Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TJ]

I have had a DNS-323 for a couple of years now. I'm happy with it, but it simply doesn't offer the space that I require.

I'm running two 1.5TB drives as standard (separate) volumes. One I use for media streaming to my PS3, and the other is used for my personal data (yes, this data is backed up elsewhere). Both are almost full. I understand that I can upgrade to 2TB drives, but this is a Band-Aid solution – I really need a long term solution. I need separate devices for streaming and data backup.
Does the DNS-343 outperform my 323? Is the 343 worth $400? Will a RAID0 or JBOD configuration outperform my separate disk setup?

Also, if I decide to get the 343 and use it as my UPnP server, should I format the drives as JBOD or RAID0? Do either hard drive configurations allow me to add a third, or even fourth drive as my space requirements grow, or must I format all drives when I decide to add a new one?

Any advice would appreciated,
TJ

[hilaireg]

Hi TJ,

IMHO, I would look to purchase a 2nd DNS-323. As for performance, there isn't any noticeable improvement over the DNS-323.

I originally purchased my DNS-343's hoping that I could configure them in a RAID5 configuration with a fail-over spare.  I discovered after purchasing the units that this was not possible and therefore have the units configured in RAID5 (4x1TB HDD's) - with a spare for each unit stored in my cupboard.

AFAIK, the DNS-343 will only permit a single RAID1 (mirror) or RAID5 (3 or 4 HDD's).  I suspect the only value the DNS-343 may offer you is as a single enclosure to house 4 separate volumes.

Since you're already well aware of backups, I'll skip that reminder. 

HTH,

[TJ]

Hmmm...

I guess I'll be getting a second 323 then - thank you muchly hilaireg.

I'm leaning toward a JBOD configuration for this new box (unless RAID0 is something to consider). Is it not ideal to have mismatching drive sizes? I guess I can’t make my current DNS-323 JBOD without formatting both drives, huh? Be nice to save all that time...

[hilaireg]

A few other members on the forum have used these options for specific applications (needs) and may be inclined to share their experiences and insights.

The issue I've always had with RAID0/JBOD has been that if a single member fails, all of the data on the remaining disk is typically lost and as such ... I've kept away from those options.

For RAID1/RAID5, the size of the volume will be equivalent to the maximum capacity of the smallest HDD.  For example, a 400GB & 500GB in RAID1 would yield a 400GB RAID1 for 'Volume_1'.  a 400GB, 500GB, 600GB would yield a 400GB RAID5 for 'Volume_1'.

In both of these examples, the remaining space would become an additional non-RAID volume; first example, 100GB 'Volume_2' on the 500GB HDD.  Second example, 100GB 'Volume_2' on the 500GB HDD and 200GB 'Volume_3' on the 600GB HDD.

Cheers,

[drick]

I have had a DNS-323 for a couple of years now. I'm happy with it, but it simply doesn't offer the space that I require.

I'm running two 1.5TB drives as standard (separate) volumes. One I use for media streaming to my PS3, and the other is used for my personal data (yes, this data is backed up elsewhere). Both are almost full. I understand that I can upgrade to 2TB drives, but this is a Band-Aid solution – I really need a long term solution. I need separate devices for streaming and data backup.
Does the DNS-343 outperform my 323? Is the 343 worth $400? Will a RAID0 or JBOD configuration outperform my separate disk setup?

Also, if I decide to get the 343 and use it as my UPnP server, should I format the drives as JBOD or RAID0? Do either hard drive configurations allow me to add a third, or even fourth drive as my space requirements grow, or must I format all drives when I decide to add a new one?

Any advice would appreciated,
TJ

i was in the exact same boat, and ended up buying a new 343 (then another, then another, but that's a different story). i would (and did) get the 343, and use it in a RAID 5 layout.

If you want performance, this is the wrong box. Build yourself a cheap system with linux or windows and buy a good NIC, it will outperform the 323 or 343 by a factor of 3-5x.

If you just want space only and will only use 2 HDD's then buy another 323 with 2TB HDD's.

just my $.02

[JavaLawyer]

I have two DNS-343s each setup as four "standard volumes".  The first DNS-343 has scheduled backups to the second DNS-343.

I've heard so many horror storied regarding failed RAID builds, lost volumes, and permanent data loss that I've opted for this ultra-conservative solution, despite the lost storage space.  I admit that this is a clunky approach (I'd rather work with one large volume), but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[drick]

I have two DNS-343s each setup as four "standard volumes".  The first DNS-343 has scheduled backups to the second DNS-343.

I've heard so many horror storied regarding failed RAID builds, lost volumes, and permanent data loss that I've opted for this ultra-conservative solution, despite the lost storage space.  I admit that this is a clunky approach (I'd rather work with one large volume), but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

ditto on this, units 1&2 for me backup to unit 3 for the exact same reasons.

[JavaLawyer]

ditto on this, units 1&2 for me backup to unit 3 for the exact same reasons.

I'd feel more confident using a RAID solution on a more robust business platform (with hardware-based RAID), but that would raise the cost 5X.  For it's price the DNS-343 performs admirably, but the product has it's shortcomings, and I've adopted my hardware configuration accordingly.

[drick]

I'd feel more confident using a RAID solution on a more robust business platform (with hardware-based RAID), but that would raise the cost 5X.  For it's price the DNS-343 performs admirably, but the product has it's shortcomings, and I've adopted my hardware configuration accordingly.

i actually originally had an old Dell PE2950 with 6 HDD's in it before this that was my production app/file server, but the power, heat, cost, and noise were prohibitive for my SOHO environment.

it was however at least 5x as fast, had redundant power supplies, HW RAID, and redundant trunked GigE NIC ports, which were all nice.

like everything else in life, choices/decisions = trade-offs

[JavaLawyer]

i actually originally had an old Dell PE2950 with 6 HDD's in it before this that was my production app/file server, but the power, heat, cost, and noise were prohibitive for my SOHO environment.

it was however at least 5x as fast, had redundant power supplies, HW RAID, and redundant trunked GigE NIC ports, which were all nice.

like everything else in life, choices/decisions = trade-offs

I too had a similar storage solution, a home-built box with 5 HDDs and HW RAID, but dismantled it in favor of the DNS 343.  I needed a scalable, standalone, low maintenance storage solution with a small footprint, and now that many of the firmware bugs and shortcoming were addressed, the product is more closely meeting my needs.

(FYI the FW still has much room for improvement.)

[TJ]

As I said, I'm not doing anything fancy. The second 323 I will be buying will only be used to stream my media to my PS3 (this media is NOT backed up, however). I am leaning towards JBOD despite the risk. Besides, do brand new drives clonk-out that often? They will be used 6 hours a day tops.

I intend to run the old 323 as seperate volumes, and have them back-up to each other. Would I be paranoid if I continued to backup to an external sata drive, or should the seperate-volume 323 be enough?

[JavaLawyer]

As I said, I'm not doing anything fancy. The second 323 I will be buying will only be used to stream my media to my PS3 (this media is NOT backed up, however). I am leaning towards JBOD despite the risk. Besides, do brand new drives clonk-out that often? They will be used 6 hours a day tops.

That's quite a risk.  If one drive fails or something goes wrong with the JBOD, you lose everything.  This may be a financially driven decision for you, but a new DNS-343 is approximately the same cost as purchasing 2 DNS-323s. You'll have the benefit of RAID 5 (which is much safer than a JBOD) and you'll be in a position to consolidate your data, with the DNS-323 serving as an additional backup to your critical data.  I'm not a strong advocate for RAID 5 for reasons I discussed earlier in this thread, but it's certainly better than a JBOD, which has multiple failure points, each of which can destroy all your data.

I intend to run the old 323 as seperate volumes, and have them back-up to each other. Would I be paranoid if I continued to backup to an external sata drive, or should the seperate-volume 323 be enough?

I have two DNS-343s, where the first DNS-343 backs up to the second DNS-343.  Even with this redundancy, I continue to backup a critical data directory on the DNS-343s to a third 1-HDD NAS on my network, providing a second level of redundancy on a different physical device.

[hilaireg]

... Besides, do brand new drives clonk-out that often?...

I'm replacing at least one HDD about every 18 months in those units and about every 12 months on my workstations - tried all kinds: Seagate, WD, etc.  I should clarify that my equipment is on 364x24x7.  Additionally, the average consumer HDD is meant to run only 70% of the time which is equivalent to 5 years.

Cheers,

[Tmorfus]

Better not.
343 may be unusable (hangs during i/o).

[JavaLawyer]

Better not.
343 may be unusable (hangs during i/o).

From my observations in this forum and through personal experience, this issue only impacts a limited number of owners (implying a potential HW defect) and also may depend on how the HDDs were formatted (i.e. RAID type vs. standard volumes).  I've been using one DNS-343 for well over a year with heavy usage in a rather hot environment, fully loaded with 1.5 TB drives, without so much as one I/O related hiccup, and added a second DNS-343 three months ago, which I've been using without any issues whatsoever.

I believe it's premature to discount the DNS-343 as a storage solution based on the issues encountered by a relatively small number of owners.