I think RAID is overkill for home applications when the data is not changing frequently, is not mission-critical, and super-speedy access is not truly required. You can achieve reasonable redundancy for significantly less $$$ with an external HDD enclosure (or two) and a bunch of HDDs. Unless you're using high quality RAID controllers (doubtful on most consumer-ish NAS solutions), recovering from RAID failure may prove dicey. I don't think it's worth the hassle and potential risk. Granted, you'll need more HDDs in a reasonable redundancy setup to achieve your total storage goals, but IMO reasonable redundancy:
- offers easier set up / configuration
- provides for easier and more reliable recovery
- enables easier storage expansion to address your growing capacity needs
to expand on my needs...
first of all, initially, the data will be changing frequently...here's my steps to get this set up:
1. transfer all data on backup cds and dvds to the HDD storage system
2. organize tracked/completed recordings in one area, and unfinished recordings in another
3. import all finished and unfinished recordings from various hard drives, organize accordingly
4. begin processing on all uncompleted files, or at least correctly label them and sort accordingly
5. continue adding new recordings to library
after that (as well as cataloging the backup discs in a practical way), i intend to set this server up with a slingbox or something similar so i can access all this content through my stereo.
with all i've read it just seems like RAID 5 is the best solution for speed and redundancy. plus having a NAS box or building a server of my own keeps all this stuff in one box rather than a number of hd enclosures that may not be able to be accessed wirelessly if my computer is off or whatever.
granted, if 500 gb's is $150, i could get 2TB (4 TB before reasonable redundancy) for $1200, but i have no way other than my windows PC to manage them and make them accessible to the network...unless i set up one of my older machines to do this