|
To each their own. I analyzed my usage and decided the cloud was a better choice.
Just curious… what kind of big data files are you transferring so frequently that makes local network storage so important.
|
|
|
|
|
The bulk of the big stuff is movies - I ripped all my DVD's to MP4 so they were all available without a change of physical disks. Since each one averages out at around 3GB, that's a significant amount of data to try and squeeze through an 8Mb/s upload!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Do you use a media server like Plex or Kodi? Or something more basic like DLNA?
I didn’t move movie files to the cloud (just too damn big and I don’t want to pay for that much storage). I currently use Plex on my NAS but find that I almost never use it anymore. End up streaming from Netflix, Prime, Apple TV+, etc… As a test (for when the NAS dies eventually), I copied the movies to an external USB drive and can plug it into the TV directly and use the TVs menus to access. Works fine.
No doubt, a media server NAS is slightly more convenient - I just decided the ~$1000 cost wasn’t worth it for my use.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
Life is too short to wait most of the day for the 1Gb of video you want to watch to transfer from the cloud to your PC at approx 2Mb per sec (providing the connection even stays up for that long).
Don't forget that only a small proportion of the world (and not much more of the 'prosperous' west) has fast, reliable cloud connections.
I am not hopeful that, having been offered fast fibre internet, it will actually be provided by the 10th anniversary of that first offer... (9 years, 7 months and counting!)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Seagate made all the disks and the NAS itself
The cynic in me wants to say "well there's your problem right there".
Maybe it's just my bad luck, but all the Seagate drives I've ever owned are dead. I tend to only buy WD, and of all WD drives that are no longer in service, it's because their low capacity doesn't make them worth using anymore, not because they died. They got retired still going strong.
I was even given an old system from work a good while back. 4 Seagate drives...2 were dead, and another one couldn't even complete a format request. My bias is entirely based on my own experience. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
My experience matches yours. Seagate drives fail when they're 18 months old or the data on them becomes critical to your job, whichever comes first. We have a couple RAID arrays originally built using Seagate drives but are now populated with Western Digital.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly I want to give the company a fair chance, how is it possible to get such a bad track record and still be in business?
Yet, my own experience speaks for itself, and it's not like I somehow treat the drives from one manufacturer any differently than another's. But I just can't bring myself to trust them with any valuable data. They blew too many chances.
|
|
|
|
|
It's my understanding that most drive failures are not due to platter defects or head crashes, but failure of the drive electronics due to any number of factors: temperature, vibration from the drive motor or head positioning, and so on. Many of these sorts of failures only occur after the offending phenomenon has gone on for sufficient time. The implication of course is that some manufacturers are smarter testing for (and designing around) these problems than others.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
What RAID configuration were you using?
|
|
|
|
|
RAID 5. I suspect a major glitch overwrote whatever the box was using for volume management and trashed it across the all four disks.
RAID 5 has been good to me up to now - I've had HDD's go down on me before and 24 hours later I'm back with a replacement bought, hot-swapped, and rebuilt without any data loss or even access interruption.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Raid5 with SSD's instead of Hard Disks. Is there a reason to use Hard disks instead of SSD?
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Cost?
The speed is not that much of a factor, given that the write speed to the NAS with 6Gb/s HDD's is limited by the 1Gb network in my case anyway.
Reliability may be an issue as well, if your NAS data gets updated regularly - as a "static file" server, SSD is great but they wear out on writes, so you pays your money and you takes your chances.
SSD Lifespan: How Long do SSDs Really Last?[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Great Article,
I remember when SSDs first came out, this was my major concern.
So, I threw one in my TiVo, it lasted ALMOST 5 years! And realizing that TiVo Continuously writes, 24x7.
About 2yrs into that experience, I was "sold" on SSDs, and especially with wear levelling.
I tend to to UPGRADE/REPLACE my SSDs at 2-3yr intervals. The challenge for me right now is HEAT.
The 4TB mVe can get QUITE WARM. When it is time to replace with an 8TB, I am not sure I would trust it inside my Laptop!
I used to replace/upgrade my HDDs every 2-3yrs as well. Clone them for backups. Then additional backups.
So I could plop in my cloned drives, and do restores on the remaining stuff...
The final step for me is to buy a LIKE KIND off-lease model of my laptop with full memory.
And maintain it as a cold spare. What's NICE about that, is that BEFORE I restore to my spare drives, I can
Actually install them in the COLD SPARE. Disable all networking, and BOOT it up. (Twice I have had to turn to a cold spare, and BOTH times I CHUCKLED over the CHEAP COST of a second computer, versus lost time!)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: the write speed to the NAS with 6Gb/s HDD's is limited by the 1Gb network in my case anyway.
This is only correct as long as you are writing small amounts, so the disk's cache has a chance to do its job.
When writing amounts that don't fit in the disk's cache (> 256 MB), you are limited to the disk's native speed. As long as the data fit into a single, empty, cylinder, you might (on a large, fast, disk) be able to max out the disk interface at 6 Gb/s. If the R/W head must move to a different cylinder (or you must skip used blocks in a cache block, so a read/modify/write cycle may be needed), the write speed drops drastically.
A similar argument applies to read operations.
I have neglected the O/S overhead, file-system overhead, RAID overhead, etc., which would slow things further.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I have not. The last NAS I had was gas petrol powered.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I use Linux for everything server related - it sucks as a desktop - however I digress. Does your NAS have a Linux shell ? if so paste the yaml below into a docker-compose.yml file and run docker-compose up -d. You can also map internal folders to local locations which will survive a restart of the container. Docker is cool
version: "3.2"
services:
sql-server-db:
container_name: sql-server-db
image: mcr.microsoft.com/mssql/server:2019-latest
ports:
- "1433:1433"
environment:
SA_PASSWORD: "PasswordGoesHere"
ACCEPT_EULA: "Y"
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
You won't regret buying a QNAP.
They are wonderful. So Good.
Not an answer to your question though.
I have had heaps of WD drives and seagates as well.
Over the years it was the seagates that won the battle.
Therefore I only buy them now.
...and they are in my QNAPs
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Qnap TS-251+ which I bought new. It has two IronWolf drives in it, a 6TB and a 4TB. The 4TB got corrupted. No Idea why. Nevertheless, it's been working like a champ since I bought it in 2014. I use it for backup and storage of my converted DVDs.
It works great on the network. I put KODI on my Sony TV and watch all my DVDs from there. Can't go wrong with QNAP
|
|
|
|
|
Very happy with my QNAP as well.
Only note of caution is to make sure to keep the thing updated and turn off remote access features.
There have been quite a few security issues over the last few years including ransomware attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any tool out there that can take two MP3 files, and compare the audio portion of it (only) to determine whether it's the same content or not? That is, if you have the same file that has been copied and then had its ID3 tags or embedded images modified - is there something that could tell me they are still, essentially, "the same"...?
Anything using hashes on the file as a whole is obviously not a contender.
(Way) more complex scenario: How about comparing two files, but also ignoring the encoding bit rate? That is, if it's the same track, but one's been encoded at 128kbps vs another at 320kbps - then I'd want to get rid of the lower-bitrate version...I believe something like MusicBrainz could do that sort of thing - as I understand it, it "listens" to the audio regardless of encoding and tries to identify what it is...but it's not exactly suited for my purposes (comparing files in bulk). But I have to think because this exists, it is technically possible...so what could be used automate this and organize the results in a way that makes sense?
|
|
|
|
|
Same "content"? Do a voice to text of the files; then compare the text. Probably need to run the import at normal speed, or less.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I've used Duplicate Cleaner for many years now, not just for audio, and I've liked it enough to buy the pro version. I'm pretty sure it will do what you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
Depending on the exact use case, you could decode the mp3 files, align both that they are in-phase (don't know if that's the correct word, mainly finding the point where both signals have the same waveform, works good for digital stuff, and less good if you have different recordings from tape), then phase invert one and adding them up (or simply subtract one of the other..). then calculate the peaks, if these are below a certain threshold (around < -50dB for audio from CD-Masters is a good value, but depends on the audio and encoding) chances are good it's the same audio.
getting the audio programmatically in-phase could be tricky it think, again, depending on the audio / conversions / encodings.
maybe that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Dandy72,
I just come with an idea, not a clear and tested solution. You could try to extract the fourrier transform of your signal, and then compare your two frequencies graphs. If they are close you can assume the two signals are similar.
As you manipulate signals, of course you certainly encounter all the issues related to unwanted noise, bit rate...etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget about variable bit rate (VBR) mp3's, each frame of the mp3 could be a different bit rate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
