New iMac to be dual-drive for Leopard?

netdog

macrumors 603
Original poster
Feb 6, 2006
5,758
37
London
Given that it is rumoured to be 2" thick, I am wondering if they are going to tuck another drive in there, or at least an extra user-serviceable bay. Time Machine just aches for such an addition, and there are a lot of us who prefer not to have an external ALWAYS connected to a computer that is an all-in-one.

Thoughts?
 

crazzyeddie

macrumors 68030
Dec 7, 2002
2,790
0
Florida, USA
There a reason you keep your backup external.

First, the drive doesn't have to be on all the time. As you may know, Time Machine backs up your drive a pre-set times, so it will tell you to connect/turn on your device.

Secondly its so that the drive not exposed to the same heat/electrical that an internal would be. I have seen it many times before where a surge will take out the hard drive in a computer, but not an external.

Lastly, it makes it possible to take your backup with you. This is important for people with data security/importance issues. They can lock their backup in a safe or take it with them to the office so that its not sitting right next to the original (think fire here).
 

diehardmacfan

macrumors regular
Mar 12, 2007
204
0
There a reason you keep your backup external.

First, the drive doesn't have to be on all the time. As you may know, Time Machine backs up your drive a pre-set times, so it will tell you to connect/turn on your device.

Secondly its so that the drive not exposed to the same heat/electrical that an internal would be. I have seen it many times before where a surge will take out the hard drive in a computer, but not an external.

Lastly, it makes it possible to take your backup with you. This is important for people with data security/importance issues. They can lock their backup in a safe or take it with them to the office so that its not sitting right next to the original (think fire here).
i understand your point about fire and theft, but time machine requires that your hard drive be on all the time, because it backs up in real time automatically on the fly
 

pengu

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2005
576
0
Diddily Daddily...
dual drive? maybe. people will always want more storage, and an extra HDD can help with that.

a second internal drive for backups? nope. bad idea. VERY bad idea.
 

shipdestroyer

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2007
267
0
New Hampshire
I'm pretty sure it doesn't back up continuously--it's scheduled.

And yeah, a backup drive in the same computer makes little sense. Apple's pushing networked storage via Airport Extreme for a reason.
 

roland.g

macrumors 604
Apr 11, 2005
6,560
1,485
dual drive? maybe. people will always want more storage, and an extra HDD can help with that.

a second internal drive for backups? nope. bad idea. VERY bad idea.
Personally I would love a 2nd internal for storage and then an external for backup. With all my media, it just makes sense.
 

Roy Hobbs

macrumors 68000
Apr 29, 2005
1,804
104
dual drive? maybe. people will always want more storage, and an extra HDD can help with that.

a second internal drive for backups? nope. bad idea. VERY bad idea.
why is that a "VERY bad idea"
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,239
4
i understand your point about fire and theft, but time machine requires that your hard drive be on all the time, because it backs up in real time automatically on the fly
nope it doesn't. if they'd have used ZFS for the file system this would be possible probably. but as it is right now it backs up at set times. which makes me wonder about the usefulness of Time Machine personally.

and as other have said its better for it to be an external drive anyways.
 

netdog

macrumors 603
Original poster
Feb 6, 2006
5,758
37
London
Its a bad idea because you would have to void your warranty in order to replace the failed HDD.
Not if they put it in a user-serviceable bay as I suggested in my OP. This machine is going to be 2" thick. A drive could be slipped into a slot much as we slip RAM into a current iMac.

Yes, as a former sysadmin for a bank, I understand that the risk of unrecoverable data loss is increased if the backup is in the same machine, but I don't hear people voicing this concern about RAID arrays all being in one tower.

If you really want your data to be safe, there must be a backup kept at a remote location, either networked or carried there physically on a separate drive, tape or optical media.
 

macjonny1

macrumors 6502a
Jan 10, 2006
546
50
That's why I love the new airport extreme, with the USB port for external network drives....I can stream video content over my network on the fly and access files almost as fast as on the computer. Plus for backups I don't have to use my laptop drive.
 

pengu

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2005
576
0
Diddily Daddily...
an internal drive makes it far more succeptible to the things that might damage the original. physical damage (dropping, etc). electrical damage. fire. magnetic interference.

also, note this from apple's leopard page about time machine:
The first time you attach an external drive to your Mac, Time Machine asks if you’d like to use that drive as your backup.
also, as for the RAID thing. a RAID array doesnt negate a backup. it CAN provide SOME fault tolerance if you suffer a drive failure, but it doesn't provide for the more common issues like filesystem corruption, application corruption (of a file) or file deletion. even multi-terrabyte SANs need backups. (i saw one cluster/SAN setup that had a secondary 5TB+ san for "recent" backups and a tape silo bigger than a fridge for older files)
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,239
4
one other thing to point out. the first two Revisions of the G5 iMacs were 2" thick as well i believe. and there was no room for a second 3.5" drive in there.
 

trule

macrumors 6502
Mar 16, 2007
310
0
an internal drive makes it far more succeptible to the things that might damage the original. physical damage (dropping, etc). electrical damage. fire. magnetic interference.


also, as for the RAID thing. a RAID array doesnt negate a backup. it CAN provide SOME fault tolerance if you suffer a drive failure, but it doesn't provide for the more common issues like filesystem corruption, application corruption (of a file) or file deletion. even multi-terrabyte SANs need backups. (i saw one cluster/SAN setup that had a secondary 5TB+ san for "recent" backups and a tape silo bigger than a fridge for older files)
So, the more common things you list could be handled quite well by a second internal hard disk? And for disaster or theft an external disk, I guess?


Apple has a habit of delivering neat solutions. I guess failing a second internal disk then a disk connected to an Airport is a pretty neat solution.


I would like a second internal disk so I could run a RAID 0 setup, however I guess apple is less interested in that small segment of the market who want the additional performance - that is what the Pro is for.

Therefore I doubt there would be a second disk in any new iMac...
 

pengu

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2005
576
0
Diddily Daddily...
So, the more common things you list could be handled quite well by a second internal hard disk? And for disaster or theft an external disk, I guess?


Apple has a habit of delivering neat solutions. I guess failing a second internal disk then a disk connected to an Airport is a pretty neat solution.


I would like a second internal disk so I could run a RAID 0 setup, however I guess apple is less interested in that small segment of the market who want the additional performance - that is what the Pro is for.

Therefore I doubt there would be a second disk in any new iMac...
a second internal disk can hold a backup. yes. but as you said, apple offer "neat" solutions. having a disk internally that is only any good in the event of a "soft" (ie, not physical damage, or theft etc) loss is NOT user friendly.
 

Firebar

macrumors member
Nov 16, 2005
33
0
but I don't hear people voicing this concern about RAID arrays all being in one tower.
Wrong way to look at it. I certainly hope you don't consider RAID a backup method, you were a sysadmin for goodness sake! No offence is intended upon yourself but that has to be one of the worst mistakes when discussing RAID.

People don't complain with RAID because they will have all the important data archived away in a dedicated unit (tape etc).

Some kind of user servicable bay would be good if you could hot-swap/switch using esata / sata, then unplug and move the disk aside. Although this would mean the disk would have to be in some sata caddy or the like which all adds to cost and effort.
 

roland.g

macrumors 604
Apr 11, 2005
6,560
1,485
one other thing to point out. the first two Revisions of the G5 iMacs were 2" thick as well i believe. and there was no room for a second 3.5" drive in there.
True, but I would a 24" and/or 27" iMac would have that room.
 

shipdestroyer

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2007
267
0
New Hampshire
No second internal drive for backups. Along with probably costing more (in most cases: two 250GB Western Digitals cost more than one 500GB drive) and the physical space issue, you just don't keep backups on the same computer if you're seriously interested in protecting your files.

It's the same reason why companies use offsite storage or why people keep important documents in a fireproof safe in the basement. I don't keep my birth certificate in my wallet.
 

overcast

macrumors 6502a
Jun 27, 2007
995
2
Rochester, NY
nope it doesn't. if they'd have used ZFS for the file system this would be possible probably. but as it is right now it backs up at set times. which makes me wonder about the usefulness of Time Machine personally.

and as other have said its better for it to be an external drive anyways.
As opposed to what, not backing up at all like 99.5% of users?
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,239
4
As opposed to what, not backing up at all like 99.5% of users?
not sure how this applies to what you quoted...
but i have superduper already set up to clone at certain times. which is why i don't see much value in Time machine. sure its integrated. and it does incremental backups. but i don't find myself needing the incremental stuff personally.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,053
Somewhere
one other thing to point out. the first two Revisions of the G5 iMacs were 2" thick as well i believe. and there was no room for a second 3.5" drive in there.
well they are able to fit the entire computer in the 20" what is taking up the extra space in the 24"?
 

neven

macrumors 6502a
Oct 10, 2006
815
0
Portland, OR
- An internal backup drive is a bad idea for many reasons already listed. I'd like to add theft of destruction of the whole computer.

- Time Machine has so far been advertised using the examples of an external, USB drive or a network drive. Sure, Apple could switch up their strategy, but it's doubtful.

- Time Machine comes with Leopard, which most Mac users will transition to in the next few months. SuperDuper is an additional program you'd also have to pay for. It's also only good for complete restores; try rescuing one file from your backups. This is where Time Machine will (supposedly) shine.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,239
4
well they are able to fit the entire computer in the 20" what is taking up the extra space in the 24"?
they're able to fit it in a 17" too. but the 20 and 24 run cooler i bet too since they have more airflow. also i think they have smaller 'chins' than the 17"

3.5" drives are pretty big when you factor in mounting brackets, more fans since hard drives get super hot and all that.