Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Hendrik, Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replac...
  
 
mhayes5254
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


Thanks


Mar 10, 2014 at 09:11 PM
phcorrigan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


amacal1 wrote:
I may be interested in a RAID configuration that can minimize data loss.

Can anyone recommend a device and/or tips on preventing data loss?


First, RAID is not designed to prevent data loss. It is designed to minimize downtime due to disk failure, expand volumes beyond single disks, and, in some configurations, improve performance. It can sometimes prevent data loss as well.

I would suggest, at the very least, backing up to two targets--for example, an external disk or RAID array and perhaps a cloud backup location. I would also suggest using backup software that provides some degree of versioning.

This link (http://dpworkflow.com/wp/?p=55) points to a short article on basic backup I wrote a few years ago. For an in-depth treatment (I hope I'm not violating forum rules) my book Data Protection for Photographers started shipping last week.



Mar 12, 2014 at 05:16 AM
yvg240
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


Not sure if this has been mentioned but I would go with a backup solution that is offsite. I use BackBlaze. I have over 800 GB backed up. Cost is only 60 a year and the uploads are never throttled. You get revision history and the backup engine is always running. It has saved me a couple of times. Cloud backup is the best way to go.


Mar 12, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Ho1972
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


yvg240 wrote:
Cloud backup is the best way to go.


Unless you have a data cap.



Mar 12, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Squirrely Eyed
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


yvg240 wrote:
Not sure if this has been mentioned but I would go with a backup solution that is offsite. I use BackBlaze. I have over 800 GB backed up. Cost is only 60 a year and the uploads are never throttled. You get revision history and the backup engine is always running. It has saved me a couple of times. Cloud backup is the best way to go.


Cloud backup is a way to go, it certainly cannot be called the "best." They can be a great part of a total backup strategy and have their pros & cons compared to other backup methods.

Bear in mind that they generally make no legal warranty for availability or loss of data, things on the ole interweb are not always accessible by those who want them, and are often accessible to people who aren't supposed to have access to them.



Mar 12, 2014 at 03:02 PM
Bruce n Philly
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


I wrote a blog piece on backup and recovery.... may be of some help.

http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/backup-storage-save/

Peace
Bruce in Philly
www.TravelThroughPictures.com



Mar 13, 2014 at 02:55 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


Bifurcator wrote:
It's not native to any OS commonly used - it's a niche product!

Because it's not native to OS X or Windows there is no OS support for it.

Because our OS's don't incorporate ZFS it's NOT USEFUL for system direct storage devices!

One NEEDS to use it with Linux (preferably BSD) and the only sane way to make use of that is as NAS where the drive(s) are running under an OS which supports it.

For you and I I'm sorry but ZFS is a niche product good ONLY for NAS and such. Unless you're running Linux or are on one of
...Show more

aubsxc wrote:
I think you are confusing ZFS with FreeNAS.


Well, I suppose there's a possibility of that - I would suspect quite a small possibility but ya never know - stranger things /have/ happened.

So where did I go wrong? Let me put it to you directly then; yes or no:

Is ZFS native to either Windows or OS X?
Those are the two most "commonly used" OS's.

Is it useful on Windows or OS X, do either of these OS's include useful utilities with direct support for ZFS?
I primarily only see tools and utilities for their native and legacy file systems.

On linux unix iris or whatever where it can be used incorporated natively and many tools exist for it is there any useful way to take advantage of it's benefits besides setting it up as a NAS (for OS X or Windows users I mean - of course)?

I guess almost no one here uses any other OS than OS X or Windows for processing photographs but maybe you have a better purpose way of using ZFS on OS X and Windows - I'd love to hear about your unique setup!





Mar 16, 2014 at 01:17 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


Bifurcator wrote:
Is ZFS native to either Windows or OS X?

I don't believe that matters so much at this point. If your storage needs mean that ZFS is an attractive or necessary option then you are likely running some form of network addressed storage. And this need not be some home-brew Linux box or Solaris server to get ZFS - the SOHO NAS suppliers are starting to support it out of the box, and so it becomes a viable option for the less geeky among us. And one which deserves discussion, given the feature-set.

Going into the future, with larger and larger desktop drives, then native support in the major desktop OS's is highly desirable. It is not difficult to install ZFS on OSX i believe, and i suspect going into the future Apple will probably adopt it officially. On Windows of course, it's a different story. MS is not likely to support ZFS, but they have developed ReFS to offer the same sort of functionality. Hopefully they will make that available on the desktop as well as server versions of future releases.


Edited on Mar 16, 2014 at 12:09 PM · View previous versions



Mar 16, 2014 at 07:40 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


For those interested in such things, i just ran a few tests with Lightroom and i get performance penalty in the region of 25-30% for working with files over the network vs local storage.

Those numbers are for a ZFS array on the network vs a single spinning disk locally, but they should be the same for a normal RAID or NAS as the network is the bottleneck, not the storage array (unless you buy a NAS that can't keep up with a Gigabit network).



Mar 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


Bifurcator wrote:
Is ZFS native to either Windows or OS X?


15Bit wrote:
I don't believe that matters so much at this point.


It might not matter a whole lot but that was the discussion point.

15Bit wrote:
…native support in the major desktop OS's is highly desirable.


Sure, desirable… but currently nowhere in sight! - which was the other point.
I guess we will never see it either. Just a guess tho. The advantages are only known a very small niche group and companies don't typically ditch the dogs they place in these races… especially not OS foundational ones like HFS+ and NTFS are to their respective OS. Which was my third point.





Mar 16, 2014 at 01:10 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


15Bit wrote:
For those interested in such things, i just ran a few tests with Lightroom and i get performance penalty in the region of 25-30% for working with files over the network vs local storage.

Those numbers are for a ZFS array on the network vs a single spinning disk locally, but they should be the same for a normal RAID or NAS as the network is the bottleneck, not the storage array (unless you buy a NAS that can't keep up with a Gigabit network).


That would also depend a lot on the drive and network being tested. About 3 weeks ago I noticed the opposite affects for example. Comparing 1000BASE-TX with a freshly formatted ST31000528AS (7200.12 Barracuda) [4 surfaces, 125 MB/s Max Sustained] I was getting 55 MB/s from the drive and 75 MB/s over the LAN. And that's potentially 75 MB/s in both directions at the same time a feat spinning drives will never be able to accomplish. Also those were GH2 files at about 14MB per file on average - with a higher res camera producing 30 to 40 MB files the drive would do a little better than the 55 MB/s I got.

But certainly, given a much newer model HDD I would expect more even results or even as your results - favoring the local drive. Then again if people ever figure out to start demanding 10G nicks or if your LAN happens to be based on 10G then we'll be comparing I/O in terms of LAN vs. Local 6 Drive RAID arrays.



Edited on Mar 16, 2014 at 04:57 PM · View previous versions



Mar 16, 2014 at 01:36 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


I'll stay out of the ZFS argument other than to note that I know folks that are using ZFS with OS X though I've never bothered to find out how they were doing it. I'll also pass on the merits (or lack there of) of NAS other than to note that in the past when I worked in relatively sophisticated computing environments it was always WAAAY slower to work with a file on the network as opposed to my local drive. The techies (many of whom weren't alive when I started computing) use to bitch at me for the practice, claiming the data was safer on their network. Probably true. Since I was doing sophisticated statistical analysis, the under lying data didn't change - just the results of my procedures. I kept a copy of the data on my machine (which required them to upgrade my HD capacity. More bitching ) I did have a daemon that copied my changes (i.e. results) back to the NAS in the evening when loads were light. This was a while back so maybe things have changed. Don't know.

What I am interested in is "off site storage." This represents a peculiar challenge for me. The only options I see are a detachable disk that is used for periodic back up then stored where? Or using one of the online "cloud" services. Since I'm literally at the end of the data line in the middle of nowhere, my ADSL upload speed is <2 mps. It's going to take some time to get my >300GB image files moved at that speed. Also my provider is infamous for its regular "hick-ups" that break people's upstream connections. Currently I keep a copy on an internal drive and do a nightly back up to an eSATA external drive. (Photo backup is done separately from a general system back up which uses Apple's Time Machine. That actually works quite well.)

How can I get off site storage? The older laptop Bif suggested is actually an interesting idea though a complete computer is more likely to fail than just a drive system. The link BIF gave to Google images for USB 3.0 storage was interesting. So I get one of the drive plugin models and rotate drives thru it. Where do I store them? There's no bank in town, so no safety boxes. I have two external sheds that are workshops but are not climate controlled. (It does top 115º F here in the summer time.) How happy will a drive be in such conditions?

I'm really curious as to what the collective wisdom here would suggest with the limitations I face.

Robert



Mar 16, 2014 at 04:52 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


OntheRez wrote:
I'll stay out of the ZFS argument other than to note that I know folks that are using ZFS with OS X though I've never bothered to find out how they were doing it.


Probably this: http://downloads.maczfs.org/current

I use it too but this is a very different thing than having an OS built around the FS like OS X does with HFS+ or windows does with NTFS. Remember a FS isn't just some logical arrangement of data across a drive platter. It's how links are handled, when and how mounting and unmounting works, partitioning, shadowing schemes for automated system restoration, encryption, compression, Journaling, system boot schemes, metafiles, data streaming, virtual devices, even the Trashcan, etc etc. are all part of the file system and AFAIK most of those things can only be taken advantage of if the OS tools are in place. Just adding the ability to read and write ZFS or NTFS on OS X for example isn't the same thing. I guess you can see? You can get an idea of how it's used and the problems people sometimes have with it on OS X by going here: ZFSonMacOS - Google Groups. There are two others that I know of too but they're all about the same IMO. None of them will get you OS integration anything close to HFS+ on OS X and the same is true the various ZFS incarnations on Windows versus NTFS.



As far as where to store off-line backups I read a lot folks who don't have an office or relative near by saying they use safety deposit boxes - although I see you said there's no banks near you. But anything will work. You could for example make a mini time-capsule like container and pour a nice little cement housing in a hole in the backyard to keep it in. A fireproof/flood-proof safe kept in a garage. etc. The idea is just fire and flood protection mostly.


Edited on Mar 16, 2014 at 07:00 PM · View previous versions



Mar 16, 2014 at 05:10 PM
15Bit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


OntheRez wrote:
I'll also pass on the merits (or lack there of) of NAS other than to note that in the past when I worked in relatively sophisticated computing environments it was always WAAAY slower to work with a file on the network as opposed to my local drive.

And it still is slower, simply because the file server is multi-user. Similar performance to local drives is possible of course, but the low load on the server to achieve this is completely non-economic.

What I am interested in is "off site storage." This represents a peculiar challenge for me.

Tricky problem. I guess you work from home too, so no office to use for backups?

Logically, if you can't use the net then you have to use some form of physical media. Options could then be:

1. Copy to a hard disk and hide it in your shed somewhere. Seal it in a bag to avoid humidity problems. I would also suggest a large capacity SSD over a spinning disk as they are more robust with respect to being dropped and knocked.

2. Post backups to a friend or relative, or set up a mutual backup system with a fellow photographer where you post to each other. You probably want these to be incremental, so BluRay and dual layer DVD's might be the media of choice. You could also use 2.5 inch HDD's, but then you'd want them returned every so often for incremental updates, which is a pain.




Mar 16, 2014 at 05:54 PM
mhayes5254
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


Another off-site option, if you are not generating a lot of files each day is to use something like Crashplan that allows you to send a hard drive to seed the backup. That avoids having to upload the initial 300 GB. You just have to have enough bandwidth to keep up with the new files.

I just signed up with them. My upload speed tests at 10 mbps but I am getting 2 during the backup. At this rate it will take about a month to do the first backup. Since I have a live copy and the safe deposit copy the Bifurcator mentioned, I am not particularly concerned with the delay. I used Mozy previously but they raised their prices dramatically and I dropped them. That worked in the background without issues.



Mar 16, 2014 at 07:07 PM
amacal1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


Okay, time to check in.

I have my QNAP TS-212P up and running with x2 WD Red 2tb drives. I spent a little more than I intended to, but I'm very happy with the results.

I'm transferring my first set of files now, and I'm seeing a transfer rate of about 10 MB/sec, which is a little lower than I expected. However, I notice that's a transfer rate of about 95 Mbps. Could it be that I'm being bottle necked by a 100 base connection? If so, how can I check the speed of my router and desktop connections?

I'm using the router that came with my ATT uverse and its brand new, so I just assumed it would have a 1000base switch. I did plan on buying a dedicated switch soon, anyway, to get more Ethernet connections.



Mar 16, 2014 at 07:39 PM
Ho1972
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


I see transfers of ~35MB/s using the Intel 82579 Gigabit Ethernet Controller on my motherboard (Asus P8Z77 V Pro). I offer this only for comparison. I don't know how to speed test your gear, but you can be assured that your NAS can do better.


Mar 16, 2014 at 08:49 PM
15Bit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


The WD Red drives should be able to pretty much saturate a gigabit connection. If you are getting 10MB/sec then you are running at 100Mbit connection speed (or the QNAP is rubbish).

Check your windows connection speed by opening the Network and Sharing Centre in the control panel. Then choose "Change Adapter Settings" on the left, and double-click the local area network connection you are using. That should pop-up a window, and in there it will tell you your connection speed.

If you are connected at 100Mbits then you should check three things - the router, the network card in the PC and the cable. Any router or motherboard bought in the last few years should be Gbit networked, but you never know. The cable should have "Cat 5e" or "Cat 6" printed on it somewhere. If it is just "Cat 5" then it is your problem.

You should expect to see upwards of 60-70MB/sec from a properly functioning NAS with WD Reds fitted. The speed will depend on the local disk you are transferring to (or from) though. Certainly i'm unhappy if i get less than 70MB/sec off my server, and if i was seeing 35 i would assume there was a problem somewhere.

If you are going shopping for a new switch, i would recommend the low end (unmanaged) Cisco models. They don't cost much more than the Netgears and Dlinks etc, but they are more reliable.



Mar 16, 2014 at 09:14 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


amacal1 wrote:
Okay, time to check in.

I have my QNAP TS-212P up and running with x2 WD Red 2tb drives. I spent a little more than I intended to, but I'm very happy with the results.

I'm transferring my first set of files now, and I'm seeing a transfer rate of about 10 MB/sec, which is a little lower than I expected. However, I notice that's a transfer rate of about 95 Mbps. Could it be that I'm being bottle necked by a 100 base connection? If so, how can I check the speed of my router and desktop connections?

I'm using
...Show more


Yup, 100BASE-T is about 10MB/s.

The router speed is listed on the documentation it came with and/or printed on the device itself.
For your computer check the motherboard or system spec sheet.

Is your internet subscription for a service providing faster than 100Mb/s? - If not they likely provided you only with 100BASE-T. Providers are cheap that way!

In order to find out what your computer is actually connected at (AKA: "Link Speed") just check out the properties panel.












Mar 16, 2014 at 09:23 PM
amacal1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Internal HDD failed, Please recommend NAS unit for replacement


My problem is two-fold. My computer indicates the connection speed is 100 Mbps. Also, I found a spec sheet for the router which indicates that it has a 10/100 connection. At least both of my cables are Cat 6.


Mar 16, 2014 at 09:43 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password