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.
Which 3.5'' HDD enclosure for RAID5 with MP 6.1?
- Thread starter CFartist
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Right! I did some research and at first I thought a Drobo 5D3 would fit the bill. It has many cool features. Then I found out that many people have problems with Drobo products in terms of compatibility with the latest macOS and customer service.
Then I stumbled upon Akitio Thunder 3 Quad Mini. The price is quite reasonable, I can use it with Softraid and it's backwards compatible with TB2. Then I noticed that it's sold out everywhere.
So I guess my only option is OWC Thunderbay 4?
Any suggestions?
Then I stumbled upon Akitio Thunder 3 Quad Mini. The price is quite reasonable, I can use it with Softraid and it's backwards compatible with TB2. Then I noticed that it's sold out everywhere.
So I guess my only option is OWC Thunderbay 4?
Any suggestions?
I'd like to set up four 3.5'' HDDs in a RAID5 array to back up my files and for Time Machine. I have no idea what I should be looking for though. Could you guys point me in the right direction?
Cheers!
Why do you need a RAID5 for backups? Is it because of the total combined space requirement versus a single disk, or the redundancy for drive failure.
I could understand the latter more of it was for a primary file server, but for a backup personally i would just buy a big slow single HDD and use that. I tend to have two different ones as a couple of different backups - one TM one cloned hard drive. If one fails you still have the primary data and one backup.
Ps I have had both hardware and software based NAS’s in the past.
Why do you need a RAID5 for backups? Is it because of the total combined space requirement versus a single disk, or the redundancy for drive failure.
I could understand the latter more of it was for a primary file server, but for a backup personally i would just buy a big slow single HDD and use that. I tend to have two different ones as a couple of different backups - one TM one cloned hard drive. If one fails you still have the primary data and one backup.
Ps I have had both hardware and software based NAS’s in the past.
Thanks for replying wardie!
That's what I've been doing... until now. (FYI, I've had a few SSDs and HDDs in the past. All but Seagate's died. So, I only trust Seagate) The biggest desktop HDD they make is 10TB. So I'd have to buy 2 and clone them. That would be around £450 and I'd have only 10 TB actual storage. Mind you, I'm producing 7TB of data in a period of 5 years. So that set up would keep me going for about 6-7 years.
On the other hand, a RAID array would save me from all the hassle and the clutter. I've just stumbled upon OWC's Thunderbay 4. For around £1k (using 4x Seagate BarraCuda 8TB) I could have a RAID 5 array, with 24 TB of actual storage. My data would be safe, the set up would be good for maybe 15 years, and everything would be taken care of by OWC's software (Softraid). Does that make any sense?
Thanks for replying wardie!
That's what I've been doing... until now. (FYI, I've had a few SSDs and HDDs in the past. All but Seagate's died. So, I only trust Seagate) The biggest desktop HDD they make is 10TB. So I'd have to buy 2 and clone them. That would be around £450 and I'd have only 10 TB actual storage. Mind you, I'm producing 7TB of data in a period of 5 years. So that set up would keep me going for about 6-7 years.
On the other hand, a RAID array would save me from all the hassle and the clutter. I've just stumbled upon OWC's Thunderbay 4. For around £1k (using 4x Seagate BarraCuda 8TB) I could have a RAID 5 array, with 24 TB of actual storage. My data would be safe, the set up would be good for maybe 15 years, and everything would be taken care of by OWC's software (Softraid). Does that make any sense?
Yes it makes sense, especially software RAID. But have a read of this re RAID limitations for redundancy as the drives sizes get bigger but with constant failure rates... another factor so you may want to consider multiple redundancies like RAID6 but it really starts getting expensive...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/
Last edited:
Yes it makes sense, especially software RAID. But have a read of this re RAID limitations for redundancy as the drives sizes get bigger but with constant failure rates... another factor so you may want to consider multiple redundancies like RAID6 but it really starts getting expensive...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/
Interesting article!
So I guess another option is to just buy a couple of HDD drives. Use the first as my backup drive, the second as a clone, and also backup my data to a Cloud server, like Backblaze or Carbonite.
Interesting article!
So I guess another option is to just buy a couple of HDD drives. Use the first as my backup drive, the second as a clone, and also backup my data to a Cloud server, like Backblaze or Carbonite.
Yup that’s where I ended up. Big, slow, simple backup drives. Sounds like big HDDs now get close to your overall need like 14TB+...
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.