thought id ask in here where its more media based storage rather than the mac peripherals section. i currently have a 3TB drive with all my media on it, and really need a better backup solution than bits and pieces over spare/old drives. what do you all think of just going the cheap route, and getting a second 3TB to clone the first, or getting an enclosure, either 2 bay but more likely 4, to setup a raid 1
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Home Media Storage
- Thread starter linds15
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you go cheap, it'll sort you out for the time being, but you'll end up expanding again down the line.
Get the 4 Bay, as your storage needs expand, you've future proofed the situation to add additional storage when the need arises.
Get the 4 Bay, as your storage needs expand, you've future proofed the situation to add additional storage when the need arises.
Go with a 4 bay and make sure you run some future equivalent form of RAID 5 so that you can expand the array on demand. I have been very happy with my Synology.
I think that going the "cheap" route with a second 3TB drive is a great idea. Having two separate drives gives you 100% redundancy. If you try to achieve your backup with a RAID system, you get protection against drive failures, but you are still exposed to the possibility of catastrophic data loss if there is a failure in the RAID controller or the firmware.
thanks for shedding some light on this. i was wondering why raid as a backup isnt a great idea. im leaning towards the second hard drive as im more concerned about not having to re-rip my crucial media, which is well under 3TB (re-watching friends and seinfeld over and over)...
Same here, running a DS411J with 4 x 3TB, using SHR instead of RAID5. Just lost a hard drive a couple of days ago actually. Had an email informing me of a volume degradation. Picked up a hard drive on the way home from work, took out FUBAR hard drive, slot in new one, wait for it to sort itself out, job done.
Suppose its not for everyone, but the extra features that come with Synology units, integral to my setup now.
Yeah, after having a scare of nearly losing important data on a hard drive that was failing, I really couldn't imagine not having some kind of redundant storage. I also picked up a Synology with 4x2TB, running their adaptive RAID (that's SHR, right?) so that I can potentially upgrade the drives to 3TB each down the road. I use it for Time Machine backups (on one volume) and as my media storage location for iTunes.
get a second drive: cheaper, easier and safer. You can put it on your work location, at your mom, whatever. Raid is still on one place, so fire, theft.... big problem!
Unless you are going to be diligent with backing up regularly and moving the drive offsite it may not provide a ton of value. Another option is crashplan, $3.96/mo for unlimited online backup. I use this to backup my sinology and it works great, may take awhile for the initial upload but in the long run it won't be that bad. This option means you need a decent internet connection without tight bandwidth caps.
There seem to be some misconceptions about RAID levels here:
RAID 0 = your data is NOT protected. This is called striping, and it is designed to use the combined performance of two drives, allowing for faster write speeds, and possibly faster read speeds.
RAID 1 = mirrored disk drives. Each drive is a copy of ALL the media.
RAID (3,4,5,6) = parity algorithms, appx 75-80% of total of all drives is usable. The array must be kept in tact to remain usable. One drive failure is recoverable by swapping in a new drive.
Having a second drive on your system, and copying the content periodically is basically a manual raid 1. While you might feel safer because of manual control, you are subject to failure between your manual copies. MacOS allows you to set up two drives, whether they are in the same enclosure or not, as a mirrored pair. See this link: http://support.apple.com/kb/ph5834
With all that said... RAID is NOT backups. A RAID setup is only protection from failure between backups. In other words, if you delete a file from a RAID array, it's deleted.
RAID 0 = your data is NOT protected. This is called striping, and it is designed to use the combined performance of two drives, allowing for faster write speeds, and possibly faster read speeds.
RAID 1 = mirrored disk drives. Each drive is a copy of ALL the media.
RAID (3,4,5,6) = parity algorithms, appx 75-80% of total of all drives is usable. The array must be kept in tact to remain usable. One drive failure is recoverable by swapping in a new drive.
Having a second drive on your system, and copying the content periodically is basically a manual raid 1. While you might feel safer because of manual control, you are subject to failure between your manual copies. MacOS allows you to set up two drives, whether they are in the same enclosure or not, as a mirrored pair. See this link: http://support.apple.com/kb/ph5834
With all that said... RAID is NOT backups. A RAID setup is only protection from failure between backups. In other words, if you delete a file from a RAID array, it's deleted.
Uofmtiger
macrumors 68020
I paid for their Seed Kit which makes the backup process a while lot faster.
I also have a Synology 413j (4 x 3 TB) and it works great. While Crashplan will help for theft/fire, I feel that the more likely issue is a failed drive and, for me, it is the best way to handle that issue. I run CarbonCopy on my computers and back up everything to the Synology once a week. I was using several external drives at one time, but it gets cumbersome and more difficult to figure out where data is all the time (especially when drives fill up). With one big drive, I can find anything I have backed up very easily.
why not off site(online) backup like crashplan?
https://www.code42.com/store/?gclid=CImv9_zm_roCFQ7xOgodT0wA7g
https://www.code42.com/store/?gclid=CImv9_zm_roCFQ7xOgodT0wA7g
phrehdd
Contributor
Just curious - as most provider plans have upload at a lower speed than download, what speed are you folks getting when backing up to such services as "CrashPlan" ??
There is the suggested value or speed that providers state and then the real value of the actual upload (dependent on your set up, provider and target site).
There is the suggested value or speed that providers state and then the real value of the actual upload (dependent on your set up, provider and target site).
Uofmtiger
macrumors 68020
Every service I tried, including Crashplan, would have taken a long, long time to backup up 1.5+ terabytes. Most were showing more than a year.
The Seed Kit is what sold the service to me, even if it was $125 dollars extra. The other part I was interested in is that they would send you a hard drive with up to 3.5 terabytes if you needed to rebuild for an additional fee ($165). I don't want to wait weeks or months for the service to restore everything if I have a major failure/theft.
phrehdd
Contributor
So a good quickstart on Crashplan would be to spend the 125 dollars, get things up to speed with 165 more dollars to use a hard drive and then pay for the services. So that is 290 to get started (if your data is 3.5 or less TB).
For some that is not a bad deal and for others that may seem somewhat costly and as well the two items appear almost as hidden costs to get the ball rolling. For those that use it, I hope it works brilliantly for them.
Uofmtiger
macrumors 68020
Umm..no.
Many services, including Crashplan, offer the backup service without the convenience of the Seed Kit ($125) and the $165 service to send you a copy of your backups if you have a drive failure. The $165 is not an upfront fee.
The problem with these services is the issue of getting large amounts of data backed up quickly. Most of America, which is where this applies, has to deal with data caps. I am on Comcast and they cap the data at 300GB and charge more if you go over. That is 5 months of nothing but backing up my files if I have 1.5 terabytes of data. For me, it was worth $125 to get my stuff backed up quickly (Once again, you can wait several months for your stuff to load to avoid paying the $125).
The $165 is the price you pay ONLY if you want your data sent to you quickly via a hard drive for restoring. If I have 3.5 terabytes of data on their servers, it would take a very long time to get the data if I didn't want to go over my Comcast data cap. Be aware that this is not an upfront cost and it is an additional service they offer and not required to recover your data. Simply restoring several files you deleted can be done online as part of their normal subscription service.
Crashplan used to have (edit: I checked and they are still offering their software for this purpose) a free service for backing up your drive at a friend's house. It worked similar to their Seedkit, but they do not provide the drive or the cloud storage. I haven't looked into this in a while, but it is a service that would have been perfect for those worried about spending $125 and $165 if they had a major failure. Of course, you would have to buy a hard drive.
Be aware that just the enclosure for a NAS can often run over $290. The diskless 413j that I own is $380 if you buy the enclosure by itself.
Anyway, I pay for their service monthly and I have paid for $125 seedkit. The $165 will only come into play if I lose all my data locally. I hope that will never happen, but I like the idea of having the data stored out of town in case a catostrophe happens.
(I do realize that all of this data backup is taking it to a paranoid level of comfort. I considered that, but I have photos and other data that are worth it to me to part with a few hundred dollars. If your data isn't that important, I wouldn't suggest paying a lot to keep it in the cloud. Also, you could just load the stuff that is important.)
Last edited:
MattG
macrumors 68040
Another vote for Synology...I've had mine for a while now and couldn't be happier with it. Reliable, easy to setup and maintain. Get a four bay and four drives, do a RAID-5 or 6 and rest easy knowing you have some redundancy 🙂
Agree on all counts, except...RAID 6 allows for TWO drive failures at the same time, and you get a paltry 50% usable space.
Agree on all counts, except...RAID 6 allows for TWO drive failures at the same time, and you get a paltry 50% usable space.
Yeah, it depends on the manufacturer. There is no "formal" definition of what RAID 6 is... some call it RAID 5+1 for the config you refer to. I have seen RAID 6 as a JBOD config of two RAID 3 sets. Personally, I stick with either 1 or 5.
MattG
macrumors 68040
I went with the extra drive option. I actually have 3 drives. I have a
2TB SATA drive where the iTunes media is stored
3TB External drive where the media is mirrored every night using ViceVersa
3TB External drive that I rotate with the one above every few months. It's stored at the the bank in the vault...about as safe as can be.
2TB SATA drive where the iTunes media is stored
3TB External drive where the media is mirrored every night using ViceVersa
3TB External drive that I rotate with the one above every few months. It's stored at the the bank in the vault...about as safe as can be.
Macman45
macrumors G5
I have a Pegasus R4 which holds all my media....movies documentaries etc etc.
It in turn is backed up to a ( much cheaper 4TB USB 3 Seagate drive) I know the Promise costs a lot, but you get what you pay for....having said that, a couple of large drives in a two bay enclosure will work but remember that RAID is not a backup and if one drive goes you lose your data.
Hence my second 4 TB unit.
It in turn is backed up to a ( much cheaper 4TB USB 3 Seagate drive) I know the Promise costs a lot, but you get what you pay for....having said that, a couple of large drives in a two bay enclosure will work but remember that RAID is not a backup and if one drive goes you lose your data.
Hence my second 4 TB unit.
KoolStar
macrumors demi-god
For my media storage I actually use a home built server. That is based on ubuntu that runs a samba share.
Its comprised of the following components:
M5A78L-M LX PLUS Socket AM3+ 760G mATX AMD Motherboard
AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core
8GB DDR3 Ballistic Ram
50GB OCZ Vertex SSD (OS DISK)
NZXT Series 210 Case
NZXT Fan Controller
Corsiar 600W Modular PS
7 x 3TB WD Green Drives in RAID 6
Here is a picture of it.
Its comprised of the following components:
M5A78L-M LX PLUS Socket AM3+ 760G mATX AMD Motherboard
AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core
8GB DDR3 Ballistic Ram
50GB OCZ Vertex SSD (OS DISK)
NZXT Series 210 Case
NZXT Fan Controller
Corsiar 600W Modular PS
7 x 3TB WD Green Drives in RAID 6
Here is a picture of it.
I haven't read all of this thread but I have 6x3TB HDDs in RAID 5. I also have one 500GB for the root drive in my Ubuntu Server. This is my Plex Media Server.
I also use CrashPlan as my backup. It's been running about ~9 months and has backed up over 6TB of data. It has 1TB left to finish. The backing up is limited to your upload speed most of the time. The nice thing about the CrashPlan is you can re-download your for FREE without having them send you drives of your backup-ed data. My download speed is about 30Mbps and my upload is about 5Mbps. I don't have a data cap on my internet usage which is nice.
I also use CrashPlan as my backup. It's been running about ~9 months and has backed up over 6TB of data. It has 1TB left to finish. The backing up is limited to your upload speed most of the time. The nice thing about the CrashPlan is you can re-download your for FREE without having them send you drives of your backup-ed data. My download speed is about 30Mbps and my upload is about 5Mbps. I don't have a data cap on my internet usage which is nice.
What do you think of CrashPlan? I've roughly the same amount of data that I'd like to get off-site, and have been looking for recommendations, but very few people appear to have experience of companies of saving multiple TB's of data off-site.... I thought I was I going to end up with Glacier....
FWIW, I have a Mac Mini server attached to a Drobo 5D with 3TB drives. It's primary used for feeding several ATV's ( and tablet's / phones with Plex ), but the caching server has become damn useful in speeding up updates....