RAID 1 for external Harddrives?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by meulemaster, Feb 2, 2009.


How dumb is this question?

Poll closed Feb 2, 2010.
  1. OMG!!!! I cannot believe you were smart enough to get a mac and then ask such a dumb question!!!

    0 vote(s)
  2. I have heard dumber!

    3 vote(s)
  3. Mwoah, not everyone is as smart as me!

    1 vote(s)
  4. Not dumb at all buddy!! that's whay we are here:)

    1 vote(s)
  1. meulemaster macrumors member

    Dec 22, 2008
    Hello experts :) Colonel Noob here,

    I have a question concerning backing up my data. So here is the deal.

    I currently have a 2TB WD mirror edition that is setup in RAID 1 so it will mirror all my data. Now I also have a bunch of other drives laying around which I also feel the need to back up and currently I am doing this by doing a whole bunch of dragging and dropping and copying and pasting etc etc etc and this is making me very tired.

    I know that a setup is possible in disk utility but I am not at all sure about how to configure it so I wont lose any of my data.

    Some details about my setup:

    Mac OS X 10.5.6
    PowerPc G5
    Harddrives: two 1TB WD MyBooks, and two 500gig WD Mybooks --> these pairs need to mirror each other and make my life less of a hassle.

    Any suggestions?Tips?

    And I apologize if this is a really dumb question....


    Colin from Holland
  2. senorfrog97 macrumors regular

    Jan 19, 2008
  3. rylin macrumors 6502

    Aug 18, 2006
    The easy way out when backing up large amounts of data is to use:
    * More harddrives, if you want to be able to access everything with short notice
    * Tape, if you don't mind having to wait while the tapes are seeking and uncompressing your data

    For the harddrive solution, have a look at QNAP's products.
    They'll handle RAID, iSCSI, CIFS/SMB, NFS etc. at a reasonable price.

    Personally, I'm considering a QNAP TS-509 or 609, though I might opt to build my own instead.

    Or do you just want to archive your current disks to the 2TB unit?

    Always keep in mind that RAID is not backup -- it's for reliability and/or performance.

    If this isn't the answer you're looking for, I'm afraid I didn't quite understand the question :eek:
  4. dagomike macrumors 65816

    Jun 22, 2007
    I think you're likely to have a performance hit with the RAID 1. I would rather just build an external case with good cooling and a proven, top of the line server drive, then use Time Machine. The idea here is you'll have a backup solution that's less likely to fail, plus have the ability to go back to a specific date and fix a user generated oops. Can't do that with RAID. Like said, RAID isn't a backup. It's operational redundancy. If you need even more reliability than a HDD, go tape.
  5. slughead macrumors 68040


    Apr 28, 2004
    lol server drive... Modern SATAs are stupidly reliable.

    Your performance hit is not going to be noticeable. Did you hear someone say they noticed a performance hit? They were lying, or they're insane.

    save your money, use a RAID 1.

    Disk utility has a software RAID option that works just fine. It does RAID0 and RAID 1. I guess you want RAID1.

    as for transferring your data beforehand, you can probably make an image of the drive with disk util, but that'd be huge.
  6. Trip.Tucker Guest

    Mar 13, 2008
    Raid 1 does incur a small performance hit as data is written and then verified.

    You really should Google mfp and server drives before giggling about a topic you don't seem to understand.

    A little punctuation and capitilization goes a long way so people don't immediately read your post as having come from a 12 year old.
  7. Cromulent macrumors 603


    Oct 2, 2006
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    Yet not as reliable as server drives.
  8. misterredman macrumors 6502a


    Oct 3, 2007
    To the OP: This is very important:

    What exactly do you want to accomplish? Knowing that would help give a better answer.
  9. slughead macrumors 68040


    Apr 28, 2004
    I know two things about server drives: They cost 3 times as much, and they're not 3 times as reliable. There is no reason for someone not running a server to not just use a RAID 1 (or even Time Machine and no RAID, for chrissake).

    This, as far as we know, is an average person. Why are server drives a necessity??

    That's what I was saying. I can giggle about server drives all I want: they're over-priced and nobody but eccentric weirdos and big corporations should use them.

    Did I say ANYTHING that was false? No. I'm telling this guy to use a RAID 1 or time machine, and guess what? he'll probably be fine with it. The end.

    Thanks for that! Clearly, I care!

Share This Page