Migrate TS-212P to TS-431 with v4.3.3

[MalEbenSo]

Dear all,

I intend to upgrade from a TS-212P to a TS-431.

This page http://docs.qnap.com/nas/4.1/SMB/en/ind ... ration.htm makes it appear like a relatively easy process, except ...

• strictly speaking my source NAS is not listed, since TS-x12 does not match TS-212P
• strictly speaking the document is outdated and thus not applicable

Does anyone have experience with the process?

Are the above listed issues just negligence on QNAP's part wrt documentation?

Anything beyond what is described in the docs to be aware of?

I intend to use the original two 8 TB disks first. Then, once I feel confident that everything's working, I will add other 4 TB disks. All disks will be individual volumes.

Edit: Fixed link to point to the specific page

[dolbyman]

check the latest document for 4.3 not 4.1

migration will leave you with old legacy volumes..best to start from scratch, to have storage pools

[MalEbenSo]

Thanks for pointing out that there is a newer version for the documentation.

I found the above link via Google, then tried replacing the "1" in 4.1 with "3" in 4.3.
When that didn't work I concluded that there was no newer documentation.
I stand gladly corrected:

http://docs.qnap.com/nas/4.3/cat2/en/sy ... ub=migrate

That answers the second part, because it now says "4.1 and later".

Any thoughts on the "P"-question?

(Yes, I am very cautious. )

[dolbyman]

as said migration is discouraged

but the 212p is basically the same as x19 devices (marvel kirkwood arm)

[MalEbenSo]

Thank you for your input.

After some more research and thinking I will indeed not migrate.

My reasons are different, however:

Even with a new installation I see no significant benefit of storage pools over single disks for my use case.

viewtopic.php?t=101473
https://qnap-community.de/forum/index.p ... volume.95/ (German)

So I will rather set the TS-431P up the legacy way: Give up the flexibility of storage pools, go with transparent and light-weight single disks.

Again, thank you for your thoughts which pointed me towards relevant questions to consider.

[dolbyman]

4 single disks seem like a bad idea... just make sure all the data is not important and/or have external backups at all times

[MalEbenSo]

Agreed re. the necessity of external backup. In fact, even with device-internal redundancy, I would still have an external backup. Giving up external backup because of RAID coverage seems like a bad idea to me.

In my use case, data are relatively static, changes are reproduceable for ca. three weeks, going offline for restores is acceptable for three weeks.

[dolbyman]

a RAID would also help for future upgrades .. if you ever want to use larger drives, you would have to restore from backups after replacing single drives

No downtime during disk migration and expansion ... it is definitely my strong preference

[P3R]

In fact, even with device-internal redundancy, I would still have an external backup. Giving up external backup because of RAID coverage seems like a bad idea to me.

It absolutely is if it's a strict choice between either of the two.

But external backups and RAID are doing different things for us and have minimal overlap so most of us use both.

External backups is the only thing useful to protect our data.

RAID (not RAID 0 of course as it isn't real RAID) is providing single system reliability and convenience for the administrator but not any true data protection.