safe harddisk storage...

[VJ]

Hello,

I'm currently running my PC with 2 internal SCSI disks, and one external FW800 enclosure (hardware raid 0 to yield 500 GB). But I'm beginning to worry about dataloss, so I'd like to move to a RAID-5 system. The PC has 2 IDE controlles, 2 U320 SCSI channels (support for zero channel raid) and 1 PCI-X 4-channel FW800 controller.

What kind of devices would you guys recommend?
1. Add a raidcontroller + backplane in the PC, stuff the drives there (there is room).
2. External device (USB/FW800/UTP) which is a stand alone hardware raid thing.
Personally, I'm wondering if network storage might be convenient, but is it? (if so, I would like it to be rackmounted, as I plan in the future to put a central server rack)

Thanks!


Jörg

[Paddy]

I've used RAID5 for years and In all honesty I don't find it any less safe. Try repairing a boot sector over a RAID array! I use 4x250GB Seagate ATA drives. They are branded suitable for 24/7 use in a RAID environment, but I've found that when one drive fails, there's usually more to follow!

I now use DVDR for regular backups from the array.

[ND66]

I now use DVDR for regular backups from the array.

Only if they could last long enough.... .


Read about it HERE:

or HERE:

or HERE:


I have an external hard drive that I only use to back up my digital pictures and video. It's ON for couple of times a month, other than that, just sitting on the shelf in the OFF mode, not conected to the PC at all.

.

[Dilitante1]

add a scsi raid card, plenty on EBAY cheap, 1/2/3 channel so you can expand if needed
scsi drives are cheap 15-30 each grab 50\73 gig units and figure what you need for space +room for growth

if you just need storage then the boot sector issue is moot...

as for an external drive used only when needed, it STILL is a single point of failure :\

[ND66]

as for an external drive used only when needed, it STILL is a single point of failure :\

Of course.

But I'd trust it more then DVD media.


.

[Wombat]

Bah, with your video editing, just go RAID1. Sounds like you're not running out of storage, so just 2 drives are needed, and it will be faster than RAID5 (especially if you get a HBA that will read from both drives).

[Evildead666]

I have a Six disk 200Gb ATA array, not Raided, for long term storage.
Its on a UPS, which will keep it up for a few hours (600VA just for the storage drives).
I just never switch them off. The biggest point of failure is the switching off and on, so I just tried my best to eliminate the switching on and off.
All the drives are accessible via three usb cables.

Haven't had a drive fail yet, and its been on for more than 6 months.

[ND66]

Bah, with your video editing, just go RAID1. Sounds like you're not running out of storage, so just 2 drives are needed, and it will be faster than RAID5 (especially if you get a HBA that will read from both drives).

Yes, you're right.

I'm just thinking a long term storage, not a daily or weekly back-up for some reason... .



.

[az]

DVD-RAM are quite reliable long-term storage media, AFAIK.

[ND66]

DVD-RAM are quite reliable long-term storage media, AFAIK.

Yes, but not the DVDR.

.

[az]

Yep. I meant DVD-RAM in contrast to DVD+-R(W).

[VJ]

I actually have a dvd ram that went corrupt... (suspect a manufacturing fault).

Just curious: suppose I set up a SCSI RAID 5 using 4 identical 68-pin U320 harddisks. It wouldn't support hot swap, but thats is not important to me. If one disk fails, how do I know which one it is? (the hotswap cages have additional status leds)

(I'm thinking of adding a zero channel raid card + 4 harddisks, there is ample room in my case for this and the PSU can handle it)

Jorg

[Dilitante1]

the raid controller will initialize and warn of a disk issue, you also can use use the disk manager to check on your storage , you can setup RAID5 with a hot spare as well (allows 2 drives to fail b4 loss of data) its how my 2k3 server is setup (6 drives,5 for the array,1 hot spare)

[VJ]

Any comments on this hardware:
Promise SX4300 (still in doubt with the SX8300)
Seagate Baracuda EX (probabely 320 GB) x 4
Icy Dock MB-454SPF drive cage

The Barracuda ES range seems similar in quality to the SCSI disks (5 year warranty, enterprise target, ...). This SATA system would be MUCH cheaper than the SCSI alternative (in which I would only use 73 GB harddisks).

Would I go for the SX8300 or the SX4300? The former has 64 MB cache and supports 8 channels, the latter has 32 MB cache and supports 4 channels.
Reason for going with the SX8300 is possible future expansion (no other reasons for now).
(system is compatible with my mainboard according to the Promise compatibility sheet, and the Seagate drives are in the supported HDD list of the Promise)


Jörg

[Dilitante1]

looks like a good package but too pricey for me...