mikkel
Member
+383|6865

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:


How often does your PC read/write from/to the System drive? Thousands of times every time you use your PC.

How often does a home file-server read/write from/to the Data drives? Fewer times, only when you choose to back-up.


RAID'd HDDs can appear to fail more often, but they don't - it's just that you generally have at least 3 HDDs in a good fault-tolerant RAID array - so there is three times as much chance of a single HDD failing.

The most important part of RAID is the 'R' - which stands for 'redundancy' - this, combined with the funky error-correction algorithms used, means, that, say you have a 3-disc RAID5 set up, if one drive fails, your data will still be completely accessible and 100% correct - as long as you then replace the failed drive before another dies, you're fine - and, again, the more drives you add the safer it gets.

Like I said - lot's of small HDDs in RAID5 FTW.
Drives are not the only components that can fail in a RAID array.
Yeah, and if the controller fails you replace the controller.

FFS! NO SOLUTION IS FAIL-PROOF!
When your controller fails and writes garbage to the disks, when the parity XOR fails, when your PSU blows and takes your disks with you, or when you physically damage your case, are you still going to be calling RAID a backup solution?

No solution is fail-proof, but RAID is not the correct solution for backing up data, as redundancy is not backup.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7030|Cambridge (UK)

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

steelie34 wrote:

raid provides fault tolerance... but since the disks undergo heavy read/write usage, they fail much more often, which is why it's generally not the best for long term storage.  i still say tape is the way to go...
How often does your PC read/write from/to the System drive? Thousands of times every time you use your PC.

How often does a home file-server read/write from/to the Data drives? Fewer times, only when you choose to back-up.


RAID'd HDDs can appear to fail more often, but they don't - it's just that you generally have at least 3 HDDs in a good fault-tolerant RAID array - so there is three times as much chance of a single HDD failing.

The most important part of RAID is the 'R' - which stands for 'redundancy' - this, combined with the funky error-correction algorithms used, means, that, say you have a 3-disc RAID5 set up, if one drive fails, your data will still be completely accessible and 100% correct - as long as you then replace the failed drive before another dies, you're fine - and, again, the more drives you add the safer it gets.

Like I said - lot's of small HDDs in RAID5 FTW.
I'm guessing you've never taken any exams geared around backup solutions. It's easy to tell by the language you use to describe it.

He is totally right about RAID and the heavy disk usage.
WHERE IN THE OP DOES HE USE THE WORD 'BACKUP'?


prototype - how often do/will you access the data stored on the disks?

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-24 11:28:10)

mikkel
Member
+383|6865

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:


How often does your PC read/write from/to the System drive? Thousands of times every time you use your PC.

How often does a home file-server read/write from/to the Data drives? Fewer times, only when you choose to back-up.


RAID'd HDDs can appear to fail more often, but they don't - it's just that you generally have at least 3 HDDs in a good fault-tolerant RAID array - so there is three times as much chance of a single HDD failing.

The most important part of RAID is the 'R' - which stands for 'redundancy' - this, combined with the funky error-correction algorithms used, means, that, say you have a 3-disc RAID5 set up, if one drive fails, your data will still be completely accessible and 100% correct - as long as you then replace the failed drive before another dies, you're fine - and, again, the more drives you add the safer it gets.

Like I said - lot's of small HDDs in RAID5 FTW.
I'm guessing you've never taken any exams geared around backup solutions. It's easy to tell by the language you use to describe it.

He is totally right about RAID and the heavy disk usage.
WHERE IN THE OP DOES HE USE THE WORD 'BACKUP'?
One copy goes to DVD and one stays on a HDD.
This is called a backup.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7030|Cambridge (UK)
Storing 3TB's of porn, downloaded movies, apps, games and mp3s (appologies proto if it's not all porn/movies/apps/games/mp3s) DOES NOT REQUIRE A BACKUP SOLUTION - it requires a STORAGE SOLUTION.


Again, prototype - can you clarify here - what is it, 'backup' (where you've got important files that MUST NOT be lost, ever) or 'storage' (where you just want somewhere to dump stuff out of the way, but where it's reasonable accessible) that you're after?

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-24 11:33:03)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6846|SE London

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

So, why's RAID used in high-end file-servers, eh, eh?

RAID is the best solution - if, as I've already said, you have enough drives and a mobo that has plenty of SATA ports and supports, say, RAID5 across all of them.
Why is RAID used in high end file servers? I would've thought that's obvious - speed and redundancy. File servers are not the same as backup servers and I've setup enough of both for enough different companies to be well aware of the differences. Companies either use tape backup or external drives as backup. I don't know why you're talking about file servers, which are something else entirely.

RAID is not a backup solution. Redundancy is not backup. A backup server may well be configured in a RAID setup (real RAID - not RAID0, ever), but that's incidental - and the contents of the backup server will be backed up onto some external storage medium, always. RAID can play a part of a backup solution, but backup should never be geared around a RAID. Even most SANs are unsuitable for proper backup.

A few external hard drives is always the best backup solution for home users.
Ah, I see what your saying.

Semantics dear boy, semantics.

Also, I don't see the word 'backup' in the OP.
Long term storage = backup.

RAID is unsuitable. What if someone deleted some stuff? RAID doesn't help you there. A separate (preferably read only) backup copy does.

Two RAIDs, maybe. But that's a bit over the top for home usage. You always want 2 discrete copies, at least. RAID does not provide that.

External hard drives do. They're cheap. They're simple. They fit the bill perfectly for a backup solution.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-01-24 11:37:14)

mikkel
Member
+383|6865
To depart from this debate over something that has been established in the industry for decades, and go back to what you initially posted, if you're worried about your optical media backups losing physical integrity over the years, and the sheer volume of disks that you have in order to keep up with all your data, the best solution for long term storage nowadays is buying low priced, high capacity harddrives, and saving your data onto these. Using a hot swappable drive bay makes this easier than burning to DVD.

DVDs generally do better than CDs when it comes to physical integrity, but it all comes down to the manufacturing process, and the type of disk that it is. DVD-Rs, like CD-Rs, burn opaque pits in a layer of dye on the disk when written to, and the quality of this dye determines whether or not the disk is suitable for long term storage. Generally, cheap DVD-Rs cannot be reliably expected to maintain integrity for longer than 8 years in normal conditions. However, as with anything, your mileage may vary on this.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-01-24 11:43:08)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7030|Cambridge (UK)

Bertster7 wrote:

Long term storage = backup.

RAID is unsuitable. What if someone deleted some stuff? RAID doesn't help you there. A separate (preferably read only) backup copy does.

Two RAIDs, maybe. But that's a bit over the top for home usage. You always want 2 discrete copies, at least. RAID does not provide that.

External hard drives do. They're cheap. They're simple. They fit the bill perfectly for a backup solution.
No storage is storage whether it's long term or not.

The way I read what prototype posted, he wants a storage solution, not a back-up solution.

If I thought he wanted backup, I'd be suggesting grandfather-father-son (see, mr smarty pants, I went to college too).


May I suggest we hold-off on the debate until prototype gets back in-thread and lets us know whether he wants storage or backup?

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-24 11:51:20)

jaymz9350
Member
+54|6841

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

WHERE IN THE OP DOES HE USE THE WORD 'BACKUP'?


prototype - how often do/will you access the data stored on the disks?
If your talking about storing data for a long time and not having backups to cover your ass in case of failure, damage or loss of physical media then you are not to bright.
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6787|...

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

.Sup wrote:

RAID 1.
HDDs are cheaper than DVDs per GB
RAID is never, ever, ever a backup solution. Never.

Bertster7 wrote:

prototype wrote:

I am new to setting up a raid server and have limited funds but that does seem to be the best option.
Then don't. It's not the best solution at all. Just buy a few external hard drives. Problem solved.
So, why's RAID used in high-end file-servers, eh, eh?

RAID is the best solution - if, as I've already said, you have enough drives and a mobo that has plenty of SATA ports and supports, say, RAID5 across all of them.
RAID is not backup, its for availability.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

WHERE IN THE OP DOES HE USE THE WORD 'BACKUP'?
prototype - how often do/will you access the data stored on the disks?
"Save your data", close enough .. relax a bit go smoke a bowl

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-01-24 17:27:57)

Freezer7Pro
I don't come here a lot anymore.
+1,447|6461|Winland

(Ignoring the above war)

For long-term storage where you were going to use DVDs, just get a couple of really large hard drives, and only run then when you need them. With the awesomeness of SATA hot-plugging, you don't even need to reboot your computer. A hard drive used sporadically will last for years and years to come.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
prototype
Member
+52|6575

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Storing 3TB's of porn, downloaded movies, apps, games and mp3s (appologies proto if it's not all porn/movies/apps/games/mp3s) DOES NOT REQUIRE A BACKUP SOLUTION - it requires a STORAGE SOLUTION.


Again, prototype - can you clarify here - what is it, 'backup' (where you've got important files that MUST NOT be lost, ever) or 'storage' (where you just want somewhere to dump stuff out of the way, but where it's reasonable accessible) that you're after?
yes, long term storage
but all the files are important and will be accessed when needed/wanted but not more than 2 or 3 times a month.

I am just going to buy a few decent external HDDs

Last edited by prototype (2009-01-24 23:40:09)

TheDonkey
Eat my bearrrrrrrrrrr, Tonighttt
+163|5981|Vancouver, BC, Canada
Why has no one mentioned flash storage?

Sure it has a limited number of read/write cycles, but if you're only "Storing for a long time", that shouldn't be a problem.

Or is there something that I do not know about the integrity of files on flash storage...?


And one can say that it's not that much space, but if you get a good sale, you can get like 8GB dries for under $5, then RAID them together into one big drive(not exactly RAID, but you get the point)
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6717|The Twilight Zone
People don't compare pro solutions vs solutions for home user. He doesn't have unlimited resources in money. RAID is the way to go.
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
cospengle
Member
+140|6751|Armidale, NSW, Australia

prototype wrote:

I am just going to buy a few decent external HDDs
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7030|Cambridge (UK)

prototype wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Storing 3TB's of porn, downloaded movies, apps, games and mp3s (appologies proto if it's not all porn/movies/apps/games/mp3s) DOES NOT REQUIRE A BACKUP SOLUTION - it requires a STORAGE SOLUTION.


Again, prototype - can you clarify here - what is it, 'backup' (where you've got important files that MUST NOT be lost, ever) or 'storage' (where you just want somewhere to dump stuff out of the way, but where it's reasonable accessible) that you're after?
yes, long term storage
but all the files are important and will be accessed when needed/wanted but not more than 2 or 3 times a month.

I am just going to buy a few decent external HDDs
Thanks prototype, that's clearer.

I still recommend moving towards building a 2nd PC.

As I said previously, it doesn't need to be brilliant, and if you put Vista Business or Premium on it, you don't need keyboard, mouse, monitor or even graphics card (well, as long as there's graphics on the mobo), but it does need plenty of SATA/IDE ports (which most mobos have now-a-days) and, ideally, RAID5 across all of them).

You could easily put together a base unit, in decent, large, case and a good PSU for around £500, or less if you're willing to cut some specs.

Then, fill it with as many HDDs as it'll take/you've got, hook it up to your router, and you're (pretty much) away.

The reason you don't need keyb/mouse/monitor, but do need Vista Business/Premium is remote desktop.

Once you've got it set up and it's plugged into your LAN (i.e. into your router), then you can just remote desktop over to the storage PC from your main PC.

Not that you'll need to very much, for access to the storage, you can just configure some shares so you can just drag-n-drop files, as though the storage were permanently plugged in to your main computer.

But, you say "all the files are important"...

This is where backups come in - how important are they? would it be a disaster if someone where to reformat all your storage?

If so, then you should also consider backing up all important files - storage alone does not make your data safe - backups make your data safe.

Also, will you be changing the files in storage, or are they just, for example, movie files that you want to dump somewhere, but somewhere accessible so you can watch them easily? and would it matter if someone went in to your files and changed stuff?

Again, if you're storing files that change often, and you want to protect against disastrous changes being made to them, backups are the order of the day.

In either case, because you've got a lot of data, you want a good compressed, incremental, backup onto a media that know is relatively 'safe' - ideally mirrored in some form.

Essentially what you're doing now is 'mirroring' - only it's manual on-to-disc mirroring - the same will apply if you do just decide to buy some external drives, for now - all you're doing is mirroring the data - this is the most basic form of backup and is why everyone started harping on about backup solutions.

Now, I'm sure Bertster et al will now proceed to tell me I'm wrong, for some reason or another, but again, RAID can help here, but not RAID5 this time, rather RAID1 (or one of the other mirrored RAIDs).

But now we are getting into max-overkill territory.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
pun intended, btw, max
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|6831|NYC / Hamburg

Are you implying that having my important data saved on 3 different raid 1 arrays, one of which is in another county is overkill

But yeah, agree. Unless this is some mission critical data that you can't afford to loose to some freak asteroid hitting the building backing up to a somehow mirrored file server is the best solution

BF2S wrote:

You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.
https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/nigelf/computer001.gif
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6678|Finland

Why don't we all get EMP protected storage systems so we can watch movies after nuclear holocaust?
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
JoshP
Banned
+176|5953|Notts, UK

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Why don't we all get EMP protected storage systems so we can watch donkey porn after nuclear holocaust?
fix'd
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|6831|NYC / Hamburg

JoshP wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Why don't we all get EMP protected storage systems so we can watch midget on donkey scat porn after nuclear holocaust?
fix'd
double fix'd
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard