No one using this would be running a RAID 0 array (RAID 0 wasn't mentioned anywhere in this article), which rolls into your 2nd point. If you're running some sort of parity RAID level, even with reads, you're not getting close to 250MB/s sustained throughput with SATA drives, so there's no point adding 10gb ethernet capability.5 to 15 20TB drives in a raid 0 ... what could possibly go wrong.
On top of that I feel bad for anyone restoring a 100 terabyte backup over 2 gigabit ethernet, 4.9 days
I guess 10 gigabit Ethernet was too expensive for the nearly $2000 NAS.
I only mentioned raid 0 because the article kept stressing up to 100TB and 300TB of usable space which logically could only be attained with raid 0 or JBODNo one using this would be running a RAID 0 array (RAID 0 wasn't mentioned anywhere in this article), which rolls into your 2nd point. If you're running some sort of parity RAID level, even with reads, you're not getting close to 250MB/s sustained throughput with SATA drives, so there's no point adding 10gb ethernet capability.
Not really.The planes and other should not store in local "flight recorder" which could be lost.. instead, all the datas should be sent to a cloud in real time, by a satellite link
That is assuming you have a location that is not in the fire and appropriate network bandwidth to make backups to the second NAS feasible. You might have a relative or friend that would host your second NAS and allow you to use their bandwidth for your backups, assuming you provide the same service to them.I'd rather just buy a second NAS.
- It's cheaper (drives not included)
- safer (you have a backup in case one NAS burns for over 30 minutes or has its data corrupted)
- and has better availability (you can still access your data even if one NAS goes offline for whatever reason)
Because that's how RAID array capacities are stated. Up to whatever the max is. The news sections here gets a ton wrong every day, this isn't one of those.I only mentioned raid 0 because the article kept stressing up to 100TB and 300TB of usable space which logically could only be attained with raid 0 or JBOD
For 15 drives. For 5 drives, which is the max in the standard configuration, the write speed is 83MB/s. Comfortably below 1gbe throughput. According to this calculator, scaling is perfect going from 5 drives to 15 drives. Good luck achieving that. You can't use a calculator like this, anyway, as performance varies greatly among RAID solutions. A enterprise level NAS with true hardware RAID with significant onboard cache is going to perform much closer to the theoretical performance of the drives than the NAS in this article or anything a consumer would purchase.According to
A raid 6 with 15 - 20 Terabyte drives with a highly conservative 100 MB/s single drive performance and 0% read operations would have a write speed of 260 MB/s but since you are using it as a backup the write speed doesn't really matter.
What's up with the hard drive prices for these units? I thought it was a typo in the article until I went to the product page. With such high capacities, they have to be SATA drives.One diskless unit can be purchased for $1,919 (down from its list price of $2,399), whereas a fully populated NAS with five 14TB HDDs can be pre-ordered directly from the company for $11,999 (down from the list price of $14,999).