Additional Storage options

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by spud159, Feb 14, 2017.

  1. spud159 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2015
    #1
    Hello
    I'm running a 2006 Mac Pro which is now operating with Yosemite and is still running strong.
    I'm now at the stage of buying bigger hard drives again as I do a lot of photography and video and constantly filling up the 4 internal that I have, but would like another option.
    I haven't upgrade the Mac to USB 3, so should I?
    And would something like this work as quick to access external storage ICY DOCK http://icydockuk.com/goods.php?id=222 using the eSATA option?
    The USB 2 external drives I have are painfully slow..
    Thoughts,ideas alway appreciated
    Thanks
    Steve
     
  2. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #2
    Personally, I would just upgrade the internal drives to larger ones. This will help keep the clutter down since everything will be internal.
     
  3. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #3
    USB3 and eSATA are both inexpensive and sufficiently fast for hard drive storage.

    It looks like that multi-drive enclosure uses JBOD. Just be aware that if you lose a single drive, all data on all drives is at risk.

    Whatever you do, if the data is important, make sure it is duplicated somewhere else as a backup.
     
  4. flowrider macrumors 601

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    #4
    That's the beauty of the cMP it's so expandable.

    Lou
     
  5. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #5
    If using eSATA, be sure to find out if you need port multiplier. IDK which Mac compatible eSATA cards support port multiplier.
     
  6. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #6
    With JBOD, the disks fail independently. Losing one disk doesn't affect the data on other disks.

    With RAID-0, the failure of any disk is a failure of the entire volume - all data is lost.

    With RAID-5, the failure of one disk is tolerated - all data remains accessible. The failure of two disks loses all data.

    With RAID-6, the failure of two disks is tolerated - all data remains accessible. The failure of three disks loses all data.
     
  7. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #7
    Well, okay but data on all drives are at risk if they are spanned into one logical volume instead of used as a bunch of independent volumes. Spanning is common enough, hence my warning.
     
  8. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #8
    "Spanned" is not JBOD. 'nuf said.
     
  9. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #9
    I completely understand and agree, but nevertheless the terms are conflated so often that warning about spanning in relation to JBOD isn't unreasonable.

    Look at any number of tech articles (I'm sure there are dozens), and even companies in the industry conflating the term. Here is one example (Wikipedia) that even gives the same warning I did:

    JBOD
    JBOD (abbreviated from "just a bunch of disks/drives") is an architecture using multiple hard drives exposed as individual devices. Hard drives may be treated independently or may be combined into a one or more logical volumes using a volume manager like LVM or mdadm; such volumes are usually called "spanned" or "linear | SPAN | BIG". A spanned volume provides no redundancy, so failure of a single hard drive amounts to failure of the whole logical volume. Redundancy for resilience and/or bandwidth improvement may be provided, in software, at a higher level.​
     

Share This Page