Expanding ReadyNAS NV+ beyond 4 disks

[creifle]

I haven't been able to find information about this issue.
I have a ReadyNAS NV+ with 4 - 2TB harddisks configured with XRAID. I am now at 90% of my 6.4TB capacity and am considering my best options to SAFELY expand my capacity.
Am I wrong in assuming I can get another ReadyNAS NV+ with 4 more disks and somehow connect it so the two will seamlessly merge? This information is not backed up since it is in XRAID. Do I need to back the data up before proceeding (OMG!)?
Needless to say the data represents countless hours of copying alone; when the level of effort is inserted into the equation, it becomes exponential.

Thanks ahead of time.

[btaroli]

Seamlessly merge? No. Use in parallel? Perhaps.

One thing I'd heard but didn't fully realize until I just recently got my own Pro 6 (the diskless model that NewEgg had a really decent discount on, through 6/30 IIRC) is that the NV+ is awful slow. It might well be time to consider a newer Intel model.

I think I saw a thread roll around in here that someone was trying to get a ReadyNAS to mount other storage to then in turn serve it to it's clients -- kind of like Windows DFS -- but I'm not sure how far they got with that.

[sphardy]

I think I saw a thread roll around in here that someone was trying to get a ReadyNAS to mount other storage to then in turn serve it to it's clients -- kind of like Windows DFS -- but I'm not sure how far they got with that.

Yup - that's possible. The thread you probably refer to was a user running Plex on his ReadyNAS, but some of his media is stored on a separate Synology device. Mounting the synology shares on the ReadyNAS via NFS enables the Plex software to see media on both units as if it was one large NAS. Note in that case it's the Plex app in that case that makes the media appear as a single library - it's not true "seamless merging" as suggested in the initial post

Long thread... http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=53916

[creifle]

Yeah, I thought so. I had hoped that the same model would just sit next to the first and they would bridge each other. I didn't know I'd need this much capacity but it now looks like I'll need ~12TB to do what I want.
Therefore, if I'm going to HAVE to use them in parallel, is there a better model you suggest I use as the second? Maybe one that will allow the bridging? Faster? This is strictly video streaming.

Actually, now that I consider the two responses above, it's unnecessary for them to bridge. I'll just have two "drives". Sorry I don't know the proper venacular as I'm learning this as I go. But I would like to have suggestions for units that provide better performance.

Another question as well; just depending on the RAID without backup just rubs my fur the wrong way as the "always back up" attitude is deeply ingrained. Is that truely what companies do or do they typically run a RAID plus a mirror?

thanks

[btaroli]

In the corp I work in, low-cost arrays (well, frankly, like the ReadyNAS) do get used occasionally for backup (of other devices). But when they really care about retaining them for long periods, it still goes to tape. NAS'es supporting NDMP facilitate this since most backup software can talk right to the "hot" backup to write to tape.

That said, using disk for backup can get expensive. What will make sense for you as far as backup will really depend upon the amount of data requiring protection and requirements such as retention period, restore speed, etc. I've seen people burn to DVD, write to tape, upload to S3 (or similar online services), use PC-hosted solutions for internet backup, ad nauseum...

[creifle]

Thank you for your insight. I guess what I'm asking is, with the integrity of the RAID, is it necessary to backup? I understand there are varying degrees of "critical data". My data is a great personal resource and my concern is losing it during a expansion initialization or some other foolish mistake made by me. The loss would represent a severe knashing of teeth followed by a lifetime of regret rather than a corporate meltdown and a boardroom lynching.
Based on what I've learned from these replies, I'm now seeing the wisdom of separate NAS devices with the data distributed.

Do you have a preference for NAS with better performance to the NV+? That is my last question and thanks for your expertise.

[mdgm]

Distributing data and backing up data you can't bear to lose is important. At the very least irreplaceable data like family photos, home videos, financial documents etc. Take a look at Preventing Catastrophic Data Loss

I would recommend a 6-bay ReadyNAS configured to use X-RAID2 dual-redundancy. The extra redundancy does provide a little more peace of mind, but data you can't bear to lose should still be backed up regularly.

Pro 6 is the best and can do 1080p transcoding. For the promo code btaroli referred to see http://twitter.com/#!/yohdah/status/83969037301850112

Also take a look at CPU Specs of the ReadyNAS

[PapaBear]

Every instruction manual contains a warning that Raid on the ReadyNAS is not a backup plan. Raid only protects against the failure of a single disk (except for dual redundancy on 6 bay units which protects against the failure of two drives). Backup to a separate device is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Never trust valuable data much less critical data to a single device. A proper backup would also include an off site device if feasible.

While many of us have trusted to the security of Raid in the early days, and survived, the failure of a single drive can bring on other problems. For example another drive may be developing problems that have not risen to the point of an alert, but the stress of a resync following the replacement of one drive can cause the failure of the second drive which then takes the data with it.

If you are copying large blocks of data that does not change rapidly, the periodic copying of these files onto large drives mounted or attached to a PC may serve well. Before I had a second NAS, I used this method to back up my video files on a periodic basis. I used a separate small WD Passport to back up my photo/financial files and stored the drive in my desk at work (safe deposit box now that I have retired). But absolutely nothing beats the ease and security of a NAS to NAS backup.

If you are looking at 12TB of data, you may want to consider an Ultra 6 or better populated with 3TB drives. With dual redundancy it would be close, but with single redundancy it would be a gross of 15TB (5x3TB with 1x3TB providing redundancy) and a net after overhead of just under 14TB.

[creifle]

Thank you MDGM and Papabear. You answered the questions I had and gave me good resources to consider.
THANKS!
Now it's just a matter of cost/benefit analysis.