Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement |
That exact option is cost effective, considering I have all of those things lying around. However, that's really no different than the setup I already used (networked drive within my desktop).
It doesn't solve the problem of drives potentially failing, …
Yes it does actually. The drives you would use with it will be RAID5 (~$150 for a 5 bay enclosure + $80 for each 3 or 4 TB drive capable of each delivering 190 to 210 megaBYTES (mB not mb!) per second. Five such drives in a RAID5 will give you about 400 to 500 mB/s and if RAID0 make that the full 600 MB/s possible over a single eSATA cable.
Over a network you will never get more than 80 MB/s over a 1000BASE-T ethernet connection. It's 1000Mb/s or 80 MB/s limit prevents it from doing so. That's a little slow I can tell you from working with higher spec systems. But 110mb/s is too slow - unless you're just stepping up from a Commodore 64. It doesn't even cut it for supplying a one-man 24mpx camera, usage scenario let alone if there are tablets, pads, phones, and TVs in the home using it too.
as I've just experienced. I can get x2 1TB hard drives for ~$55 each, so a mirrored RAID setup doesn't seem that absurd. That way I can prevent similar episodes of data loss in between my backups.
Well as one author above points out; you mean to say "drive loss" rather than "data-loss" but sure, a 2-drive RAID1 enclosure costs $30 and like you say, $55 for each drive (I like the Seagate Barracuda single platter 1TB drive for their 212MB/s speed at $45 myself) so that's… figure a round $150 after tax for the storage unit - and you say you already have the rest? Great, $150 it is then. How much are the NAS Product units you're looking at and I bet they only have 100BASE-T (less than 10MB/s) rather than 1000BASE-T or better still TX, and also without an 802.11n WiFi broadcast point.
I still have to buy another HDD to replace the one that's failed. The only price difference is whether or not I'll get two (for RAID 1) and then whether I,ll put them in the desktop or in a NAS unit.
Yes, RAID1 is safer than no RAID or RAID0 don't let anyone tell ya different but it's often not at all (0%) of consideration. The reason being is that the media drive you're talking about is a host. It lives to serve. It doesn't live to protect. If you want the protection part then the mirror drive(s) need to be kept offline when backups are not happening. Right, it's the obvious thing:
Q. How do you prevent a hard drive from failing?
A. Don't turn it on or connect it.
Typically it seems that most people who have been through what you just have opt for keeping an off-line backup synchronized (between weekly and monthly). Myself I currently keep multiple 3TB RAID0 sets off-line and rotate them. My current system is three 6TB RAID0 sets internally (six 3TB Seagate Barracuda drives) - (set1=System, Set2=Data, Set3=Hourly online Backup) - and then the sets I keep off-line as well. - _ - But anyway the important bit is that one volume is kept mostly off-line (and some guys even insist "off-site") in order to ensure a reasonable level of protection.
PS: I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to sell you something - just letting you know what I've experienced so you can arm yourself against potentially unneeded expenditures.
- And after telling you I'm not trying to sell you anything it's only fair to mention that these are RAIDable and simply wonderful when it comes to swapping RAID sets around.