one more drive RAID 10 is far and away your best bet, for both protection and performance. If somebody has a storage device with more than 4 bays for home use, they are likely an IT professional and aren't taking suggestions off of engadget forums anyway.

Sorry if I come off as an a-hole, but I cant help but feel like you read about 5% of this thread and are rebutting statements taken out of context.
0 like dislike
nickcardwell

With the large size, slow speed and low MTBF of consumer drives single drive redundant RAID configs just won't cut it. The likelihood of another drive failure during the long rebuild process is high as the drives are being stressed much more than normal use.
0 like dislike
SamF

Synology boxes are great, but you really do have to take advantage of one of the RAID facilities (or you're just going to get boned again when this happens the next time). I'd recommend SHR2, but that might be too pricey for people (and only makes sense in the 5-disk and larger boxes).

Also, RAID is not backup. if you have a Synology box that supports it, you might want to look into the Amazon glacier backup facilities. Also note that the newer Synology DSM5 software supports dropbox and google drive integration (but I wouldn't really call this backup).
1 like dislike
frankspin

What's the pricing on Glacier? What's nice about Crashplan is it's relatively inexpensive, while still offering some good backup features. Version handling and deduping to name a few.
1 like dislike
Dignan17

From what I could tell, Glacier will quickly get far more expensive than Crashplan. The only advantage is that Glacier runs as a fully-supported Synology app. As I mentioned in my other post, Crashplan takes some major work if you want it to run directly on the DiskStation, and some minor work if you want it to run from a PC on the network.

While poking around the Synology forums, I also noticed a huge thread filled with people complaining about Glacier, because they felt the service was overcharging for the traffic. I don't recall the details, but it sounds like the DiskStation was communicating with Glacier too much, and was racking up unnecessary charges.
2 like dislike
frankspin

After I posted this I went and looked to see it's $0.01 per GB, or $10 per TB. I'd be paying around $200 year to back up my entire NAS via Glacier while Crashplan is $50/year.
1 like dislike
mysterio2

Weekly images for home server machine and personal laptop backed up to local external hard drives, Crashplan backup of user files on both.
1 like dislike
bernstein82

after much pain with first dvd-, then external hdd-, nas-, linuxSoftwareRaid-5-Backup solutions i migrated to two 3-disk zfs raidz1 boxes. one at home & one at my parents. they keep in snyc via a cronjob of zfs-send.
- each: core i3 35Watt + xeon e3 board + 8gb ecc ram + 4GB USB stick
- total cost ~$400 per box, without hdds
- running ubuntu 14.04 (started on 12.04)
1 like dislike
YevP

I work for Backblaze, so I'm using them, plus an external hard drive for all of my data. Anything that needs syncing w/ others, I use Dropbox, but since they aren't a backup solution, only items I'm sharing go in to it.
0 like dislike
pigeyejacksn

I am currently using a Synology DS214, but have also used products from D-Link and NetGear. I am configured as Raid1 with 2 4TB drives. Rather than buy a 4 drive unit, I will eventually buy a second DS214 so I have a hardware spare. I did this with my NetGear. I run Time Machine for OSX and run scripts on my windows machines to backup what I want. I then have an external 4TB USB3 drive that I ship off to a family member half way across the country. We exchange drives every 6 months so each of us has an offsite backup. I figure the worst I lose is 6 months. Would suck, but at the outer edge of my tolerances. I have looked at internet solutions, but I have 3.5 TB of data and I would be at nearly double my Comcast allowable limit in a month to stage the initial upload. (I hate Comcast). Paying $150 to stage the initial data with CrashPlan is more than I want to spend for my personal stuff. Plus I don't trust clunky hacks for my backups (no offense Dave). I would rather ship offsite and know it's someplace safe. If I didn't live in a hurricane prone area, I would just use a safe deposit box. But I don't even trust banks against hurricanes where I live.

Additionally, I use:
Xmarks: to backup my bookmarks to all machines and cloud
Copy: to backup files I must have synced to several machines, including work apps and documents, many of my personal pictures, etc. I have 40GB of space there for free.

Hope this helps someone. I wish there was a better way, but caps on internet don't help.
0 like dislike
SamF

If you have two Synology boxes, put one at a relative's house and have yours mirror the contents to the other one at your relative's. Synology has a support article describing how to mirror boxes via rsync. Look for the article called, "How to backup data on Synology NAS to another server".

Edit: to reduce bandwidth costs, do the initial mirroring on a local lan. Then move one offsite.
0 like dislike
JeffQChen

I run a 5-disk RAID5 NAS in my home for file/media hub. All the computers (Macs) back up into the NAS. Then I have two JBOD boxes for NAS backup - yes, RAID5 needs to be backed up. I had this RAID crash on me once and luckily nothing was lost. Then I decided to go safe rather than sorry.
0 like dislike
mhibert

Why not just set up 2 drives in RAID 1 and use Synology's built in services like cloud station and connect the drive to Amazon Glacier? What you're proposing sounds a lot more complicated.....
0 like dislike
frankspin

Amazon glacier is expensive
0 like dislike
mhibert

not really...
0 like dislike
frankspin

I posted this above but it's $0.01 per GB, so it's $1 per 100GB. I have around 2TB of data to back up, this would cost me $20/month or $240/year. Now, if Glacier's prices are just for the initial back up chunk and not recurring, then it can be cheaper but it's not clear.
0 like dislike
SamF

No, you understand the pricing correctly (it is basically $0.01/GB/month). For amounts around 100GB, Glacier is fine, but your 2T is going to kill you. (For others reading this: Glacier also charges you to retrieve your data, and retrieving 2TB is going to cost $0.12/GB, or on the order of $250.)
0 like dislike
Jet2015

I had a similar case happen to me not too long ago ...
I am now pondering on which NAS to purchase.
I was inclined to go with Drobo, and was surprised no one here even mentioned them.
Are they THAT bad or unpopular ?

Also - someone here mentioned that WD Red drives are not recommended for NAS,
As they don't have vibration sensors. This totally contradicts everyrhing I read online -
Seems like everyone is saying WD Red is the go-to drive for NASes.
Anyone has some light to shed on this ?
0 like dislike
share:

16 users following this discussion, including:

  • nickcardwell
  • dave
  • 48kRAM
  • TgD
  • needmoretech
  • rochr4
  • mysterio2
  • wildta
  • frankspin
  • Met

This discussion has been viewed 10934 times.
Last activity .