News ioSafe's New Disaster-Proof NAS Can Store 100TB and Witstand 1,550F of Heat

[Admin]

ioSafe's 1520+ NAS can withstand fire and floods, house five 3.5-inch HDDs.

ioSafe's New Disaster-Proof NAS Can Store 100TB and Witstand 1,550F of Heat : Read more

 

[derekullo]

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.

 

[Deleted member 1353997]

I'm not sure if a fireproof NAS is really that great. I mean, it's not like the power cable or UPS are fireproof too, and there's always a risk of data corruption, if the NAS loses power in the middle of a write operation (not to mention bit rot that can occur randomly at any time, even without a disaster).

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)

Who exactly is the target audience for this? It might be interesting for consumers who can't afford to keep another NAS in a separate location, but less so for actual businesses.

 

[spongiemaster]

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.

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.

 

[derekullo]

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.

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

According to
https://wintelguy.com/raidperf.pl

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.

You want to be able to restore your backup as quick as possible (read operations).

Setting the read operations percentage to 100% we get a read speed of 1500 MB/s which would indeed benefit from 10 gigabit Ethernet (1250 MB/s).

For completeness, going with a Raid 10 nets you 1400 MB/s reads and 700 MB/s writes. (14 drives)

 

[closs.sebastien]

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

 

[USAFRet]

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

Not really.

The current flight data recorders are a very mature technology. Very rarely do they fail or are lost.

Design lead time. It takes a long time for a new aircraft to go from idea to the runway. This cloud magic of which you speak was not really a stable thing when the current crop of jets were on the drawing board.
And you can't just retrofit. It takes years of Agency testing and approval.

Lastly, a lot of that information IS beamed back to home base, for aircraft diagnostics.
But it is not a full replacement for the FDR and CVR.

 

[Friesiansam]

5 to 15 20TB drives in a raid 0 ... what could possibly go wrong.

If it's set up like that, quite a lot, because it is clearly being used by an idiot...

 

[kanewolf]

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)

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.
If you have the network bandwidth, pre-encrypting your backups and using cloud storage is a secure and low cost option without to provide "off site" storage.

 

[USAFRet]

I'd rather just buy a second NAS.

If you have the money for this, this IS the 'second NAS'.

 

[spongiemaster]

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

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.

"NAS can house up to five hot-swappable 3.5-inch hard drives, meaning that it can store up to 100TB using 20TB HDDs depending on the RAID configuration. "

100% accurate. You will not find every capacity for every RAID level in any spec sheet because there are endless combinations depending on the number of drives and drive capacities.

According to
https://wintelguy.com/raidperf.pl

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.

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.

 

[spongiemaster]

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).

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.

Amazon prices for Seagate Exos 7200RPM Enterprise NAS SATA drives

5x2TB - $1100 - Amazon - $630
5x4TB - $1900 - Amazon - $556 (yes, cheaper than 2TB)
5x8TB - $4300 - Amazon - $1215
5x10TB - $4500 - Amazon - $1500
5x14TB - $12600!? - Amazon - $1625 (for faster X18 version)

They must think Chia is a still a thing. Even during it's peak, a 14TB drive wasn't over $2500.