
Best eSATA JBOD? 210
redlandmover writes "I already have an HP Media Server (upgraded processor, and memory) that has already been upgraded internally to 3.5TB. I'm sure everyone already has their favorite backup solution (RAID, WHS, a billion external hard drives, etc). My question is: what is the best JBOD (Just a Bunch of Drives), eSATA-connected, external hard drive enclosure? (Preferably, at least 4 drives.)"
Not quite what you want... (Score:4, Funny)
This isn't quite what you want, but I have a $30 6 drive caddy (with 4 drives atm) and a $70 4 port internal SATA card. I just run long SATA cables to it, but it was cheaper than any single-cable solution i found, so that may not be a bad way to go.
One thing I noticed though was that I actually have enough room for all 9 of my hard drives inside my case! I may migrate them in.
And yes, before you say it, that is certainly quite a bit of porn!
-Taylor
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>And yes, before you say it, that is certainly quite a bit of porn!
I need some quantification here. Put it in layman's terms - how many Libraries of Congress of porn is that, exactly?
Duct tape (Score:3, Funny)
Duct tape the drives together, then use software RAID JBOD.
That's what MacGyver would have done.
Duct Tape is a Bad Idea--Use Magnets! (Score:5, Funny)
Duct tape the drives together, then use software RAID JBOD. That's what MacGyver would have done.
Duct tape? Oh heavens no! No, here's what I did: I went down to the local thrift store and bought a few big shelf speakers for ten dollars. Then I took them apart and got the really powerful magnets out. Using these, you can attach the drives to the outside of your case. There's one gotcha though--some cases are aluminum which means you have to attach the magnets and drives to your CRT if you have one. This usually just means a longer cable though.
The smart thing about this is that the drives are on the outside of the case so they remain cooler than they would in any enclosure.
If you think a RAID is a backup, you'll be overjoyed with the results of my advice!
Re: (Score:2)
I never laugh out loud at work, therefore what I did in reaction to your post was simply an uncontrolled spasm of my diaphragm
Seriously though, that was some frickin funny stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
[/brilliant advice]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That's the first time a comment has actually made me facepalm in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Popsicle sticks between the drives, for airflow.
RAID is no backup solution (Score:2)
Please note that RAID and such are not "backup solutions" ! If your FS get screwed, you loose info.
Think of a backup solution as independent from the media where the info is kept. Then you decide if you want to use RAID, tapes, etc.
My backup solution: incremental backups every half-hour. And full backup once a month.
Now for the media I use to store the backups : RAID mirroring for incremental and hard drives put in a safe at the bank with rotation for full backups. (NO RAID used for full backups).
I use the Mediasonic ProBox BUT... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wut (Score:2)
Why do you need an enclosure that does JBOD?
In my opinion you need an enclosure that does 2 things.
Encloses your drives.
Provides power (since current eSata doesn't, LOL).
Let your system handle the JBOD. Everything supports JBOD. Or, you know, just have them as 4 separate drives and be organized, so you can deal with them as raw drives if need be, and so if one goes dead, it'll be a lot easier to get your shit from the others.
I have yet to see a multi-drive enclosure that DOESN'T force it's shitty controll
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip, I have never used external enclosures with "shitty controllers" but I have been tempted by them. I've only used file/backups servers that I would setup myself with computers running Linux.
Have you actually tried any of these external enclosures with "shitty controllers" ?
Details on problems would be fun to hear about...
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, I don't trust any enclosure to be a hard drive controller as well. Even higher-end boxes. If I want a controller, I'll use my motherboard, or a dedicated storage PC/server. Yes, I have tried many.
Even if they were trustworthy, I would want to avoid them. It's just one more thing to fail, have to update firmware for, track down drivers for, worry about, etc.
This is for your backups, right? Take a minimalistic approach. Just get shit that works. Hard drives work. You're just putting them in
Re: (Score:2)
Can't agree with the masking tape. If you don't peel it off pretty quick, you get an awful residue. Duct tape residue will clean off with a little rubbing alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
Have never had that issue.
And old duct tape residue (several years) will require significant work to remove.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm basing it on experience years ago when my car windows were broken out. Used some masking tape and some duct tape to cover the windows with plastic until I could get it fixed.
The duct tape residue came off with a little light solvent. The masking tape put up a real fight.
Of course, getting wet probably had an impact.
Why? (Score:2, Informative)
I think Linux and Windows can both do this quite easily in software... but why bother? JBOD is the worst of both worlds when it comes to storage arrays. You have all the risk of losing everything if one drive dies, without gaining the performance benefits that RAID 0's striping gives you. Hard disks are cheap enough for a 2TB RAID 10 array to be affordable.
Yes this was quite a predictable comment, but someone had to say it..
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
No that's not correct. JBOD is just that. Just a bunch of disks. Has nothing to do with redundancy (or lack of redundancy). What you do with them is completely up to you. You can implement a RAID-Z with them on solaris (which is actually faster on my Enterprise-class disk array than the built-in RAID-6 in hardware!), Linux RAID-5, RAID-10, or whatever. Except for issues of battery-backed caching, I have come to the opinion that for most low- to middle-end storage needs, a large JBOD and software RAID is the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
I see that as a good method for tier 2 storage and definitely for backup tier storage.
I wouldn't want primary storage to use that method for obvious reasons but I haven't really played enough with alternatives to Raid 6 so you've given me something to try! Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
large JBOD and software RAID/quote
Isn't that redundant? What does the above text specify which could not be concisely written with just the words "software RAID"?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not redundant. JBOD has nothing to do with RAID. JBOD is just raw LUNs (disks) over a bus. You can put them together however you want. Software RAID is the most common thing to use with JBOD-exported LUNs.
I'm not surprised that you haven't made the distinction, though. JBOD is an enterprise term and tends to be used when working with large external (Fiber Channel) disk arrays, either as a mode of operation, or meaning a chassis of disks without a hardware RAID backplane, over a SCSI bus or Fib
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah.
But make no mistake: I know the terms. And it's got nothing to do with the bus used, or whether the disks are multiplexed with LUNs.
The words "software RAID" make it damn near implicit that there's Just a Bunch Of Disks attached. Therefore, I continue to suggest that software RAID+JBOD is redundant terminology, and that just saying "software RAID" is perfectly descriptive. (What else would you be software RAIDing[1], after all?)
To use a car analogy: It's like saying "I have a car, with tires
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No that's not correct. JBOD is just that. Just a bunch of disks. Has nothing to do with redundancy (or lack of redundancy).
This is incorrect. JBOD is similar to RAID 0 without striping, allowing one to use disks of dissimilar size. There are some RAID controllers that will incorrectly refer to presenting physical drives directly. However most RAID will correctly present a JBOD as a single logical volume.
Please refer to the Wikipedia article on RAID [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
In my surviving collection of misc drives, I've got a 40 gig (8 years old), a 200 gig (5 years old), and a 500 gig (9 months old)
There isnt any concievably usefull redundancy method using these, but I can treat the entire lot as a 740GB backup drive..
If its for a home media server, backups and redundancy probably isnt a serious issue.. and performance defina
Re: (Score:2)
In my case, it's because I don't care if I lose the data. They're rips of DVDs/CDs that I own, so 1 DVD represents 5minutes of time. In a lot of the RAID setups, if you lose a disk, you lose the entire RAID. In others, if you lose the card/motherboard, you lose the entire RAID.
In that situation, the frustration represented by losing the entire array when a disk (or card) bites the dust is a lot higher than the performance benefits, or the supposed reliability benefit.
Remember, in a consumer environme
If you need more than ten disks, go for cheap SAS (Score:5, Informative)
You can get an external (4-port, but acts like one big 1.2 GiByte/s pipe) SAS RAID card for less than $500 that will allow you to make multiple RAID sets of up to 32-disks in a set using true hardware RAID 5,6,10, etc. You can even get a battery backup unit for the RAID card cache for $100 (priceless on critical DB systems).
An external SAS card allows you to connect over a hundred drives through one connection using SAS expanders (some cards support up to 256 devices). Some external SAS RAID/JBOD cards have two SFF-8088 connections, for eight SAS lanes total. That's 2.4 Gigabytes/sec raw. At that rate, it's your PCI-e bus that's usually the bottleneck.
A lot of SAS expanders are expensive, but Chenbro has some ones for $300 that spread one x4 lane SAS cable into 24 or 32 cables, plus they can be daisy-chained for more storage. Then, buy a nice 24-slot Supermicro 4U chassis with dual-redundant power. That's a little less than $1000. All you need is the Chenbro expander in the chassis, no need for a motherboard.
If you're really cheap, you can use a cheaper $150 external SAS JBOD-only card, but hardware raid really is a must if you have a lot of storage. Plus, a hardware raid can use write-back cache, since it has effectively non-volatile RAM using the battery backup unit. And no, a UPS is NOT a replacement for NVRAM... Has your system ever crashed for any reason or hung for any reason? I've never had a RAID card hang or crash.
So, basically, besides the external SAS card, you have:
24-slot chassis with redundant power: $1000
chenbro SAS expander: $300
cables: depends
That's about $60/slot, plus you have redundant power (and an upgrade route to dual-redundant controllers). You can scale this to hundreds of terabytes, too. Over a petabyte if you have multiple controllers (with raid array rebuilding on one card not affecting rebuilding on another).
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, you can use SATA disks with this SAS setup. Also, this is hot-swap.
Re:If you need more than ten disks, go for cheap S (Score:2)
hardware raid really is a must if you have a lot of storage
No, hardware RAID is a bad idea. You're locked to a proprietary controller and a proprietary on-disk format. ZFS is a much better idea.
Re: (Score:2)
ZFS won't give you good performance for a large array because your random read speed is basically limited to the equivalent of one drive per raid set. That is unacceptable if you need performance:
http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/ZFSRaidzReadPerformance [utoronto.ca]
"...adding more disks to a ZFS raidz pool does not increase how many random reads you can do per second."
Re: (Score:2)
ZFS won't give you good performance for a large array because your random read speed is basically limited to the equivalent of one drive per raid set. That is unacceptable if you need performance
Cheap, reliable, fast: Choose two.
Cheap + Reliable: RAID-Z and cheap drives
Cheap + Fast: Stripe on a non-ZFS filesystem
Reliable + Fast: ZFS mirrors on good drives. Go a step further, add L2ARC on SSD (readzillas).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. That said, RAID-Z and RAID-Z2 perform quite well for most peopl
Re: (Score:2)
The Rosewill RSV-S8 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Rosewill RSV-S8 (Score:4, Interesting)
This [geeks.com] is a 5 disk eSATA for $180. Appears to be similar (Silicon Image bits, single cable w/port multiplier, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I am mistaken, this device is a re-branded Venus T5 storage enclosure, made by AMS. With Linux, it works well. I've read the FreeBSD doesn't currently support SATA hub/switches (or whatever it's called), though that may be old info. The AMS device comes with Windows software, but I've been told it sucks.
Old AT (pre-ATX) case (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Old AT cases and power supplies should be just about free, [...] you will have a very reliable, well-cooled, very cheap solution.
Two years of constant running could mean that a standard enclosure, consuming less power, is actually cheaper.
pc-pitstop.com (Score:2)
At $WORK we just got a nice 8 bay rackmount eSATA chassis from them - dual/redundant power supply two quad-port SAS connectors, about $895, $679 for single power supply version. We bought it with 8x 1TB SATA HDs and an Areca RADI card with cables for just over $2200. (it is available as a chassis without cables, cards, or drives).
Well, this is fun (Score:4, Interesting)
OP asks questions about external eSATA enclosures, the entire first page of responses is an argument over whether RAID is backup... /....
Here's an ON-TOPIC RESPONSE! Horrors! Take away my EXCELLENT KARMA for this breach of /. protocol!
I have a client who needed backup for a lot of big video files. We bought an enclosure from PC Pitstop, eight bays each holding 750GB SATA hard drives (1TB wasn't really around last year when we got it) attached to two eSATA cards in the PC controlling the enclosure. We spent a month futzing around trying to get the enclosures to be seen. I forget who made the eSATA controller cards but they sucked - or the enclosure chips sucked.
So we turned to Burley, the guys who make enclosures for Macs mostly, but they work with PCs, too. These guys know their stuff. They told us not to use OEM hard drives in enclosures because some OEM drives you buy are dumped on the market and don't QUITE work with enclosures. They said use retail hard drives only. They also sell very good controller cards. The enclosure we got from them has worked fine for the last year and a half until last week when one of the drives went dead - no surprise. They aren't cheap, but they are well made and support is very good. I had both email and phone conversations with the Burley folks and they provide good support.
We also in the last couple months bought two MicroNet 4-drive eSATA enclosures with 1TB drives from Newegg for use on a Mac Pro. That was a huge mistake, since the drivers simply weren't seen by the Mac at all. Apparently MicroNet didn't bother to test the drivers when Mac OS X 10.5 came out and couldn't be bothered to provide support for that. So we attached the enclosures to a Windows PC and they work OK, although occasionally one or more of the drives will disappear and generate "drive not ready for access" messages in the Windows event logs.
Later, we decided to use those enclosures for iSCSI storage served up to the video lab. So I took one of the video lab PCs that were being replaced by iMacs and installed OpenFiler, the open source storage server run on Linux. The latest Rpath Linux kernel saw the drives and the enclosure no problem. I configured the iSCSI setup and everything seems to be working fine. And interestingly, none of the drives have gone offline like they did with Windows - which means it was Windows fault, not the drives. So now I can install an iSCSI client on the two iMacs - except Apple doesn't HAVE a Mac OS X iSCSI client, once again demonstrating how Apple isn't ready for the enterprise, since Linux has had them for years - fortunately there's a free Mac iSCSI client from another company - and serve up 1.8TB of iSCSI storage to each iMac.
So my advice is: choose your enclosures and the drives in them and the controller cards carefully. Take notice of what Silicon Image chipsets are involved, since SI pretty much dominates the market for those things and they're not the smartest tech company in the world. Make sure you get retail disks for use in the enclosures. Make sure you can return what you bought for refund or replacement because this stuff is not yet "set and forget".
I found dedicated enclosures to suck (Score:2)
Eventually I just bought myself an Antec 1200 and a MIST PSU with modular cables. Loaded it up with a SATA rich mobo + a small SATA card for 12x SATA data/power. Because of an earlier RAID accident because of poor warning setup (two disks failed with some time between, but I didn't notice the first one) I do JBOD and manual copies, but you could just as easily do software RAID - the "hardware" RAID on these aren't worth it anyway. That way I have a full Linux server I can use for whatever too.
Honestly, if I
Sans Digital FTW (Score:2)
Re:I stopped reading the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
RAID 1 + swapping out/rebuilding a mirror disk periodically is a perfectly reasonable backup solution.
Re:I stopped reading the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah sure.
Let's say it again: Backups are:
- off-site
- offline
- multiple
- tested
anything else is just some kind of high-availability solution, that does NOT protect against catastrophic failure, fires, viruses...
Re:I stopped reading the summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Talk about being old-fashioned. Sorry but you're wrong and all the disk-to-disk backup manufacturers would like to have a word with you.
In all seriousness I'm sure nobody believe you can't have a RAID off-site that is online running snapshots periodically. This protects you from fire, viruses, are equipment failure and at least in my case, allows for business continuity which is pretty important these days.
Of course I do go one further and backup to a 100TB library but thats largely because I don't want to maintain that much online capacity if I don't have to especially since I already had to purchase it once for my main SAN.
Use modern technology, you'll find it much more friendly. Most modern network storage strategies work out great. ZFS does snapshotting making it easy to deploy on small scales. Windows only? Well that's no problem either since you have Volume shadow copy and DFS based on whatever schedule you would like.
I go one further with DFS/VSC and use NetApp snapshotting on the back-end which mirrors the snapshot to another array at another building. Works out great and the only maintenance is the occasional swap out of hard drives when the RAID controllers preemptively fail the drive because they detect abnormalities that will lead to failure.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that other building is on a different power circuit, as UPS's don't last all that long under SAN load, and out of range of the shockwave of a bomb, or earthquake, or attack targetting your local exchange. (Someone took a chainsaw to the cables in North Sydney a few years ago)
Also, live snapshotting doesn't work when a malicious update eats your database. Those disks are ok, but the data on them is useless. Disk may be cheap, but try keeping a meaningful number of snapshots when one of the ones you
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, someone at a higher level than you has to make the call on ...
And there is the problem. If even the techies have troubles understanding backups, how do you expect managment to understand it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Best method I have of backing up my data is simple. First equip/upgrade a few existing computers with 1TB disks even if you never plan to fill them up. They can be at your parents house, siblings house or work. Copy your really important data like work, projects, photos, music, video (movies, tv shows and p0rn don't count), basically anything that is irreplaceable. Copy that to a 1TB USB disk and copy all the data to the computers you equipped with the backup drives. Now you have your data spread out all ov
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You'll be crying when you rebuild that raid and two disks fail at the same time (happened to me). No - raid isn't a backup solution.
Re: (Score:2)
With modern large capacity drives RAID 5 is just for crazy loons, you need RAID 6.
I would add that RAID anything on a single "shelf" is also playing with fire. I have personally seen an entire shelf of disks failed as a oner, or in *very* rapid succession. Shelf level redundancy is where it's at.
Remember children if it is not offline it is not backed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RAID 1 + swapping out/rebuilding a mirror disk periodically is a perfectly reasonable backup solution.
Sure, if you're retarded. I was going to say it was ok for home, but no, that's just stupid. Even a batch job that tars a bunch of directories onto a second HD works better (and no additional hardware either).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are rotating your swapped-out disks rather than continually using new blank ones, then the re-mirroring (if done vaguely intelligently) will only update based on the blocks that have changed since the last time that disk was running live in the array (i.e. an incremental update, which is much faster than re-mirroring from scratch).
Re: (Score:2)
If you are rotating your swapped-out disks rather than continually using new blank ones, then the re-mirroring (if done vaguely intelligently) will only update based on the blocks that have changed since the last time that disk was running live in the array (i.e. an incremental update, which is much faster than re-mirroring from scratch).
I'm not aware of any RAID1 implementation that will do this. Are you ?
Re:I stopped reading the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that a RAID can be used for STORING backups don't you? Making your primary storage a RAID is no substitute for a backup. Adding an offline RAID storage can be a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I stopped reading the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I stopped reading the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
A single disk is more risky than I would like. Especially since it's offline, it can fail without warning leaving me (unknowingly) without a backup and unable to update my backup until I get a new disk (and hopefully I didn't need any of the archival versions of any of the files)
A RAID is far less likely to suffer that problem. When a disk fails, I have a signal that I should replace enough disks to maintain the RAID even when the remaining old disks fail.
And, as tsalmark said, it's nice when the backup disk is bigger than the primary.
Probability (Score:2)
A single disk is more risky than I would like. Especially since it's offline, it can fail without warning [...]
Your offline disk is used much less than the disks it backs up. Much less likely to fail. But a single backup disk is not a good idea for that reason. Rotate a few of them.
Ever wondered why airliners seem to move from 3 or 4 to 2 engines? Because the failure rate is more or less independent of the size of those engines (similar number of components). I know, it's counter intuitive.And cost and maintenance is involved too...
Now suppose a single disk has 70% probability of failing between 4 and 6 years or 5 +
Re: (Score:2)
Previously they needed 4 engines because the engines weren't as powerful and they weren't as reliable. Compare how much thrust the original 747 engines provided with the latest engines.
The thing is modern two engine jets are cheaper to maintain and see
Re: (Score:2)
But everything being the same, a four engine design is safer than a two engine design, just more expensive.
My point was that it isn't. You have a higher probability of having one or more engine failures on a four engine design than on a 2 engine design. It's not a matter of opinion, that's a mathematical fact.
BTW a four engined aircraft losing 2 engines on the same side generates a huge amount of torque around the vertical axis, which might be more problematic than loosing 1 engine on a 2 engine design.
The other point was that in general close proximity subjects the engines to the same external factors (as with
Re: (Score:2)
The failure probability for one engine matters because engine repair is expensive. If it were as cheap as swapping out a bad SATA drive, nobody would care.
What people care about far more is having more failures at the same time than redundancy allows for. That's when things go really bad.
Since we were talking about disks and not aircraft engines, torque is not a factor. Analogies are great, but only if you don't let them lead you astray. As long as I have N+2, losing any 2 drives is not a disaster (but cert
Re: (Score:2)
RAID 5 loosing any 2 disks is non recoverable, RAID 6 loosing any 3 disks is non recoverable, isn't it? If you have 4 disks and group them in 1 RAID 5 that's worse than two RAID 5s of two disks.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind the higher probability that I will need to do something, disks are cheap and it doesn't take long to swap one. What I mind is that without RAID, when I do need to replace one, whatever was on it is gone. I use RAID6 so that I can lose any 2 disks and still recover my data without any heroic efforts. The primary is RAID 6 as well, so I would have to have a disaster on the primary AND lose 3 disks in my backup within the same window to end up SOL. It's not impossible, but then there is no scenari
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing the ambiguity in 'offline' - offline means exactly that, the system is not online (either its turned off or disconnected from the network).
And its real goal is not to protect against such errors (that is what the historical part of a backup like the incremental rsync you described is for). What it is for is protection against a hacker getting into your system and remotely erasing your backups along with your main system (q.f. the recent story re that site of flight sim stuff). Simply saying '
Re: (Score:2)
It is a relative term. What sort of "offline" is used depends on the circumstances. For example, keeping the backup server on and ready prevents the dreaded "rm -rf / junk". Moving it to a non-routed secondary LAN helps prevent malicious destruction from outside. Actually powering it down when not in use provides better isolation. Powering off and/or disconnecting it manually (rather than through a PDU with remte control) even more so.
Which is best depends on the nature of the data and operational requireme
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
after the cretin suggested that RAID was some sort of substitute for a backup.
RAID combined with a snapshotting system (Time Machine, VSS, ZFS, take your pick) can function as an excellent backup system. Not including off-site, obviously, but more than adequate for the typical home user.
I've never really looked into it, but I assume you can configure WHS to take regular VSS snapshots ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree, since a single mistake (e.g. mistakenly reformatting the wrong device node, or physically losing the system while moving house) could still take out the whole kaboodle.
And for something you really care about, an offsite backup is worth it and not difficult. I uploaded my family photo
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think, does your ISP use RAID or not?
So is RAID good for backups, off-site or on-site?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make sure it stays private, encrypt before uploading
How do you backup your key?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RAID use is orthogonal to backup strategy. The two have nothing to do with each other. RAID helps availability, and sometimes performance.
Re: (Score:2)
after the cretin suggested that RAID was some sort of substitute for a backup.
I realize that English may not be your first language, but can you point out what makes you think that anything in summary implies RAID is any sort of substitute for a backup?
He's looking for a system on which to keep a duplicate copy of his primary drives. RAID gives you relatively cheap mass storage. Such a duplicate copy is generally known as a "backup".
RAID can be used as media for backing systems up. When it is used that w
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically its a question most people should ask themselves because it can make a big difference in the cost of doing your backup and also dramatically impacts the amount of time it takes to get back up and running.
Disaster recovery is very much individual to the company. Our company places a high emphasis on survivability so we naturally have a lot of redundancy online, near-line, or offline with variable policies based on the nature of the content. Financial documents have to stay around longer than t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
after the cretin suggested that RAID was some sort of substitute for a backup.
Of course RAID is a substitute for backup. If you ever delete data, accidentally reformat, lose files to a corrupt file system, get infected with a virus, or have any other disaster of the sort, it's obviously something you did or should have anticipated. Thus, data loss is a sign you're inferior and a sinner and the gods of IT are punishing you. Accept their swift and painful lesson with whatever microscopic shred of decorum exists within that rotting, unused thing you call a brain and try to rise ever so
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped reading after he uselessly bragged about upgrading the processor and memory. Isn't there a 'lookatme' tag?
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed he was asking "What do I use for external drives FOR a backup."
In which case he is a moron for attaching it directly to the system. Or for it being in the same building if that is what he is really after, a backup.
If it is attached to the same system, or in the building/house, what you have is a *copy* of your data, not a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit, there's no to mod for "ignorant" or "misinformation"
Re:I stopped reading the summary (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, that's definitely some iFail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The grandparent obviously doesn't. ZFS is not in OS X Server 10.5, and was silently dropped from the advertised feature list of 10.6 after the WWDC.
That said, ZFS does go a long way towards working as a backup. With RAID-Z plus snapshots, you are safe from drive failure or accidental deletion. You are not, however, safe from attacks that compromise the OS (and are therefore able to write to the disk at the block level), or from things like theft of the NAS or having a power spike frying the controller a
Re: (Score:2)
That said, ZFS does go a long way towards working as a backup.
Does ZFS make an external copy and carry it across the street?
A backup stored on the same system is not a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Unfortunately, I am completely exhausted and didn't realize that my post, without context, only sounded dickish.
It would make more sense if everyone on slashdot magically knew that there was a second fire-safe in the admin office across the street...
Mea culpa.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a cretin? Some sort of outdated term for a developmental disorder caused by a lack of iodine here used as a pompous insult while announcing Pop69 was so offended by a mistake in the question that he couldn't be bothered to read the rest of it?
Re:The best ESATA isn't really ESATA at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're better off with an SAS external enclosure and a SAS card with external connections. These can be expensive, but will pay for themselves quickly with the lack of extra management.
What management ? You get an eSATA chassis with a port multiplier, slot in some drives, and run a single cable to the eSATA port on the computer. "Management" doesn't even come into it.
It's a home media server. In what was is SAS even remotely justified ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Make sure to find a port multiplier with FBSS (FIS-based switching) support. Also make sure that your SATA controller supports this feature. Otherwise, there can only be one outstanding command for all attached disks, and performance will be abysmal.
Re: (Score:2)
SAS can be justified, You can buy a cheap 8 port card, that can take SATA disks and it will be pretty darn quick too.
Re: (Score:2)
SAS can be justified, You can buy a cheap 8 port card, that can take SATA disks and it will be pretty darn quick too.
But you can buy a much cheaper eSATA card that will be more than quick enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting way to see if 5 is divisible by 2. I think the same way:
(apologies to the actual (and funnier) version that I read but can't quite remember in Symmetry of the Primes)
Re:The best ESATA isn't really ESATA at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this really as easy as you claim.
Yes.
I still don't see how it can be management free.
All a JBOD shelf does - by definition - is pass through the drive connections to the host. Ie: plug 3 drives into your JBOD, your system sees 3 drives. Plug in 5 drives, the system sees 5 drives. There's no management because there's nothing to manage.
Where is the software that can remove the headache of managing JBOD's that aren't raided? Does the hardware somehow take care of this - it really doesn't seem to
Re: (Score:2)
It can be a huge bargain.
Not in any remotely realistic home use (and even a fair chunk of professional use) scenario it can't. You'd be looking at a minimum 50% higher cost, for questionable (if any) advantages.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll disagree strongly with you as a 100TB library costs about 70k versus a 60TB proper SAN which will run 100k. Both will provide me with what I need in terms of backup but they both have their drawbacks. The library will take me weeks to recover from while the SAN can keep me up and running with zero down-time. It matters if your company depends on being online.
Of course for the home, I'm a fan of backup to an online service as restore time doesn't really matter and then you don't have to maintain separa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He NEEDS another computer on his network.
With only one computer/disk controller if one of them fails, all FS might end up toasted.
He also needs incremental backups, just overwriting a snapshot of you data is no good when you realize that you have just overwritten your data with corrupted data because your main computing is failing slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use an AHCI controller it has to have the FBSS (Fis-Based switching) capability, which is basically AHCI1.3 as long as the capability bit is also set. The AHCI driver must also support the feature. Very few AHCI controllers have this capability, it is very new. The AHCI driver must also support AHCI's NCQ (multiple tagged commands). Most AHCI controllers have NCQ support now but if the driver doesn't you'll be stuck with horrible performance. Your chipset and driver needs to support both NCQ and