Easy question for Synology owners

TheBigCheese · 25 Nov 2010 at 11:41

Hi guys

I've decided a Synology DS410 would be the right NAS for me.

I was going to put x4 2TB drives in it and mirror them.

Can you tell me:

Will that give me one large 3.62TB drive or two 1.81TB drives?

Can Windows XP see a 3.62TB drive if it's over a network or is it still limited to it's 2TB limit?

If Win XP can only see the 2TB limit still - can the DS410 create two mirrors of 1.81TB each, is that supported?

Thanks very much for any replies, I'm on the cusp of buying one now for setting up over the weekend, I just need those questions answering!

CraigN · 25 Nov 2010 at 12:16

it depends what raid level you choose.

if you use raid 10 it will be 3.62tb if you use two raid 1 sets it will be 2x 1.81. This will be the physical raid set. You will not be able to create a LUN bigger than 2tb so i would jsut create two luns one of 2 tb and one of 1.6tb raid 10 will be faster and still redundant.

TheBigCheese · 25 Nov 2010 at 12:45

Thanks for the reply.

I've just realised that the Synology box uses the Linux filing system, do you know if that formats the drive the same way as Windows, so would give the same free space after format?

I'm not sure about RAID 10...is that RAID 1+0, am I right...is this diagram correct with what you are thinking:

*four columns = four drives below*

A1 A1 A2 A2
A3 A3 A4 A4
------------------(Partition)
B1 B1 B2 B2
B3 B3 B4 B4

A drives will be 2TB
B drive will be 1.62TB

If I have that right it does seem a little complicated...once the data has been backed up onto the NAS it won't be accessed a lot so speed isn't important.

Would it be easier (to setup) and would it be safer (and slower of course) to have RAID 1 with two drives of 1.81TB each?

CraigN · 25 Nov 2010 at 13:04

no raid 1 is no safer than 10 and is slower.

What you are doing with a raid 10 is taking 2 drives in a raid 0 (for speed) and mirroring them (raid 1) for security.

What you will then do is carve up your 3.6tb and present it to windows. This you will do in the device settings. You could specify two 1.8tb partitions or one 2tb and one 1.6 tb partitions or three 1tb partitions that is upto you.

Ultimately raid 10 will give you the redundancy you require and faster speed over dual raid 1 arrays.

TheBigCheese · 25 Nov 2010 at 13:20

Thanks for the reply.

This is all pretty new to me...first NAS and all that!

So I would set the RAID up as I want it in the NAS software and create (for example) two 1.81TB partitions.

Raid 10 does sound good, my thoughts for simplicity was that if one drive failed I could just stick a new one in and it copies over to it...that's great if RAID 10 is more reliable...I had a RAID 5 setup once (via a motherboard controller) and it was a nightmare so I've been wary since (I've since learned how awful motherboard RAID controllers are as well!).

I've got a quick question about how they actually operate...
Would they then appear on the network with all my Windows machines on it for drag and drop backup from every machine (as my network is now with just folders shared for data copying) or can it only be done via the web browser based software for the NAS?

Biffa · 25 Nov 2010 at 14:07

It appears on the network like any normal file share if you setup CIFS (Windows network sharing) on the Synology.

I've got the DS409 with the latest 3.0 firmware, currently running 4 drives in RAID5 with no problems so far. I wouldn't worry too much about disk speed, your network is going to be your limiting factor really.

Great bits of kit.

KIA · 25 Nov 2010 at 14:14

TheBigCheese said:
Would they then appear on the network with all my Windows machines on it for drag and drop backup from every machine (as my network is now with just folders shared for data copying) or can it only be done via the web browser based software for the NAS?

Yep, drag and drop via Windows Explorer. I have the same NAS with 4x1.5TB Samsung Greens, 2xRAID1 arrays.

Ev0 · 25 Nov 2010 at 14:37

CraigN said:
no raid 1 is no safer than 10 and is slower.

What you are doing with a raid 10 is taking 2 drives in a raid 0 (for speed) and mirroring them (raid 1) for security.

Well technically that's RAID 01

With 10 you are striping a mirror, with 01 you are mirroring a stripe

TheBigCheese · 25 Nov 2010 at 15:06

Thanks for the replies guys, RAID 10...or 01 :confused:

(is there a difference?) seems to be the way to go.

Will Windows XP see the drives if I have them set as one big over 3TB drive or should I just make two 1.81TB drives?

KIA · 25 Nov 2010 at 15:51

TheBigCheese said:
Thanks for the replies guys, RAID 10...or 01 (is there a difference?) seems to be the way to go.

Will Windows XP see the drives if I have them set as one big over 3TB drive or should I just make two 1.81TB drives?

XP is capable of handling a 3TB network drive.

Biffa · 25 Nov 2010 at 16:14

I only have 4 1TB drives (mine predates the cheap 1.5/2.0TB drives

but I just configured it as one big drive, although I did configure a 100GB LUN for my iSCSI requirements

sidethink · 3 Dec 2010 at 09:40

TheBigCheese said:
Thanks for the replies guys, RAID 10...or 01 (is there a difference?) seems to be the way to go.

Will Windows XP see the drives if I have them set as one big over 3TB drive or should I just make two 1.81TB drives?

RAID 10 performs better when drives have failed than a RAID0+1 array. Although in principle they sound the same, RAID10 is almost always the 'better' way to configure your drives.