3 ms·

Try explaining RAID (not just RAID0/1, but RAID6 and RAID10) to an average consumer and expect them to maintain their own NAS - that’s a bit too much.

prox 5y ago
I have vanilla HDDs who do their job nicely for years now. The most important files are duplicated across a few HDDs.
Ekaros 5y ago
RAID is overkill and bad designs can cause more issues than it saves. Two or more external-DDs, copied regularly per how much they are willing to spend time and lose data. One stored in some other place if possible.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  A Synology NAS with RAID1 and a few terabytes is $400 to $500 including taxes. Seems pretty cheap for not having to back it up regularly. Although, the second location risk would remain.
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    Until you get ransomed: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/synology-warns-of-malware-infecting-nas-devices-with-ransomware/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/synology-warn... You really want offline backups. Never recommend “not having to back it up regularly”.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Yes, I guess there is no easy way out.
  - 20after4 5y ago
    the thing is, if you back up bad data to a RAID1, the mirroring isn't going to save you - you just wrote the bad data to both copies. RAID is not a substitute for rotating backups.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Good point!
pdonis 5y ago
The author of this article is not an average consumer. He's a person undertaking a particular project that requires a lot of digital data storage, and anyone doing that needs to take the time to think through the risks and benefits of the various available options. "Just put it on Google Drive and hope it's safe" does not qualify.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  "the author of this article" uhmm... there is no article. It's a link to a google support forum thread. And the way the author of the initial post (not just the replies) describes the way they use Google Drive and how they use technology in general suggests the person does not have the same level of tech-savvy as a typical HN reader.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > there is no article. It's a link to a google support forum thread Fine, then s/article/post/ in what I said. > the way the author of the initial post (not just the replies) describes the way they use Google Drive and how they use technology in general suggests the person does not have the same level of tech-savvy as a typical HN reader I agree; I'm simply pointing out that if you are going to try to execute a project that requires a lot of digital storage of important data, you should be tech savvy, or collaborate with someone who is. You certainly should not expect a free service like Google Drive to be a secure, reliable data store for your only copies of important data.

prox 5y ago

I have vanilla HDDs who do their job nicely for years now. The most important files are duplicated across a few HDDs.

Ekaros 5y ago

RAID is overkill and bad designs can cause more issues than it saves. Two or more external-DDs, copied regularly per how much they are willing to spend time and lose data. One stored in some other place if possible.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
A Synology NAS with RAID1 and a few terabytes is $400 to $500 including taxes. Seems pretty cheap for not having to back it up regularly. Although, the second location risk would remain.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Until you get ransomed: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/synology-warns-of-malware-infecting-nas-devices-with-ransomware/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/synology-warn... You really want offline backups. Never recommend “not having to back it up regularly”.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes, I guess there is no easy way out.
- 20after4 5y ago
  the thing is, if you back up bad data to a RAID1, the mirroring isn't going to save you - you just wrote the bad data to both copies. RAID is not a substitute for rotating backups.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Good point!

pdonis 5y ago

The author of this article is not an average consumer. He's a person undertaking a particular project that requires a lot of digital data storage, and anyone doing that needs to take the time to think through the risks and benefits of the various available options. "Just put it on Google Drive and hope it's safe" does not qualify.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
"the author of this article" uhmm... there is no article. It's a link to a google support forum thread. And the way the author of the initial post (not just the replies) describes the way they use Google Drive and how they use technology in general suggests the person does not have the same level of tech-savvy as a typical HN reader.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > there is no article. It's a link to a google support forum thread Fine, then s/article/post/ in what I said. > the way the author of the initial post (not just the replies) describes the way they use Google Drive and how they use technology in general suggests the person does not have the same level of tech-savvy as a typical HN reader I agree; I'm simply pointing out that if you are going to try to execute a project that requires a lot of digital storage of important data, you should be tech savvy, or collaborate with someone who is. You certainly should not expect a free service like Google Drive to be a secure, reliable data store for your only copies of important data.