Best (Cheap) RAID / Storage Solution?

Vautrin · Sep 15, 2008

LOL...

Wow, just wow.

So I'm going to go with a G/F/S system. Although I'm thinking G/F only because no need for a third disk. G is going to be a USB 500 GB and F is going to be a network drive if I can find one, and then hopefully I can set up a script to rsync the drives on my home network or something...

And, yes, as many people had pointed out I was looking at RAID not for speed or high end server room needs but because I want my data to be safe. I figured RAID would be easiest to do this because if one drive died I could just pull it and replace it and have it mirror, but people have brought up good points -- especially about locational hazards.

Anyone know of a good online backup service that I could get to mirror my 500GB for cheap?

And as for Windows / Mac that is a problem -- saving for a new Mac but currently one a windows box...

-Dan

JerryPH · Sep 15, 2008

The best online systems cost $$, and sometimes even more than if you do it yourself... plus on top of it, you will NEVER know if *they* backup their drives or not.

I prefer in trusting #1... me... lol. It's just not that hard!

Bifurcator · Sep 15, 2008

seconded.

Mystwalker · Sep 15, 2008

Not sure you need RAID at all - in fact I will advise against it.

I was under impression RAID 0 will give you "best" performance - it did until something went wrong with one of the disks requiring I format both and reinstall everything. Luckily, I'm paranoid and have double storage of everything on CD/DVD and websites.

I would not use RAID 1 nor 5 unless you are constantly touching the pictures you have stored on them. RAID is not really an "archive" solution (imo).

Today, I prefer a USB solution such as Seagate's FreeAgent Pro. You can get 750 to 1TB for around $120 to $180 depending on where and when you shop. Definitely not even "quick", but it is only for archiving.

I also backup everything to CD/DVD.

usayit · Sep 15, 2008

Mystwalker said:
I would not use RAID 1 nor 5 unless you are constantly touching the pictures you have stored on them. RAID is not really an "archive" solution (imo).

You are right... its not an archival solution BUT you have to think of it as two seperate things: 1) redundant disk storage 2) archival storage.

RAID 1 is so cheap that there is no reason why you should not use it for interim storage between workspace and archival space.

Bifurcator · Sep 15, 2008

RAID1 Sucks nuggets! In a home computing environment it's ONLY for the extreme anal retentive who doesn't understand RAIDs at all. I seriously believe that. So do most of the IT old-timers I know.

When a drive breaks 90% of the time it corrupts data for a few weeks or months first. In a RAID1 configuration all of that corruption will be copied over to your other drive(s). Drives do break suddenly but it's rare and that's ALL RAID1 is good for. It's a total waste of money. You are buying twice the hardware and getting absolutely nothing for it except a higher power bill and probably more ambient room noise.

Personal Computing + RAID1 = SUCKS!

usayit · Sep 15, 2008

Corruption (from various reasons) will impact any redundant disk setup. The most effective protection from corruption is backup (I've mentioned this 3 times in this thread now). In my many years in the field, I've seen tons of disks failures and rarely do they result in disk corruption. If I had to chose priority between backup and redundancy, backup would be my number one priority. (My O/S and workspace live on RAID 0 with nightly backup).

Last time I checked, 1 TB disk was around $200-$300 USD. Hardly an expensive option. RAID 5 and 6 require 3 or more disks are usually a RAID controller. At least on my MAC, RAID 1 is basically free (so is RAID 0 but thats not redundant).

Again.. I think you are loosing sight of the OP. He asked for non-enterprise/cheap/raid.

table1349 · Sep 15, 2008

Well this has been a real pretty discussion. Fact of the matter is, if you are not using an off-site secure underground disaster proof data storage company, then it is all just a moot point.

usayit · Sep 15, 2008

Mine is... I "sneak" my stuff in with packages stored at Iron Mountain.. :thumbup:

seriously though.. thats overkill... I just do it because its "free"

Bifurcator · Sep 15, 2008

If you're not getting drives for free it's not free.

Why are you in love with the word "redundant" and why would you suggest to the OP to spend twice the money for half the space and then say it's the cheepest solution?

I'm not trying to attack here but it just doesn't make any sense at all. With RAID1 there's no increased speed, there's no increased storage space, and there's no protection from read/write error (in fact with RAID1 read and write errors propagate to the mirror

). You are only protected from a single scenario where a single drive busts suddenly - which almost never happens.

usayit · Sep 15, 2008

Bifurcator said:
If you're not getting drives for free it's not free.

Short of the disks (which are cheap) RAID 1 built-in with MAC is free. I did mention this earlier.

Why are you in love with the word "redundant" and why would you suggest to the OP to spend twice the money for half the space and then say it's the cheepest solution?

Because I listen to the OP (customer). He/She said they wanted cheap RAID. The "R" in RAID means redundant. It is as simple as that. Mirrored disks simply means that a failed disk has a good chance of uninterrupted service; Disk fails, split mirror, get a new disk, re-sync the data.

DATA PROTECTION is done at backup. HIGH AVAILABILITY/FAULT TOLERANCE is done at mirror.

You expect me to listen and respond to you but you are not listening to what I'm posting nor what the OP posted.

usayit · Sep 15, 2008

"Also... don't forget that redundancy doesn't protect from corruption."

"On my Mac, setting up mirror was pretty much free and easy (all you need is the disks)."

"In my many years in the field, I've seen tons of disks failures and rarely do they result in disk corruption."

"If I had to chose priority between backup and redundancy, backup would be my number one priority."

Bifurcator · Sep 15, 2008

I'm listening. I just know better than to believe some of it.

RIAD is RAID. RAID0 is RAID. Are you saying it's not?

"FAULT TOLERANCE" = Hardware level only! If the hardware fault causes a data errors (which is almost always the case) you still loose.

BTW, I'm on a Mac too. Mac Pro 8-core. But I've always used RAIDS for storage. Since they were 1st available 25 or so years ago. I can't think of a time I have been RAIDless actually.

usayit · Sep 15, 2008

Bifurcator said:
I'm listening. I just know better than to believe some of it.

I will say the same about your U.S. conspiracy theories and leave it at that.

Bifurcator · Sep 15, 2008

usayit said:
"In my many years in the field, I've seen tons of disks failures and rarely do they result in disk corruption."

How do you know if the drive was broken?

In a RAID1 you'll know because all the read errors that happen while it busted will corrupt the image of the mirror. So you have an operational device that you can see is obviously trashed.