My first NAS - are these sensible choices?

Posted by: Judge on 29 January 2015

I am thinking of investing in a NAS to move my iTunes library onto, and get it off my laptop. If I've understood correctly, the NAS would appear on my network as a media server, which then opens up the possibility of streaming to a network player, or a unit which allows streaming.

My current MP3 based library is just under 80GB. I have started using ALAC, because I want the better quality but be able to retain compatibility with my iPod Classic which I use when I am travelling which I do a lot (on planes, trains and in hotel rooms). Roughly, I think re-ripping everything to ALAC will increase the current library size by a factor of about 3 to 240GB which would be about 26% of a 1TB disk.

Since this is my first foray into this technology, I want to invest sensibly but not expensively. I am looking at a Synology DS215j NAS. I am thinking of starting with two 1TB WD Red drives. Then if this should evolve in the next 2-3 years then I can upgrade. I can see that the cost per additional TB is low, but I can't see any point in initial purchase of, say two 3TB disks. Alternatively, if I decide this is only for my iTunes library, then I'd need to triple my CD collection to exceed the storage available, and I'd have an issue with physical storage first.

Does that seem like a reasonable starting strategy?

Is there anything about either Synology or WD Red disks I should be aware or wary of?

Thanks.

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Mike-B

Originally Posted by dave4jazz:

I would say you have a very large music library! Approx. x10 the size of mine. Personally I find it more convenient to make tagging changes, etc. to my PC stored files and then copy to the NAS.

+1 on editing in PC

I never do any editing, tag or whatever with files in the NAS share

I copy the file into PC & do the work in there, then if it gets mushed up no damage is done to the NAS file. Once I've verified it does what the editing intended & plays correctly from the PC file, then I copy it over (replace) the NAS file.

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by dzambolaja

Originally Posted by garyi:

I cannot recommend any nas for itunes use unless you are going to run an itunes server (DAAP) from that nas.

If this is your 'first foray' then you should be aware that itunes and NASes arn't a great mix. Infact iTunes and anything else is not a good mix. You could consider ditching itunes.

Originally Posted by Ian_S:

Can't agree with the above. I've run iTunes from a Mac/PC for years with the library on a NAS drive without problem. It also happily shares with Sonos and now Minimserver for the Naim.

Another plus for 2TB drives, mirroring and as much RAM as you can get.

I do agree with above, unfortunately. After doing the same for a few years, and particularly after the recent iTunes updates, I have experienced increase corruption rate of my iTunes library on my NAS. And I am convinced this is to do with the iTunes itself rather than NAS, network arrangement etc.

Bobby

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Musicmad

Originally Posted by The Meerkat:

"It works fine with 512MB RAM ... provided I don't try playing around with the tags, or moving/adding tracks. If so, I've found that the RAM usage shoots up to 90% + and the music suddenly stops."

Hi Mitch...That's interesting, have a peep at my post, 'NAS threw a wobbly'. On the 2nd page.

Thanks for the reference - I hadn't seen that thread - it seems we all have similar/related issues made all the more confusing by the numerous components. As a work-around, I disable the Asset server on the NAS when I'm doing tag editing, etc.

Mitch

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Musicmad

Originally Posted by Mike-B:

Originally Posted by dave4jazz:

I would say you have a very large music library! Approx. x10 the size of mine. Personally I find it more convenient to make tagging changes, etc. to my PC stored files and then copy to the NAS.

+1 on editing in PC

I never do any editing, tag or whatever with files in the NAS share

Certainly I prefer to get as much "right" re: tagging on the PC - Windows Media file - before I convert and transfer to the NAS. And I have deleted the NAS file (track) or album on several occasions but for the majority of cases that would be too time consuming. My edits are often: adding an artist name; standardising names of tracks/artists/composers across two or more tracks; moving tracks between albums.

Mitch

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by The Meerkat

Originally Posted by Simon-in-Suffolk:

I agree with Rjstaines above, the Netgear devives are reliable and affordable.

My word of advice though.. a NAS is a network attached storage device. These devices are not optimised as application servers.. Yes they can run a few basic apps, but these don't require much prcessing power or memory... If you want to run many apps, get a mini server designed for the task that has the security and optimized operating system to support a server... Best let your NAS remain a NAS. By doing that the chances are you will have great reliability. In all the years I have run my Netgear NAS's I have not once had an issue.. But I don't run apps on them other than basic admin and monitoring apps.

Agree with Mike about backing up your NAS.. My main NAS automatically backs up once a week, and emails me all is ok.. I also run an history/undue capability on my main NAS to quickly remedy many finger trouble issues.

Finally, recommend a UPS for main and backup NAS.. And I have had a power cut midway through a backup before now and the UPS allowed the backup to conclude safely and then safely shutdown both devices (according to the logs). Without UPS, both prime and backup could possibly have become scrambled.

Simon

Simon...Do you run your music server from your Netgear NAS, (Netgear's own server, Asset or Minim) or do you use a computer/Mac mini? Leaving the Netgear for backup duties?

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by dave4jazz

re: Tagging

Since the OP is coming from the iTunes/iPod environment I would mention that the tagging in iTunes meets the majority of my requirements but I do sometimes have to go into the Windows "Edit ID-Tag" view inorder to set-up the required album, artist, sort order, etc.

Dave

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Mr Meerkat, I run my media server (Asset) on a Raspberry Pi that sits on my LAN. I disable all the media server capabilities, such as they are, on my NAS's. I have two Netgear NAS's, one prime and one backup.

Simon

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by The Meerkat

Originally Posted by Simon-in-Suffolk:

Mr Meerkat, I run my media server (Asset) on a Raspberry Pi that sits on my LAN. I disable all the media server capabilities, such as they are, on my NAS's

Simon

Cheers Simon.

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Deeg1234

Originally Posted by fatcat:

Given the recent advice to backup with an external HD, I can't see the point in buying a 2 bay NAS.

ideally you should not use your backup for anything other than recovery. With a single drive nas, in the event of a failure there is always the temptation to use the backup as a source while sourcing a replacement for the failed drive.

Also it's good practice to test a recovery on regular basis to confirm your choosen backup method actually works as intended.

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Chris G

How long should you rely on a particular NAS drive? Computers of course have a finite life as I'm sure do NAS drives. There must come a point where it's asking for trouble not to change the drive - anyone got any experience or advice on this? Also, I'm looking for the quietest NAS drive as it sits in the living (and listening room).

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Jota

Originally Posted by dave4jazz:

Originally Posted by Jota:

Starting with two small disks then 'upgrading' to two bigger ones isn't really the cost effective solution imo.

What will you do with your first two disks in the event you choose to buy two larger ones in the future?

Surely the question the OP needs to consider is what his current storage space requirements are and what they are likely to be in the future. For me 4TB would be totally over the top.

Dave

4TB could be over the top. It depends on his music buying habits and how much he's going to buy.

But there are 2TB and 3TB disk options too.

Plus, I know he's only talking about storing his music on a NAS at the moment, I thought the same before I bought mine - it was only going to be for music, and now I back up video, images and my PC's operating system installation backup. Also games I install on my PC I can copy the installation folder over to my NAS and that saves re-downloading a 30GB game file again.

I know that perhaps all of this or some of this may not apply to the original poster but it's something to consider for people buying a NAS. They are infinitely more useful than mere music holders!

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by dayjay

Originally Posted by Jota:

Originally Posted by dave4jazz:

Originally Posted by Jota:

Starting with two small disks then 'upgrading' to two bigger ones isn't really the cost effective solution imo.

What will you do with your first two disks in the event you choose to buy two larger ones in the future?

Surely the question the OP needs to consider is what his current storage space requirements are and what they are likely to be in the future. For me 4TB would be totally over the top.

Dave

4TB could be over the top. It depends on his music buying habits and how much he's going to buy.

But there are 2TB and 3TB disk options too.

I know that perhaps all of this or some of this may not apply to the original poster but it's something to consider for people buying a NAS. They are infinitely more useful than mere music holders!

+1, very easy to fill 2TB if you start storing video and photos too. I started with 2TB on my Assetnas, I back up to a second nas and to my PC, but my original 2TB is pretty much full and I will be adding a second 2TB drive soon

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Jota

Originally Posted by Chris G:

A NAS comes with S.M.A.R.T. technology that monitors all the disks within it. I've got a hard drive that's about 8 or 9 years old now and still going strong so it's difficult to predict how long any disk will last. But with the SMART test it can flag up when a specific disk is having issues that may lead to a failure which allows you time to buy a replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.

But if you have a 2 or more disk NAS then one disk dying will not cause you to lose any information or stop you using the NAS while you buy a replacement disk.

One of my disks in my 2 bay Synology died recently and I could still play all my music while I waited on a replacement disk.

Then I just stick the new disk in the NAS and click one button - manage- and the NAS builds a new Synology Hybrid Raid again. So once more you have redundancy in the system should one disk fail.

I have a Synology in my living room, well two of them. A DS213+ and a DS514 5 bay expansion unit. Both running and both virtually silent.

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by dave4jazz

Originally Posted by dayjay:

Originally Posted by Jota:

Originally Posted by dave4jazz:

Originally Posted by Jota:

Starting with two small disks then 'upgrading' to two bigger ones isn't really the cost effective solution imo.

What will you do with your first two disks in the event you choose to buy two larger ones in the future?

Surely the question the OP needs to consider is what his current storage space requirements are and what they are likely to be in the future. For me 4TB would be totally over the top.

Dave

4TB could be over the top. It depends on his music buying habits and how much he's going to buy.

But there are 2TB and 3TB disk options too.

I know that perhaps all of this or some of this may not apply to the original poster but it's something to consider for people buying a NAS. They are infinitely more useful than mere music holders!

Guys

Yes of course I know there are 2 & 3TB HD options. To me the cost between between a 2 and 4TB HD is significant. 1TB is more than adequate for my needs. If you're not likely to require the space, now or future, why buy it. All I was trying to say is the OP needs to think about his own needs. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough?

Dave

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Jota

Originally Posted by dave4jazz:

Originally Posted by dayjay:

Originally Posted by Jota:

Originally Posted by dave4jazz:

Originally Posted by Jota:

Starting with two small disks then 'upgrading' to two bigger ones isn't really the cost effective solution imo.

What will you do with your first two disks in the event you choose to buy two larger ones in the future?

Surely the question the OP needs to consider is what his current storage space requirements are and what they are likely to be in the future. For me 4TB would be totally over the top.

Dave

4TB could be over the top. It depends on his music buying habits and how much he's going to buy.

But there are 2TB and 3TB disk options too.

I know that perhaps all of this or some of this may not apply to the original poster but it's something to consider for people buying a NAS. They are infinitely more useful than mere music holders!

Guys

Yes of course I know there are 2 & 3GB HD options. To me cost between between a 2 and 4GB HD is significant. If you're not likely to require the space, now or future, why buy it. All I was trying to say is the OP needs to think about his own needs. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough?

Dave

Sure. And likewise I thought I made it clear that people need to take into consideration what they think their current needs are may not be the same as their future needs.

Backing up your PC/MAC operating system installation is a sensible option. As is backing up any other valuable digital info you have.

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by Solid Air

There's almost no way to predict hard disk failure. Of course they all have a 'mean failure rate' known to the manufacturer (and often published), but the spread either side of that mean is large. So it isn't worth changing a disk until it shows obvious signs of failure (and most often they just fail catastrophically anyway). Of course, this means the priority is back-up - every disk will fail eventually without exception, you just don't know when.

I've never felt getting RAID for this use was a great investment. RAID is really aimed at small/medium businesses who want to maintain up-time in the event of a failure. For non-critical uses like a home NAS, it doesn't seem to me to be the best solution. Firstly you have to buy twice as much disk space as you need. Secondly, twice as many disks means twice as much heat and noise, including the fan, etc (depending on the design). And thirdly, if something actually goes wrong with the NAS, rather than the disks, you have no way to extract the files from the disks. You then have to manually transfer the disks to a new enclosure, which is easily the action most likely to cause a disk failure. It's better to buy the amount of disk space you actually need (plus a bit I guess - storage is cheap) and back-up to a completely separate device, eg another NAS, computer or portable hard disk. That way you have a clean back-up you can easily re-install if required.

Personally I'm belt and braces on this. I have a portable hard disk and I also back-up to a laptop (which I use to play music in the office and when out via a Dragonfly and headphones).

On manufacturers, the three that seem to get the most love are QNAP, Synology and Netgear, any of which seem pretty sound at that price point. I use Synology and run Minimserver on it, and it works fine. If I were choosing now I'd probably get QNAP and run Asset, but it's not a big deal. WD Red seem the best disks. The cost difference of 1TB versus 2 or 4 isn't that great in the great scheme of things. I doubt RAM will make any great difference, and 512 is certainly more than enough if you're you're using it primarily as a music server.

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by gert

I 2nd this. I have a NAS with 2 bays but only 1 disc plugged in. I set it up as JBOD device (so no raid, just a simple hard disc). Instead of a second hard drive for the NAS I bought an external drive for making backups. If you delete some files from the NAS a RAID does not help you to bring them back. With the one slot free I can insert another hard disc if I need more space in the future. If you have enough money it is certainly more robust to use a RAID for storage and another (bigger!) RAID for backups (with history!).

Posted on: 31 January 2015 by andarkian

I have a Synology 212J, 2TB Raided, which was originally used to backup my files and music from a Windows PC with relative ease. I now have a MacBook Air which I find extremely difficult to satisfactorily link up to the NAS. I have tried but cannot find any means of creating Mac backup files or be able to replicate files from the Mac to the NAS. I can see and access all of the material I loaded and backed up from the Windows PC via the Diskstation. TBH I have more or less given up as I am currently happy with iTunes stored on the SSD on the MacBook and, unlike many of you, with the Spotify offering unless or until I invest a lot more on higher quality reproduction equipment than I have at the moment. Oh, and don't believe anyone who says a RAIDED NAS can't fail catastrophically. My original NAS's control unit failed and of course all those lovely striped files became unrecreatable mush.