Can a casual user ever exceed the 8GB RAM?

[simon48]

Well, because it doesn't protect against data corruption, accidental deletion, controller failure, theft, fire, malware corruption etc.
RAID5 increases reliability and uptime, it doesn't provide a backup of data. If you value the data, it needs to be backed up.
Incidentally, offsite backups are not 'beside the point' - they are entirely the point. If you value the data, it needs to be backed up. If you really value it, it needs to be backed up off-site!

Having a backup for your backup onsite doesn't help against theft, fire and if you're having it backup your backup often like you should, it doesn't help against corruption (accidental deletion and controller failure maybe). Also a controller failure doesn't necessarily destroy your data.


I said offsite backups were beside the point because we both seem to agree that you should have one in addition to what we are debating, I was trying to remove it from the conversation as it's pointless to discuss because we agree.

Are we on the same page now, were you thinking I was saying you didn't need an offsite backup as well? Or do you think you need a backup drive for your RAID system that is backed up offsite?

 

[disasterdrone]

Having a backup for your backup onsite doesn't help against theft, fire and if you're having it backup your backup often like you should, it doesn't help against corruption (accidental deletion and controller failure maybe). Also a controller failure doesn't necessarily destroy your data.

I said offsite backups were beside the point because we both seem to agree that you should have one in addition to what we are debating, I was trying to remove it from the conversation as it's pointless to discuss because we agree.

Are we on the same page now, were you thinking I was saying you didn't need an offsite backup as well? Or do you think you need a backup drive for your RAID system that is backed up offsite?

I'm confused. I asked you to clarify whether you were talking about having the files residing JUST on the RAID, without a backup - "So, just so I'm clear, you are suggesting that you store the extra files on the RAID, and use the same box as the backup? Or are you suggesting that the computer, and the RAID with extra files, are backed up to a third backup unit?"

You responded - "The first one, just a computer and one external backup system running RAID."

I assumed that what you meant by that was that you were talking about having 'just a computer and one external backup system running RAID'. Nothing in your response indicated to me that you were assuming an off-site backup as well.

If you have an off-site backup for the external drive, then that drive is backed up, as it should be. I think it's obvious that RAID is a complete red herring. It may increase reliability, but it doesn't reduce the need for a backup (on or offsite, depending on your tolerance for risk).

 

[simon48]

I'm confused. I asked you to clarify whether you were talking about having the files residing JUST on the RAID, without a backup - "So, just so I'm clear, you are suggesting that you store the extra files on the RAID, and use the same box as the backup? Or are you suggesting that the computer, and the RAID with extra files, are backed up to a third backup unit?"

You responded - "The first one, just a computer and one external backup system running RAID."

I assumed that what you meant by that was that you were talking about having 'just a computer and one external backup system running RAID'. Nothing in your response indicated to me that you were assuming an off-site backup as well.

If you have an off-site backup for the external drive, then that drive is backed up, as it should be. I think it's obvious that RAID is a complete red herring. It may increase reliability, but it doesn't reduce the need for a backup (on or offsite, depending on your tolerance for risk).

Earlier I said "If you're not having an offsite backup all you need a RAID NAS box." That wasn't the clearest way to say it, but I was trying to imply that I was only talking about what you have in your house.

RAID is not a complete red herring, it protects you against drive failure which is the number one reason you should backup, it's just as good as having two external drives right next to each other with one backing the other one up. If you remove the obvious reasons for having a backup offsite (fire, natural disaster, theft etc.), there's no reason to have a backup of your RAID system.

Anything like corruption is just as likely to get onto your backup of your RAID system if you're backing up often (often as in within minutes) and if you're not backing up often it doesn't protect you against accidental deletion.

 

[disasterdrone]

Earlier I said "If you're not having an offsite backup all you need a RAID NAS box." That wasn't the clearest way to say it, but I was trying to imply that I was only talking about what you have in your house.

Sorry - I assumed that you meant that if you don't have an offsite backup, all you need is a RAID NAS box. Not sure why I assumed that...

RAID is not a complete red herring, it protects you against drive failure which is the number one reason you should backup, it's just as good as having two external drives right next to each other with one backing the other one up. If you remove the obvious reasons for having a backup offsite (fire, natural disaster, theft etc.), there's no reason to have a backup of your RAID system.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON. It doesn't. It reduces the risk from drive failure, but does not eliminate it. RAID devices are still susceptible to corruption from controller failure, power spikes, software corruption, multiple drive failures, malware, accidental deletion etc. There is ABSOLUTELY a reason to have a backup of your RAID system, even if, for some reason, you're not concerned about fire, theft, and other damage.
A RAID system is absolutely NOT as safe as two separate external drives.

Anything like corruption is just as likely to get onto your backup of your RAID system if you're backing up often (often as in within minutes) and if you're not backing up often it doesn't protect you against accidental deletion.

If that's true then you're doing it wrong. Any decent backup system will preserve deleted files for at least some reasonable period.
I really suggest you do some research on this issue, since you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what RAID is and what it should be used for. It does NOT replace a proper backup system.

Might I suggest, as a start:
http://www.2brightsparks.com/resources/articles/RAID-is-not-a-backup-solution.html
http://www.overclock.net/t/1254683/why-raid-is-not-a-backup-solution
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-33088_39-57556308/digital-storage-basics-part-3-backup-vs-redundancy/
http://macperformanceguide.com/Backup-mirror-vs-separate.html

 

[simon48]

Sorry - I assumed that you meant that if you don't have an offsite backup, all you need is a RAID NAS box. Not sure why I assumed that...


DANGER WILL ROBINSON. It doesn't. It reduces the risk from drive failure, but does not eliminate it. RAID devices are still susceptible to corruption from controller failure, power spikes, software corruption, multiple drive failures, malware, accidental deletion etc. There is ABSOLUTELY a reason to have a backup of your RAID system, even if, for some reason, you're not concerned about fire, theft, and other damage.
A RAID system is absolutely NOT as safe as two separate external drives.


If that's true then you're doing it wrong. Any decent backup system will preserve deleted files for at least some reasonable period.
I really suggest you do some research on this issue, since you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what RAID is and what it should be used for. It does NOT replace a proper backup system.

Might I suggest, as a start:
http://www.2brightsparks.com/resources/articles/RAID-is-not-a-backup-solution.html
http://www.overclock.net/t/1254683/why-raid-is-not-a-backup-solution
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-33088_39-57556308/digital-storage-basics-part-3-backup-vs-redundancy/
http://macperformanceguide.com/Backup-mirror-vs-separate.html

• Controller failure, can be recoverable, but you do have a good point.
• Power spikes, if it takes down one drive it's going to take down the one right next to it.
• Multiple drive failures, some RAIDs can handle this, but two drives right next to each other can't.

I agree to an extent, but it seems like you're kind of in the mid ground between what I consider decent (a RAID 5) and something that's really bulletproof.

Really you need two pairs of RAID 5 systems, that keep time delayed backups of themselves for accidental file deletion, that back each other up every hour, in multiple countries (and thousands of miles apart) to have a really secure backup. Dealing with the cost, logistics and internet upload speeds would be really tough for almost everybody.

To me a RAID 5 is perfectly fine for one location for most people, I just feel like what you're suggesting doesn't really have that much more security and you'd need to spend thousands and thousands of dollars more really gain much more security.

 

[disasterdrone]

• Controller failure, can be recoverable, but you do have a good point.
• Power spikes, if it takes down one drive it's going to take down the one right next to it.
• Multiple drive failures, some RAIDs can handle this, but two drives right next to each other can't.

I agree to an extent, but it seems like you're kind of in the mid ground between what I consider decent (a RAID 5) and something that's really bulletproof.

Really you need two pairs of RAID 5 systems, that keep time delayed backups of themselves for accidental file deletion, that back each other up every hour, in multiple countries (and thousands of miles apart) to have a really secure backup. Dealing with the cost, logistics and internet upload speeds would be really tough for almost everybody.

To me a RAID 5 is perfectly fine for one location for most people, I just feel like what you're suggesting doesn't really have that much more security and you'd need to spend thousands and thousands of dollars more really gain much more security.

Please read the links I posted. This is not new ground, it's well trod with established solutions. Apple's own TimeMachine backup provides an on-site solution with built in versioning, and someone like Carbonite (or many other cloud based solutions) provide good home-user focussed off-site backup. Neither is difficult or expensive.

RAID5 alone is a terrible 'backup' solution for anyone.

 

[simon48]

Please read the links I posted. This is not new ground, it's well trod with established solutions. Apple's own TimeMachine backup provides an on-site solution with built in versioning, and someone like Carbonite (or many other cloud based solutions) provide good home-user focussed off-site backup. Neither is difficult or expensive.

RAID5 alone is a terrible 'backup' solution for anyone.

I did read them, I didn't agree with them or think that many of them applied very well to this. They did have some good points, but 90% of their problems with RAID would be fixed by using RAID 5 (instead of RAID 1 which most of them are talking about which is a horrendous choice of RAIDs) and/or having an offsite backup both of which I agree are very good things.

Really having a controller failure, corruption or malware could take out your entire backup chain and are also some serious longshots to happen and your offsite backup should save you. I still think RAID 5 and an offsite backup is a very good moderately priced system.

 

[disasterdrone]

I did read them, I didn't agree with them or think that many of them applied very well to this. They did have some good points, but 90% of their problems with RAID would be fixed by using RAID 5 (instead of RAID 1 which most of them are talking about which is a horrendous choice of RAIDs) and/or having an offsite backup both of which I agree are very good things.

Really having a controller failure, corruption or malware could take out your entire backup chain and are also some serious longshots to happen and your offsite backup should save you. I still think RAID 5 and an offsite backup is a very good moderately priced system.

So are you advocating for an offsite backup again? You seem to be arguing alternately for then against it. Data corruption is addressed by having a versioning backup like Time Machine. It's far from a longshot - it happens all the time.
The issues of rebuilding a raid array, and the extra stress and vulnerability it creates is not insignificant. It's much more complex, and adds little to no value for the average home user over a simple time-machine and carbonate system.

 

[blooperz]

Oh my, this discussion has certainly gone off track from the OP hehe

 

[simon48]

Oh my, this discussion has certainly gone off track from the OP hehe

What, no way!? Hey, at least it's better than how all the other RAM threads go.

 

[kreasonos]

Everyone here is talking about longevity and nobody here is talking about the battery. As in the battery is glued to the case and when it goes you're going to have to get a new machine anyway. I suspect the battery will go long before your machines usefulness expires.

 

[khaberz]

Everyone here is talking about longevity and nobody here is talking about the battery. As in the battery is glued to the case and when it goes you're going to have to get a new machine anyway. I suspect the battery will go long before your machines usefulness expires.

Battery replacement is $199. Expensive - yes, but certainly not prohibitive when planning to extend the life of the machine.

 

[kreasonos]

Battery replacement is $199. Expensive - yes, but certainly not prohibitive when planning to extend the life of the machine.

I'm not sure you realize how invasive that is. That's like saying hey I can eat whatever I want because they offer heart surgery. Well, yea they do but...

 

[leman]

I'm not sure you realize how invasive that is. That's like saying hey I can eat whatever I want because they offer heart surgery. Well, yea they do but...

Your comment does not make any sense. The battery is subject to wear and tear and this is why its designed to be replaced. With some laptops, you can perform that replacement yourself, with others (like the rMBP) you need to go to the service. Its how modern cars and most consumer electronic works. If you insist on having silly comparisons, then your suggestion to get a new computer after the battery is dead is like suggesting to get a new apartment because there are dirty plates in your kitchen sink

P.S. The battery will be good for 4-5 years for an average user, so most of them actually won't have to deal with the replacement in the first place.

 

[kreasonos]

your comment does not make any sense. The battery is subject to wear and tear and this is why its designed to be replaced. With some laptops, you can perform that replacement yourself, with others (like the rmbp) you need to go to the service. Its how modern cars and most consumer electronic works. If you insist on having silly comparisons, then your suggestion to get a new computer after the battery is dead is like suggesting to get a new apartment because there are dirty plates in your kitchen sink

p.s. The battery will be good for 4-5 years for an average user, so most of them actually won't have to deal with the replacement in the first place.

the battery...is not...designed...to be...replaced.

 

[leman]

the battery...is not...designed...to be...replaced.

Are you delusional? It can be easily replaced by an authorised service with appropriate tools and training. The cost for an replacement is just a few $ more than the cost of a standalone battery. If I need tires or chain replaced on my motorcycle, I take it to the dealers. Doesn't mean the tyres are not designed to be replaceable.

 

[kreasonos]

Are you delusional? It can be easily replaced by an authorised service with appropriate tools and training. The cost for an replacement is just a few $ more than the cost of a standalone battery. If I need tires or chain replaced on my motorcycle, I take it to the dealers. Doesn't mean the tyres are not designed to be replaceable.

You're the one that's confused. There is a difference between being able to do something and being designed to do something. Yes you can replace the battery but that does not mean it was designed to be replaced.

 

[leman]

You're the one that's confused. There is a difference between being able to do something and being designed to do something. Yes you can replace the battery but that does not mean it was designed to be replaced.

You are mixing-up the notions 'serviceable' and 'user-serviceable'. The battery in the 2011+ MBP is serviceable but not user-serviceable. Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is about. With never models, I never had to replace the battery, with older MBP I had to do it every year. And if it needs replacement, what is the big problem about dropping it off at a shop for an hour or so? I'd rather do that once in 4 years then buy a new one every year...

 

[khaberz]

You're the one that's confused. There is a difference between being able to do something and being designed to do something. Yes you can replace the battery but that does not mean it was designed to be replaced.

I am not sure why that matters. I drop the Machine off at the Apple store and get it back with a new battery a few hours later.
And they are replacing the case with it, not "un-glueing" it, if that's what you're concerned about.

 

[simonsi]

the battery...is not...designed...to be...replaced.

If that were true (drum roll), Apple themselves would not offer a replacement service....think about it :roll eyes:

Glueing it in has advantages in terms of weight, thermal transfer, cost and cost of assembly. It simply means that it makes it a service-centre repair item, just as there are dealer-only serviceable items on your car.

 

[marivaux]

Everyone here is talking about longevity and nobody here is talking about the battery. As in the battery is glued to the case and when it goes you're going to have to get a new machine anyway. I suspect the battery will go long before your machines usefulness expires.

Er, I don't know why I care, but here is Apple's battery replacement price for the Retinas:

http://support.apple.com/kb/index?page=servicefaq&geo=United_States&product=Macnotebooks

I'm not sure why it is "invasive" or why you would "have to get a new machine" when Apple offers a replacement service. Like, you'd rather throw away your laptop than have it violated by an Apple technician?

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

I did read them, I didn't agree with them or think that many of them applied very well to this. They did have some good points, but 90% of their problems with RAID would be fixed by using RAID 5 (instead of RAID 1 which most of them are talking about which is a horrendous choice of RAIDs) and/or having an offsite backup both of which I agree are very good things.

Really having a controller failure, corruption or malware could take out your entire backup chain and are also some serious longshots to happen and your offsite backup should save you. I still think RAID 5 and an offsite backup is a very good moderately priced system.

RAID 5 is no more redundant than RAID 1. It cannot tolerate multiple drive failures.

 

[simon48]

RAID 5 is no more redundant than RAID 1. It cannot tolerate multiple drive failures.

I never said it was, if you want two drive fault tolerance get RAID 6.