You think that a Seagate 1tb hd is worth 75 quid? i need somewhere to store my lossless files, are there any cheaper 1tb drives or more cost effective storage?
HardDrive
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
Tonya
Well-known member
That sounds about right for an external drive, although if you are storing "mission critical" stuff like irreplaceable pictures or music, an external drive enclosure using a RAID configuration would be a wise choice.
Basically this would be two separate drives which the PC would actually only see as one, the advantage being when you send a file to the enclosure, it copies it to BOTH drives at the same time.
In that way, if one of the drives goes boobs-up, you simply replace it with a new one and the system will copy all the information from the good one to the new one.
The only disadvantage with this is that fitting it with 2 x 1Tb drives will only get you a single Terrabyte of storage, but that's the price you have to pay for bullet proof backup.
If you trust a single drive to store all your goodies on, then the words "eggs" and "basket" come to mind.
Hope this helps.
Basically this would be two separate drives which the PC would actually only see as one, the advantage being when you send a file to the enclosure, it copies it to BOTH drives at the same time.
In that way, if one of the drives goes boobs-up, you simply replace it with a new one and the system will copy all the information from the good one to the new one.
The only disadvantage with this is that fitting it with 2 x 1Tb drives will only get you a single Terrabyte of storage, but that's the price you have to pay for bullet proof backup.
If you trust a single drive to store all your goodies on, then the words "eggs" and "basket" come to mind.
Hope this helps.
John Duncan
Well-known member
would you say that 75 was good for a 1tb drive? i know very little about computer you see! (and hifi for that matter)
John Duncan
Well-known member
Is it an external USB one? If so, yes - good price. If it's internal, you could get cheaper I think. Check ebuyer for comparisons.
Alec
Well-known member
Has'nt RAID always been fairly criticised with the fact that if one drive goes the other is likely to, too?
professorhat
Well-known member
Not as far as I know. And I work in IT, so I would have thought I would.
(I will add my caveat about not considering RAID as a backup, but as a redundant system - even with RAID, you should always still have a proper backup system in place).
ÿ
(I will add my caveat about not considering RAID as a backup, but as a redundant system - even with RAID, you should always still have a proper backup system in place).
ÿ
The_Lhc
Well-known member
al7478:Has'nt RAID always been fairly criticised with the fact that if one drive goes the other is likely to, too?
What? No! How would one drive failing affect an entirely seperate drive?
If the controller fails you might be knackered, but that's much less likely.
The only time you could suggest what you have is if the drives are really old, ie beyond their expected lifespan, which is to be expected but is nothing to do with the drives being RAIDed.
17 years in IT and I've never seen a failed drive take out any others, just doesn't happen.
What? No! How would one drive failing affect an entirely seperate drive?
If the controller fails you might be knackered, but that's much less likely.
The only time you could suggest what you have is if the drives are really old, ie beyond their expected lifespan, which is to be expected but is nothing to do with the drives being RAIDed.
17 years in IT and I've never seen a failed drive take out any others, just doesn't happen.
Tonya
Well-known member
"If the controller fails you might be knackered, but that's much less likely."
Not really, as in the unlikely event of a controller failure, after replacing the controller all your data is still intact.
Never seen a complete RAID failure in my lifetime but I know several instances where people have lost EVERYTHING on a single drive.
As most of the current generation of drives are still mechanical and the tolerances are pushed to the limit, it's a question of when and not if they will eventually fail by grinding themselves to death.
Twin drive systems are the only safe alternative.
You may want to take a look at Western Digital's MyWorld series of HDs, you connect the drive with one cable to your wireless router and any PC can stream the data across, it appears as a local drive on your laptop, and in addition as long as the drive and router are powered up, you can still access the drive from anywhere in the world via the Internet.
It's really neat.
Not really, as in the unlikely event of a controller failure, after replacing the controller all your data is still intact.
Never seen a complete RAID failure in my lifetime but I know several instances where people have lost EVERYTHING on a single drive.
As most of the current generation of drives are still mechanical and the tolerances are pushed to the limit, it's a question of when and not if they will eventually fail by grinding themselves to death.
Twin drive systems are the only safe alternative.
You may want to take a look at Western Digital's MyWorld series of HDs, you connect the drive with one cable to your wireless router and any PC can stream the data across, it appears as a local drive on your laptop, and in addition as long as the drive and router are powered up, you can still access the drive from anywhere in the world via the Internet.
It's really neat.
Several misconceptions here.
Firstly, there are different levels of RAID : 0 to 6, with 0+1 being another commonly-used level.
RAID levels 3 to 6 require a minimum of three disks. RAID 5 is the most common. Basically it shares enough of the data (striping+parity) across the three disks so, if one fails, the data can be rebuilt from the stripes on the other two. This is /was the most commonly used RAID in the computer indUstry, and is often combined with the idea of hot-swappable drives.
RAID 0 uses striping without parity, so the minimum of two disks are seen as one by the operating system. It's also one of the fastest methods, but losing one disk will indeed kill the entire array and all data will be lost.
RAID 1, mirroring, involves a minimum of two disks, one of which is a mirror of the other, so every time data is written to one disk it is written to the other. In the event of disk failure, the irror copy kicks in. As you'd imagine, double writes mean it isn't the fastest.
RAID 0+1 combines the virtues of both and is in common use, particularly where graphics and music are concerned. The minimum number of disks required is 4.
I presume from the fact two disks are mentioned in some of the posts that it's RAID 1 being discussed here? Fine for itunes music, but anyone using apps that do many reads and writes ÿwill notice performance drops.
You should always have a backup anyway. I copy my stuff to DVD - can take forever, but at least it saves repeating those hours of ripping. And in case others think that is being obsessive, having once had to re-construct a large commercial network after a lightning strike which burnt controllers, disks, switches, you name it, only to discover that the backup system had failed due to the incompetence of the person whose responsibility it was, I learnt a salutary lesson!
Firstly, there are different levels of RAID : 0 to 6, with 0+1 being another commonly-used level.
RAID levels 3 to 6 require a minimum of three disks. RAID 5 is the most common. Basically it shares enough of the data (striping+parity) across the three disks so, if one fails, the data can be rebuilt from the stripes on the other two. This is /was the most commonly used RAID in the computer indUstry, and is often combined with the idea of hot-swappable drives.
RAID 0 uses striping without parity, so the minimum of two disks are seen as one by the operating system. It's also one of the fastest methods, but losing one disk will indeed kill the entire array and all data will be lost.
RAID 1, mirroring, involves a minimum of two disks, one of which is a mirror of the other, so every time data is written to one disk it is written to the other. In the event of disk failure, the irror copy kicks in. As you'd imagine, double writes mean it isn't the fastest.
RAID 0+1 combines the virtues of both and is in common use, particularly where graphics and music are concerned. The minimum number of disks required is 4.
I presume from the fact two disks are mentioned in some of the posts that it's RAID 1 being discussed here? Fine for itunes music, but anyone using apps that do many reads and writes ÿwill notice performance drops.
You should always have a backup anyway. I copy my stuff to DVD - can take forever, but at least it saves repeating those hours of ripping. And in case others think that is being obsessive, having once had to re-construct a large commercial network after a lightning strike which burnt controllers, disks, switches, you name it, only to discover that the backup system had failed due to the incompetence of the person whose responsibility it was, I learnt a salutary lesson!
Tonya
Well-known member
100% spot on there, Tarquinh, I was of course referring to RAID 1 mirror and not striping, hence the reference to half the drives true capacity being available in reality.
Most of the good people here are HiFi inclined and not really computer nerd like us, which is why I kept the jargon to a minimum!
The small latency involved in writing to a RAID 1 setup is a small price to pay for the security enjoyed and of course this does not affect reading speed.
Most of the good people here are HiFi inclined and not really computer nerd like us, which is why I kept the jargon to a minimum!
The small latency involved in writing to a RAID 1 setup is a small price to pay for the security enjoyed and of course this does not affect reading speed.
I thought that RAID was only used in business for protection of data on server hard drives that are running flat out all the time and are more liekly to fail.
I would think the best solution would be to to backup to an external source like another PC or USB hard drive. As a home user I'd be more worried about fire, theft or my kids destroying the data.ÿ
I would think the best solution would be to to backup to an external source like another PC or USB hard drive. As a home user I'd be more worried about fire, theft or my kids destroying the data.ÿ
I've said it before but I really think RAID in the home is way overrated and gives a false degree of comfort. The only thing it protects you against is drive failure and I have seen a controller go down and nuke an entire array.
If your house burns down you've lost your data. If your computer is nicked you've lost your data. If you delete a file off the drive it is deleted from the array (though there are recovery utilities). If you get a virus infection then the array gets infected. You are far better off investing your money in regular reliable backups than RAID. RAID is not a backup in any real sense. And the problem is that people start to think that they are safe so don't do a proper backup. RAID is useful in a business setting for reducing downtime (and thus saving money).
If your house burns down you've lost your data. If your computer is nicked you've lost your data. If you delete a file off the drive it is deleted from the array (though there are recovery utilities). If you get a virus infection then the array gets infected. You are far better off investing your money in regular reliable backups than RAID. RAID is not a backup in any real sense. And the problem is that people start to think that they are safe so don't do a proper backup. RAID is useful in a business setting for reducing downtime (and thus saving money).
cram:
You are far better off investing your money in regular reliable backups than RAID.
I only have a basic understanding of this but lets say I have my music files held on an external HD.
What is the best way of backing this up? Please dont use IT jargon in the answer!
You are far better off investing your money in regular reliable backups than RAID.
I only have a basic understanding of this but lets say I have my music files held on an external HD.
What is the best way of backing this up? Please dont use IT jargon in the answer!
As TarquinH has said copy to DVD or another external hard drive. Also worth looking into whether your ISP gives you an amount of web based storage space.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Tonya:
"If the controller fails you might be knackered, but that's much less likely."
Not really, as in the unlikely event of a controller failure, after replacing the controller all your data is still intact.
Yes, I know, that's why I said "might". If I'd have said it was impossible someone would have come along and given me grief. I've replaced controllers in business oriented systems (ie not the sort of thing you'd expect home users to have) myself and as you say things are intact afterwards but I'm not familiar with the sort of home RAID products that most normal people might be using, I don't know how they'd cope, or if replacing the controller in one of those is even possible.
You may want to take a look at Western Digital's MyWorld series of HDs, you connect the drive with one cable to your wireless router and any PC can stream the data across, it appears as a local drive on your laptop, and in addition as long as the drive and router are powered up, you can still access the drive from anywhere in the world via the Internet. It's really neat.
Oddly enough I've just been looking at those and they are quite neat, in the correct sense of the word.
"If the controller fails you might be knackered, but that's much less likely."
Not really, as in the unlikely event of a controller failure, after replacing the controller all your data is still intact.
Yes, I know, that's why I said "might". If I'd have said it was impossible someone would have come along and given me grief. I've replaced controllers in business oriented systems (ie not the sort of thing you'd expect home users to have) myself and as you say things are intact afterwards but I'm not familiar with the sort of home RAID products that most normal people might be using, I don't know how they'd cope, or if replacing the controller in one of those is even possible.
You may want to take a look at Western Digital's MyWorld series of HDs, you connect the drive with one cable to your wireless router and any PC can stream the data across, it appears as a local drive on your laptop, and in addition as long as the drive and router are powered up, you can still access the drive from anywhere in the world via the Internet. It's really neat.
Oddly enough I've just been looking at those and they are quite neat, in the correct sense of the word.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
cram: If your house burns down you've lost your data.... And the problem is that people start to think that they are safe so don't do a proper backup.
However in that instance having a backup is only useful if you actually keep it somewhere else (or in a firesafe, but not many people have them at home...), if you keep your backups in the same house and it burns down, it hasn't done you much good.
However in that instance having a backup is only useful if you actually keep it somewhere else (or in a firesafe, but not many people have them at home...), if you keep your backups in the same house and it burns down, it hasn't done you much good.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Tarquinh:Copy them to DVD
Which is where we discover that backup technology hasn't kept up with storage well enough to make regular backups practical for the home user, what's the average HD in a cheap PC these days, 250Gb? At least, you fill that up and can you really see most home users sitting there burning their way through 28 DVDs? With Terabyte storage not uncommon in a lot of homes now there really isn't any sensible home backup solution available, you could get a single LTO4 tape drive that can take 1.6Tb (nominally, we've managed 1.4Tb which isn't bad going) but the cost is unfeasible for any home user really.
Even recordable Blu-Ray isn't going to help that much, it's still an order of magnitude too small.
Which is where we discover that backup technology hasn't kept up with storage well enough to make regular backups practical for the home user, what's the average HD in a cheap PC these days, 250Gb? At least, you fill that up and can you really see most home users sitting there burning their way through 28 DVDs? With Terabyte storage not uncommon in a lot of homes now there really isn't any sensible home backup solution available, you could get a single LTO4 tape drive that can take 1.6Tb (nominally, we've managed 1.4Tb which isn't bad going) but the cost is unfeasible for any home user really.
Even recordable Blu-Ray isn't going to help that much, it's still an order of magnitude too small.
the_lhc: However in that instance having a backup is only useful if you actually keep it somewhere else (or in a firesafe, but not many people have them at home...), if you keep your backups in the same house and it burns down, it hasn't done you much good.
That's true but my overriding point is that whilst drive failure is a cause of data loss there are also many other things that can also cause data loss for which RAID is not a solution. You can't escape from the fact that if you want protect your data you have to have a separate backup whether you are using RAID or not. In a home setup I would seriously question what benefits RAID actually gives. Especially when you weigh up that you are increasing storage costs and decreasing storage capacity. I don't think "availability" has quite the same level of importance in a home setup as it does in a business one.
That's true but my overriding point is that whilst drive failure is a cause of data loss there are also many other things that can also cause data loss for which RAID is not a solution. You can't escape from the fact that if you want protect your data you have to have a separate backup whether you are using RAID or not. In a home setup I would seriously question what benefits RAID actually gives. Especially when you weigh up that you are increasing storage costs and decreasing storage capacity. I don't think "availability" has quite the same level of importance in a home setup as it does in a business one.
the_lhc:
Tarquinh:Copy them to DVD
Which is where we discover that backup technology hasn't kept up with storage well enough to make regular backups practical for the home user, what's the average HD in a cheap PC these days, 250Gb? At least, you fill that up and can you really see most home users sitting there burning their way through 28 DVDs? With Terabyte storage not uncommon in a lot of homes now there really isn't any sensible home backup solution available, you could get a single LTO4 tape drive that can take 1.6Tb (nominally, we've managed 1.4Tb which isn't bad going) but the cost is unfeasible for any home user really.
Even recordable Blu-Ray isn't going to help that much, it's still an order of magnitude too small.
Agreed, and it's why some of us never download, and buy the original CDs instead. However, if you rip or download in one of the compressed formats, then the space a substantial collection takes up will be a lot less than 250Gb.
The other alternative is to copy to another hard drive, as has been mentioned, but if your goal is archive permanency, then CD/DVD or tape is the only way to go.ÿ
Tarquinh:Copy them to DVD
Which is where we discover that backup technology hasn't kept up with storage well enough to make regular backups practical for the home user, what's the average HD in a cheap PC these days, 250Gb? At least, you fill that up and can you really see most home users sitting there burning their way through 28 DVDs? With Terabyte storage not uncommon in a lot of homes now there really isn't any sensible home backup solution available, you could get a single LTO4 tape drive that can take 1.6Tb (nominally, we've managed 1.4Tb which isn't bad going) but the cost is unfeasible for any home user really.
Even recordable Blu-Ray isn't going to help that much, it's still an order of magnitude too small.
Agreed, and it's why some of us never download, and buy the original CDs instead. However, if you rip or download in one of the compressed formats, then the space a substantial collection takes up will be a lot less than 250Gb.
The other alternative is to copy to another hard drive, as has been mentioned, but if your goal is archive permanency, then CD/DVD or tape is the only way to go.ÿ
Alec
Well-known member
professorhat:
Not as far as I know. And I work in IT, so I would have thought I would.
(I will add my caveat about not considering RAID as a backup, but as a redundant system - even with RAID, you should always still have a proper backup system in place).
Pretty much waht i meant, and the danger of both drives going must exist.
EDIT OK, apologies, folks, i put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.
Still, RAID, eh? Not all that and a bag o' chips afterall.
Personally, i have far too little data to worry about using too many DVDs, and if i did i think id just use a couple of external HDDs, and also something like Ghost or Acronis.
Just a thought - what does i t take to be able to put something in a bank's safe?
Not as far as I know. And I work in IT, so I would have thought I would.
(I will add my caveat about not considering RAID as a backup, but as a redundant system - even with RAID, you should always still have a proper backup system in place).
Pretty much waht i meant, and the danger of both drives going must exist.
EDIT OK, apologies, folks, i put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.
Still, RAID, eh? Not all that and a bag o' chips afterall.
Personally, i have far too little data to worry about using too many DVDs, and if i did i think id just use a couple of external HDDs, and also something like Ghost or Acronis.
Just a thought - what does i t take to be able to put something in a bank's safe?
Tarquinh:as has been mentioned, but if your goal is archive permanency, then CD/DVD or tape is the only way to go.
I'd probably disagree with you on tape. Absolutely hate it. No doubt doubt borne from horrible experiences years ago with dat tapes that were readable in one drive but not another, coupled with slow backup times. My preferred method in the home is external hard drives with some stuff also stored online. Also I would say to people look at what info you want to backup and which you can get away without. I backup my music collection because it would take ages to re rip it. I don't bother with my blu rays because I don't have huge amounts and the cost benefit for the storage media is not worth it to me.
I'd probably disagree with you on tape. Absolutely hate it. No doubt doubt borne from horrible experiences years ago with dat tapes that were readable in one drive but not another, coupled with slow backup times. My preferred method in the home is external hard drives with some stuff also stored online. Also I would say to people look at what info you want to backup and which you can get away without. I backup my music collection because it would take ages to re rip it. I don't bother with my blu rays because I don't have huge amounts and the cost benefit for the storage media is not worth it to me.
cram:
Tarquinh:as has been mentioned, but if your goal is archive permanency, then CD/DVD or tape is the only way to go.
I'd probably disagree with you on tape. Absolutely hate it. No doubt doubt borne from horrible experiences years ago with dat tapes that were readable in one drive but not another, coupled with slow backup times. My preferred method in the home is external hard drives with some stuff also stored online. Also I would say to people look at what info you want to backup and which you can get away without. I backup my music collection because it would take ages to re rip it. I don't bother with my blu rays because I don't have huge amounts and the cost benefit for the storage media is not worth it to me.
Yes, thoroughly concur about those DAT tapes. I'm one of those who don't download, and who burns data to CD or DVDs. I also backup to an external drive, but have been in the industry too long to have absolute faith in them.ÿ
Tarquinh:as has been mentioned, but if your goal is archive permanency, then CD/DVD or tape is the only way to go.
I'd probably disagree with you on tape. Absolutely hate it. No doubt doubt borne from horrible experiences years ago with dat tapes that were readable in one drive but not another, coupled with slow backup times. My preferred method in the home is external hard drives with some stuff also stored online. Also I would say to people look at what info you want to backup and which you can get away without. I backup my music collection because it would take ages to re rip it. I don't bother with my blu rays because I don't have huge amounts and the cost benefit for the storage media is not worth it to me.
Yes, thoroughly concur about those DAT tapes. I'm one of those who don't download, and who burns data to CD or DVDs. I also backup to an external drive, but have been in the industry too long to have absolute faith in them.ÿ
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Tarquinh:the_lhc:
Tarquinh:Copy them to DVD
Which is where we discover that backup technology hasn't kept up with storage well enough to make regular backups practical for the home user, what's the average HD in a cheap PC these days, 250Gb? At least, you fill that up and can you really see most home users sitting there burning their way through 28 DVDs? With Terabyte storage not uncommon in a lot of homes now there really isn't any sensible home backup solution available, you could get a single LTO4 tape drive that can take 1.6Tb (nominally, we've managed 1.4Tb which isn't bad going) but the cost is unfeasible for any home user really.
Even recordable Blu-Ray isn't going to help that much, it's still an order of magnitude too small.
Agreed, and it's why some of us never download, and buy the original CDs instead.
Well same here, but I wasn't thinking solely of music, but any important data.
However, if you rip or download in one of the compressed formats, then the space a substantial collection takes up will be a lot less than 250Gb.
Each to their own, but it's lossless only for me. My collection isn't that enormous though.
The other alternative is to copy to another hard drive, as has been mentioned,
Yes, although if you're going to do that, why not just use a RAID 1 solution, it's fundamentally the same ethos (using two hdds to store the same data) and is automatic and in real-time, I really don't see what the problem is?
but if your goal is archive permanency, then CD/DVD or tape is the only way to go.
Indeed, I wouldn't dispute that, I'm just pointing out that there isn't yet a really convenient home backup solution available.
Tarquinh:Copy them to DVD
Which is where we discover that backup technology hasn't kept up with storage well enough to make regular backups practical for the home user, what's the average HD in a cheap PC these days, 250Gb? At least, you fill that up and can you really see most home users sitting there burning their way through 28 DVDs? With Terabyte storage not uncommon in a lot of homes now there really isn't any sensible home backup solution available, you could get a single LTO4 tape drive that can take 1.6Tb (nominally, we've managed 1.4Tb which isn't bad going) but the cost is unfeasible for any home user really.
Even recordable Blu-Ray isn't going to help that much, it's still an order of magnitude too small.
Agreed, and it's why some of us never download, and buy the original CDs instead.
Well same here, but I wasn't thinking solely of music, but any important data.
However, if you rip or download in one of the compressed formats, then the space a substantial collection takes up will be a lot less than 250Gb.
Each to their own, but it's lossless only for me. My collection isn't that enormous though.
The other alternative is to copy to another hard drive, as has been mentioned,
Yes, although if you're going to do that, why not just use a RAID 1 solution, it's fundamentally the same ethos (using two hdds to store the same data) and is automatic and in real-time, I really don't see what the problem is?
but if your goal is archive permanency, then CD/DVD or tape is the only way to go.
Indeed, I wouldn't dispute that, I'm just pointing out that there isn't yet a really convenient home backup solution available.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Biggest Upgrade Improvement? Rega Aphelion 2 or Aura?
- Started by hybridauth_Google_112692162581130744674
- Replies: 5
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram