|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 2:51:43 GMT -5
lsdeep likes this
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 2:51:43 GMT -5
I remember when I had 1755 LPs and oodles of tapes - no back up and I never lost sleep over the possibility of losing it all...never even thought about it beyond insurance - LOL! Now I use Chuck's process (2T WD Cloud) plus a view other USB drives around the house plus a copy on a laptop HD and still worry....sigh. We don't own possessions, possession own us!...  |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 5:18:34 GMT -5
Post by yves on Apr 12, 2014 5:18:34 GMT -5
With 6tb drives you're at 138tb. LOL, true, but considering the price diff. 4tb to 6tb hdd you would poss be cheaper off to build a second server for the next 24 drives  ...Or hope not to lose any data while waiting for the price of the 6 TB ones to come down. |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 5:48:12 GMT -5
Post by lsdeep on Apr 12, 2014 5:48:12 GMT -5
and for notoriously paranoid backup fans, there is a a good software called crashplan ( crashplan) which offers a painless set for on site/ off site and cloud storage from free to reasonable priced.  |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 8:37:46 GMT -5
Post by TUGA Audiophile on Apr 12, 2014 8:37:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 9:23:49 GMT -5
Post by bub on Apr 12, 2014 9:23:49 GMT -5
I looked at them tonight. Are they dedicated? I'm using Windows. And the little one uses Mac. Would she be able to access ? Not sure what you mean by dedicated? The unit plugs into my network, no USB, and the management programs are available for both Windows and MAC. Looks like I jumped the gun...I thought I read that it was either for Mac or Windows I see now its compatible with both.. I like the ability to access from from different places. Im truly in my Nas-cence with Cloud storage. Am I understanding you right. You use Cloud and a hdd to back up? Bear with me. Any time I have to think , my head hurts.. |
|
|
|
Post by lsdeep on Apr 12, 2014 9:33:31 GMT -5
beside the fact, that i indeed use sata/ pcie cards with marvell chipsets, the suggested speeds at your links are plain bs (sure, with hardware adjustments to get there... you actually can.), i am looking at read speeds in the area 135MB/s/ write about the same 75-80 MB/s. but that's actually not even a matter (maybe for parity checks etc), your whole system (considering a media server) has for daily, practical use NO +++ advantage from it. next you poss. want to tell me that you have to have all 15K rpm (servergrade) drives in this box!? it is an overpriced solution for a non-existing problem, well - granted it is sleek and expensive (not even that really - it is crappy hardware, overpriced, pepped up with software solutions you can find free and a semi-sleek case). anyway, i am not here to talk you out of stuff - it is a working 'out of the box' solution - you just have to add into your equation the 2 hdd's (and consider it is not really expandable) usually needed by asustor gear (read carefully, it cames usally without drives!) and you are back to $600+... great deal for a run of the mill nas!? cheers, l |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 9:59:35 GMT -5
Post by lsdeep on Apr 12, 2014 9:59:35 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean by dedicated? The unit plugs into my network, no USB, and the management programs are available for both Windows and MAC. Looks like I jumped the gun...I thought I read that it was either for Mac or Windows I see now its compatible with both.. I like the ability to access from from different places. Im truly in my Nas-cence with Cloud storage. Am I understanding you right. You use Cloud and a hdd to back up? Bear with me. Any time I have to think , my head hurts.. the majority of nas devices (single or multi hdd, pre-made or diy) utilize a linux based software, actually your mac is (kind off, in a bad way...). it might be modified heavily - end of the day, you plug it into a ethernet (more common) or usb port on your network/ router and it usually works. that's your nas (maybe backup solution?), you might have another copy on your pc/ audio appliance (usually also running on a modified linux) and you might back up into "THE CLOUD" as well. depending on your needs, you will find free and paid solutions (see also post higher up - crashplan... no they don't pay me, no i don't use them, but many of my customers do). depending on your needs and 'experimental mindset' mega comes to mind (yep the german guy getting hammered with lawsuits after megaupload). you can't really vote out 50gb for free (encrypted) when everybody else gives you 5 or 10 with edgy security. i have 4 accounts with them, to cover storage needs for me. not paying for NSA controlled storage hard earned green. anyway, to just back up small amount of stuff - go with wd or seagate ext/ (nas) drives. the funny thing is also - their ext. usb drives (singles) are usually $20-30 cheaper than the internal drives (check it out!). completely absurd, considering the added hardware, i usually buy the ext drives and rip them out for my server. cheers, L |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 10:27:04 GMT -5
Post by bub on Apr 12, 2014 10:27:04 GMT -5
Looks like I jumped the gun...I thought I read that it was either for Mac or Windows I see now its compatible with both.. I like the ability to access from from different places. Im truly in my Nas-cence with Cloud storage. Am I understanding you right. You use Cloud and a hdd to back up? Bear with me. Any time I have to think , my head hurts.. the majority of nas devices (single or multi hdd, pre-made or diy) utilize a linux based software, actually your mac is (kind off, in a bad way...). it might be modified heavily - end of the day, you plug it into a ethernet (more common) or usb port on your network/ router and it usually works. that's your nas (maybe backup solution?), you might have another copy on your pc/ audio appliance (usually also running on a modified linux) and you might back up into "THE CLOUD" as well. depending on your needs, you will find free and paid solutions (see also post higher up - crashplan... no they don't pay me, no i don't use them, but many of my customers do). depending on your needs and 'experimental mindset' mega comes to mind (yep the german guy getting hammered with lawsuits after megaupload). you can't really vote out 50gb for free (encrypted) when everybody else gives you 5 or 10 with edgy security. i have 4 accounts with them, to cover storage needs for me. not paying for NSA controlled storage hard earned green. anyway, to just back up small amount of stuff - go with wd or seagate ext/ (nas) drives. the funny thing is also - their ext. usb drives (singles) are usually $20-30 cheaper than the internal drives (check it out!). completely absurd, considering the added hardware, i usually buy the ext drives and rip them out for my server. cheers, L That makes perfect sense to me Thanks.. I think ( but don't quote me ) Keith also mentioned crashplan ... Looks like so far im getting a 3.0 usb router and either WD or Seagate HHD.. Initially I was leaning towards Seagate ( my IT guy prefers it ) but after reading about failure rates I switched camps and started to look at WD with my cloud personnel storage.. The ability to access from different spots ( Im at my fishing condo right now ) is intriguing. .But first things first.. I'll keep plugging along
I did notice the difference in price between int and ext.
Some day I hope to own a catching condo..Thanks again Elliot
|
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 12:34:42 GMT -5
Post by yves on Apr 12, 2014 12:34:42 GMT -5
Initially I was leaning towards Seagate ( my IT guy prefers it ) but after reading about failure rates I switched camps and started to look at WD You mean you've read the article that Cory Cooper linked on page 1 of this thread? This one? www.pcworld.com/article/2089464/three-year-27-000-drive-study-reveals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.htmlAt the end of that article, you'll notice another link. This one right here. blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buyFrom that article, here is the (IMO) most important part. As you can see for yourself, they prefer Seagate over WD for their new pods. This is because it's not the brand reputation that matters the most, but the individual test results that are coming from each of the drive *models* instead. The many Seagate drives that I own all come with a 3-year warranty period so, mainly because of that, the reliability of the drives is still much more than good enough because the Seagates are so cheap in comparison to the WD Reds that you basically get three drives for the price of only two, and having one more backup copy is safer than not having one more backup copy. So the crux of the matter here is in the simple fact this still holds true *despite* the higher failure rates. Yes, of course, the WD Reds are designed to run 24/7. But then, who listens to music and or watches movies on all of the drives at once 24/7.  |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 12, 2014 17:54:08 GMT -5
The best backup plan?
NONE!
Subscribe to Qobuz streaming!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 19:48:29 GMT -5
Post by lsdeep on Apr 12, 2014 19:48:29 GMT -5
Initially I was leaning towards Seagate ( my IT guy prefers it ) but after reading about failure rates I switched camps and started to look at WD You mean you've read the article that Cory Cooper linked on page 1 of this thread? This one? www.pcworld.com/article/2089464/three-year-27-000-drive-study-reveals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.htmlAt the end of that article, you'll notice another link. This one right here. blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buyFrom that article, here is the (IMO) most important part.As you can see for yourself, they prefer Seagate over WD for their new pods. This is because it's not the brand reputation that matters the most, but the individual test results that are coming from each of the drive *models* instead. The many Seagate drives that I own all come with a 3-year warranty period so, mainly because of that, the reliability of the drives is still much more than good enough because the Seagates are so cheap in comparison to the WD Reds that you basically get three drives for the price of only two, and having one more backup copy is safer than not having one more backup copy. So the crux of the matter here is in the simple fact this still holds true *despite* the higher failure rates. Yes, of course, the WD Reds are designed to run 24/7. But then, who listens to music and or watches movies on all of the drives at once 24/7. exactly! anyway, there is nothing really wrong with seagate vs. wd. maybe the price point, i had seaquest crapping out on me as well as wd. i personally like the wd green drives. in a well vented case (keeping them usually below 35°C) you get a good average livespan out of them (yes, from the red's as well! - we get to that in a sec). basically you can say the same about seagate i guess, but in my experience they usually run hotter, so do the wd reds. one of the advantages of the wd greens is the variable speed. media servers are usually extremely uncritical (in terms of speed demand) to deliver your content /that might be an issue with br-video rips, but i doubt it. the bottlenecks sit usually somewhere else in your system. greens, use less power, deliver plenty of oomph! for a nas setup, are cheaper... and in my experience are as likely as wd reds, wd, blacks, seagates or hitache hdd's to crap out. you may be lucky with either and it will last you ten years or two days. maybe just one, but that would be a new record beside being doa. btw. i get on all my hdd's a 3yrs warranty (black on white), no matter of brand... i am actually p***ed, i used to get 5yrs some yrs ago. cheers, L |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 19:52:46 GMT -5
Post by lsdeep on Apr 12, 2014 19:52:46 GMT -5
The best backup plan? NONE! Subscribe to Qobuz streaming!!!!!! LOL, that is a simple plan! well i am planning on doomsday , so plenty of diesel for the genny (best system want work without power), enough music to not get bored, some food and water... oh and a healthy collection of firepower to protect my music! |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 12, 2014 20:45:55 GMT -5
Post by audiobill on Apr 12, 2014 20:45:55 GMT -5
Let us know how it all works out!
|
|
ratmice
Emo VIPs 
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Posts: 1,853
|
NAS
Apr 15, 2014 8:59:11 GMT -5
lsdeep likes this
Post by ratmice on Apr 15, 2014 8:59:11 GMT -5
just to update one piece of info, it is upped to 24hdd's now, considering one parity drive you basically could get 92tb of data storage. cheers, L Actually, limit is 25 drives: 23 data , 1 parity, and 1 cache (unprotected for quick I/O). So, I think, real upper limit, with 4TB drives, is, as you said, 92TB. |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 15, 2014 12:47:36 GMT -5
Post by GreenKiwi on Apr 15, 2014 12:47:36 GMT -5
Or even more with 6TB drives.
|
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 16, 2014 20:36:25 GMT -5
Post by lsdeep on Apr 16, 2014 20:36:25 GMT -5
just to update one piece of info, it is upped to 24hdd's now, considering one parity drive you basically could get 92tb of data storage. cheers, L Actually, limit is 25 drives: 23 data , 1 parity, and 1 cache (unprotected for quick I/O). So, I think, real upper limit, with 4TB drives, is, as you said, 92TB. yep, you are right, i dropped the cache in my post, as it is completely optional and not part of the protected array. btw. some clever programming guy found already a way to use more than one cache drive. came a while ago across it in a thread on the limetech forum. didn't investigate on that any further - no need on my end so far + i am not that firm with software modding to be comfy to try that on my machine cheers, L |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 16, 2014 20:38:45 GMT -5
Post by lsdeep on Apr 16, 2014 20:38:45 GMT -5
Or even more with 6TB drives. considering the min. price difference of about $500 between a 4tb and 6tb drive... you could build several more servers with hdd's for that money using 4tb hdd's LOL. cheers, L |
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 16, 2014 21:48:10 GMT -5
lsdeep likes this
Post by GreenKiwi on Apr 16, 2014 21:48:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
NAS
Apr 17, 2014 1:32:43 GMT -5
Post by lsdeep on Apr 17, 2014 1:32:43 GMT -5
start saving $3800 for hardware (without hdd's) $4500 for hdd's (assuming you get a bulk discount and using wd-greens), otherwise more like $6000+ |
|
