Windows 10 Putting external hard drives on a server

[LDG]

Hi all!

I'm hoping this is an appropriate place to post this question. Here is the rundown of equipment:
Three laptops, each running a different OS-7, 8 (or 8.1), and 10.
Three external hard drives that are used and accessed regularly (and one back up)

Currently, I have a Homegroup hosted on the W10 laptop. That allows 7 and 8 to connect to it for file sharing, transfers, and streaming. This current set up requires one computer (7) to be rooted with hard drives connected. The others can be carted around as we please.

I'm posting this in Windows 10 based on the idea that a 7 computer can connect to a 10's Homegroup, but not the other way around.

My goal: I have this idea that I could just get a server to house my hard drives and then stream to all three computers wirelessly. This would help me clean things up as I'd love to transition to some sort of hard drive rack or holder that would stack them.

I'd also need to be able to continue streaming, sharing, and transferring as I currently am. I stream a lot to my Roku 2 using Emby and for the sake of ease would like to be able to continue doing so.

I am just not very knowledgeable when it comes to servers, so I don't know if this is possible the way I envision it. Hoping someone here can show me to a simple but effective solution (you may also have to tell me how to use the server...).

Thanks!

 

[LDG]

I will absolutely check out the compatibility of whatever NAS I get to ensure it works with my WDs.

When you say "it spreads the disk load over the available disks", does that mean the NAS turns three separate externals into one? No more will I have H Drive, G Drive, etc? (It'll shift to NAS 1, NAS 2....)

 

[bochane]

....When you say "it spreads the disk load over the available disks", does that mean the NAS turns three separate externals into one? No more will I have H Drive, G Drive, etc?..

You can choose that during the configuration of your NAS.

If you create a volume (that is what they call it) of one disk you don't have a fault tolerant system.
On the other hand if you make a volume of 2 or more disks in something like Hybrid Raid - as Synology calls it - you have a reasonable error recovery and speed.
But you may also make 2 volumes and select volume shadowing with maximum error recovery at the cost of a slow system. But volume shadowing never replaces backup!

In most cases chosing something like 'Synology Hybrid RAID' won't be bad.

 

[LDG]

Okay, I see three options there...
1. Run all disks as one with no recovery abilities.
2. Run separate and be fine.
3. Run separate with volume shadowing for a slower, but recoverable system?

Seems like separating them without shadowing is the way to go. It also sounds like NAS may increase risk of crashes or data loss?

 

[bochane]

....
1. Run all disks as one with no recovery abilities.

No, you get error recovery if you combine all disks into one volume of a type, in case of a Synology, 'Hybrid RAID'. If one of your disks crashes you just have to put in a new one and your NAS will recover! In certain models they are even hot swappable, don't switch off your NAS, just pull out the failing disk and put in a new one. What else do you want, it is exellent.

I don't know the NAS's of other brands, but I am almost sure that every one offers such an option.

 

[Davejackson99]

exactly !!! Some routers also support an USB external drive to be plugged in an shared

 

[LDG]

So either way (disks as one or separate) I would get the option of recovery, but slower speeds?

 

[bochane]

No, volumes of only one disk have no error recovery. The NAS has no way to store the data needed for the recovery. The disk has to be restored from a back-up. See my previous answer:

....
If you create a volume (that is what they call it) of one disk you don't have a fault tolerant system.
On the other hand if you make a volume of 2 or more disks in something like Hybrid Raid - as Synology calls it - you have a reasonable error recovery and speed
.....
In most cases chosing something like 'Synology Hybrid RAID' won't be bad.

Hope it's helping. Keep asking if things are unclear,
Henk

 

[LDG]

No, you get error recovery if you combine all disks into one volume of a type.

That's where I thought I would get recovery....or are recovery and fault tolerant two different things?

Also, the cheapest 2 bay NAS I see on amazon is around $37. 4 bay NAS's don't show up until $200+. Does it matter if I get one 4 bay or multiple 2 bay NAS's?

 

[bochane]

That's where I thought I would get recovery....or are recovery and fault tolerant two different things?

Also, the cheapest 2 bay NAS I see on amazon is around $37. 4 bay NAS's don't show up until $200+. Does it matter if I get one 4 bay or multiple 2 bay NAS's?

I have to be careful now, because English is not my native language, and it looks like we don't understand each other.
Ok, I used fault tolerant and recovery almost as synonym and that is what I meant.

Again a NAS uses volumes, what is C: in Windows is a volume in a NAS.

If a volume is configured out of 2 physical disks and the correct RAID type is used, the NAS stores recovery information on all disks which makes it possible for the NAS to recover from the loss of a disk. I thought this to be fault tolerant

If you configure volumes consisting out of only one disk you can't do that, that is clear, and you can't recover from a crash, you will have to reload a backup. I thought this to be not fault tolerant.

NAS 2 bay at $37 or 4 bay at $200+
It should not make a difference, but have you seen what functionality you get? I only know Synology and it can do much more than file sharing: multimedia streaming, cloud functions, webfunctions.....

Hope this explains it a bit more,
Henk

 

[LDG]

If a volume is configured out of 2 physical disks and the correct RAID type is used, the NAS stores recovery information on all disks which makes it possible for the NAS to recover from the loss of a disk. I thought this to be fault tolerant

This tells me combining my 4 disks into one that is the correct RAID would make recovery possible.

If you configure volumes consisting out of only one disk you can't do that, that is clear, and you can't recover from a crash, you will have to reload a backup. I thought this to be not fault tolerant.

This tells me that separate volumes for separate drives does not allow for any recovery. It basically creates a possibly unstable configuration.

NAS 2 bay at $37 or 4 bay at $200+
In should not make a difference, but have you seen what functionality you get? I only know Synology and it can do much more than file sharing: multimedia streaming, cloud functions, webfunctions.....

Hope this explains it a bit more,
Henk

I haven't checked out the functionality comparisons quite yet. Didn't even know about those details, but it does explain the price differences.

I think I'm starting to get it. Does what I'm saying sound accurate yet?

 

[bochane]

I sounds accurate!!

Added
Unstable, I would not call it unstable. My Synology NAS sends a monthly health report. If a disk is becoming bad, you see an error rate. When the error rate goes up replace the disk. This normally gives you the time you need.

That was a nice conversation!
Henk

 

[LDG]

I sounds accurate!!

Added
Unstable, I would not call it unstable. My Synology NAS sends a monthly health report. If a disk is becoming bad, you see an error rate. When the error rate goes up replace the disk. This normally gives you the time you need.

That was a nice conversation!
Henk

That error report is a nice feature! That was a good conversation and I'm glad we're finally on the same page. My cousin has referred me to a Mediasonic ProBox HF2-SU3S2. Not sure what NAS's are really capable of though or what I'd need/want from mine. I'm really just looking for something that takes better care of my hard drives than the current setup that has each separate (I basically have my drives stacked on top of each other with a power strip and a usb strip next to them).

 

[LDG]

Unfortunately, I think Synology NAS's might be out of my price range. I'm hoping to stay under $200. I was looking at the Netgear ReadyNAS 104 but after reading reviews and then talking to the Netgear community, they are basically telling me this could be a bad idea. Since my externals would need to be removed from their current enclosures to work in the ReadyNAS 104, the compatibility line is blurry. Add on to that the fact that my drives all need to be backed up because they'll apparently be wiped clean when the RN104 sees them and decides to format them. Not sure what to go with any more.

 

[bochane]

I won't push you onto a Synology, it is just the one that I have and know, but look at the 'j' models. But I think you will find other ones from other manufactures too.

And your externals have to be taken out of their enclosures for most NAS's

 

[LDG]

Link Removed

The opinion over at Netgear is that my drives are Green and none of this sounds very encouraged from WD. Will a NAS still even work or is there another option for me to still meet my original goal?

 

[bochane]

IMHO Green drives are not the ones you should buy, but if you have then use them.....

 

[LDG]

I didn't even know these drives had different colors...

 

[bochane]

I didn't even know these drives had different colors...

It is the 'Green' model of WD

 

[Neemobeer]

It's merely how Western Digital (WD) classifies their drives.

• GREEN slowest in terms of performance but energy efficient
• BLUE is your stock quality drive
• BLACK is your high performance (gaming etc)
• RED is ultra high performance and storage (up to 8TB per drive)

 

[LDG]

Oi...all I look for is size and price. I know there are good brands out there as well, but I think I've settled on WD. So far, so good-knock on wood.

I wonder if the Elements and My Drive externals are all under one color?