0
Hardware I am working with
- Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 (R7000) (USB 3.0; running stock firmware, but can run Tomato if needed)
- Seagate FreeAgent GoFlex Desk 2 TB USB 3.0 External Hard Drive (MPN: STAC2000106, UPC: 763649035368)
Lenovo V570 Core i5 2410M (USB 2.0 only)
Note: The Lenovo V570 notebook is connected to the Netgear R7000 router via ethernet cord. The notebook will always be powered on and never be moved from its position.
I would like to access the 2TB Seagate drive from within and outside the network. I am also considering running Syncany as my self-hosted syncing platform.
My question
Would it be better to:
a) plug the Seagate HDD directly into the router?
-=OR=-
b) plug the Seagate HDD into the laptop (which is in turn plugged into the router)?
I am asking in terms of performance, pros, and cons. I'm aware of general differences between using a laptop and router. Please compare read/write speed values based on component chipsets.
Is the laptop stationary or mobile? I'd just go with b but keep a mirror backup at home if it's mobile. It's just a lot simpler. – Larssend – 2015-07-18T13:25:42.353
1The laptop is stationary. – Raj – 2015-07-19T01:09:36.537
HDD directly to Router – Dave – 2015-07-21T08:13:24.347
In my experience external hard drives are extremely unreliable and have a high rate of failure. You are also creating a single point of failure as you likely only have one drive. To do a NAS properly you should get a dedicated NAS solution. My experience has been with Synology and it has been the optimal way to go. You connect via ethernet instead of USB and you can get a two drive box so that you can set up a raid, that way if a drive goes bad, the raid can recover the data. You can use the Seagate as a back up device to the NAS box. – AMR – 2015-07-23T03:10:57.513
Why would people downvote without any mention of an issue with the question? – Raj – 2015-07-24T07:07:20.610
@AMR, so you find USB the point of failure? Meaning either of my intended solutions would be substandard? – Raj – 2015-07-24T07:10:53.280
Router-hosted NAS services have always had issues with CPU-limited performance. Personally I'd go hardcore and run an iSCSI or USBoIP target on the router, use that to mount the HDD on the laptop, and perform the actual NAS'ing on the laptop. That way the router doesn't have to handle the (relatively) CPU intensive SMB/NFS/AFS/etc. – qasdfdsaq – 2015-07-24T11:32:45.443
@Raj. I wasn't trying to say that USB is your point of failure. Anecdotally I have found that External USB HDD's are highly prone to catastrophic failure. I have four Western Digital drives sitting in a cupboard that all failed and you can no longer access any of the data and are bricked as they cannot even be reformatted. I tried Seagate, and use it to back up my NAS, but while I can still access the data, the backup no longer goes to completion, even though I have reformatted the drive on a number of occasions. So personally I have been burned. – AMR – 2015-07-24T12:52:14.433
My mention of a single point of failure has to do with the fact that you have a single drive. If you have even a two disk NAS set up as a RAID, the if one of the drives goes bad, you can swap in another and the raid should be able to recover, And while relying on RAID alone is not advisable, as you should also back up your data as well. I guess the real question you have to ask yourself is how valuable is your data to you. – AMR – 2015-07-24T12:59:14.613