4x 500GB

Two 1-terrabyte hard drives.

2x1TB
RAID 0

>>17911466
This.
Single platter is best platter.

>>17911472
Are 1 TB really more reliable?

2x1 is the only way to fly.

Safer having 2x1TB but it'd be cheaper to go for 1x2TB.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245
Would a Samsung F4 2TB be safe or would 2 Samsung F3 1TB be safer

>>17911490
The larger the hard drive, the more likely it is to fail, generally.

>>17911490
>Are 1 TB really more reliable?
Yes more reliable then 2 TB.

Build a RAID-Z
it's like RAID 5/6, but better.

Buy 2TBs worth of 512MB USB 1.0 thumbdrives

Spinpoint F4 has 3 platters which should be fine, honestly.

>>17911466
This, small ones are reliable as fuck.

>>17911512
More like the more platters it has. Get a 1TB with a single platter

500000 floppy's in RAID 0
>iwanttobeleive.jpg

>>17911584
Find me one.
They don't exist currently.
The 1TB platters are new and are going to higher than 1TB capacity drives.

When are 4/5TB drives coming out?
They've made 1TB single platters. What are they waiting for?

>>17911594
access time: 6 seconds

>I just want my data to be safe

Sony dont make hard disks so you'll be ok

>>17911647
The 64MB cache WE caviar black is single platter

>>17911701
WD *

>>17911701
what is this

>>17911701
No it's not, you retard.

>>17911787
Yes it is. Look it up.

>>17911809
Is not.

>>17911747
Sauce?

>>17911819
Is too.

>>17911819
Is too.

>>17911747
That dude need to write more reviews

>>17911826
>>17911836
nope.avi

>>17911845
>>17911787
>>17911809
>>17911819
>>17911826
>>17911836
lol....

>>17911845
>>17911860
samefag

>>17911868
>>17911860
>>17911845
samefag.

>>17911451
>I just want my data to be safe
backups, how do they work?

protip: all drives have a chance to fail. if you care about your data you will have more than 1 copy of it on different physical drives/media

>>17911845
>>17911860
>>17911868
>>17911899
>>17911899
samefag.

>>17911941
>if you care about your data you have at least one copy in offsite storage

Fixed it for you

>>17911472
>>17911466
>>17911657
>>17911647
>>17911594
>>17911584
>>17911552
>>17911544
>>17911534
>>17911529
>>17911520
>>17911512
>>17911509
>>17911500
>>17911491
>>17911490
>>17911488
>>17911664
>>17911669
>>17911701
>>17911711
>>17911747
>>17911787
>>17911819
>>17911823
>>17911826
>>17911836
>>17911843
>>17911845
>>17911860
>>17911868
>>17911899
>>17911941
>>17911957
>>17911998
samefag

>>17912017
fag

>>17912035
>>17912017
samefag

>>17911998
that all depends on what sort of disasters you're trying to account for

if you're worried about device failure then multiple copies on additional drives or optical media or tape is sufficient

if you're going for full disaster recovery in case of your house burns to the ground, then yes, off-site backups are required. but how far away do you keep your off-site backups? what if tornados and storms rips through an entire county and takes out buildings in a large area?

>>17912061
Dropbox or cloud storage you retard. You also have yo account for theft. Your external HD does you no good when a thief takes it because its sitting next to your computer

>>17912061
OP here, I want to protect my files from getting corrupted on bad sectors.

>>17912113
>Dropbox or cloud storage.
confirmed for fucking downs

I'm sorry, but I care about privacy, so "cloud" is out of the question

>>17912118
then you want backups, not just multiple drives to divide your data between as a means to prevent *all* data loss, and only partial data loss. that's just retarded

>>17912118
RAID-Z
the parity drive allows errors to be corrected while it reads

Try to fill up all your internal bays with the cheapest, but highest capcity, HDD's out there and put in RAID 1 for starters, or RAID 0 if you want applications to open a second faster.

Build a NAS
Install FreeNAS
Use RAID-Z

Not OP, but should I get one 1.5tb HDD and one .5tb HDD, or should I get one 1tb HDD and two .5tb HDDs?

Im a bit worried about how much the 3rd HDD would consume in terms of wattage. I have a 460w power supply.

>recommending *any* RAID solution in lieu of proper backups as a means to prevent data loss

>>17912215
Three 1.5's, and use RAID-Z with one drive for parity.

>>17912215
please be a troll

HDDs consume on the order of 10 - 20W under load, if that

>>17912241
Not a troll, just a newfag to /g/ trying to pick up bits and pieces of computan knowledge

>>17912253

Really you should just get 4X256GB HDD

>>17912228
> implying RAID-Z doesn't prevent data loss from disk failure
With RAID-Z, you can use two parity drives.
And you can replace drives with drives of larger capacity.
And you don't have to have an expensive SATA/SAS controller.

btw what can i do with 2x500gb and 1x1tb?

>>17912274
store shit.

>>17912265
>still thinks RAID is any substitute for backups
just stop posting already

>>17912274

I'd set the 2 500's in RAID 0 and have them back to the 1TB every few days or so, or every night, your call

>>17912279
Does your backup protect you from two drives failing?

>>17912296
were you dropped on your head as a child? of course if fucking does

both data drives completely fried, restore from backup

>>17912279
With RAID-Z2, you can have any two drives fail and still have all your data.
Plus you get higher performance.
Plus you get protection against bit rot.
Plus you can expand it without reformatting, by adding larger drives.

>>17912331
> main drive dies
> backup drive dies
> restore from dead backup drive?
DERP.....

>>17912341
again, that's all fine and well, but it's still not a substitute for proper backups

and you think it is, you don't fucking understand what RAID is for

>>17912357
> again, that's all fine and well, but it's still not a substitute for proper backups
It's better than having a backup drive.

> and you think it is, you don't fucking understand what RAID is for
It's for increasing performance and/or protecting your data against drive failure.

A backup does only one of those things. And not as well.

Also, all you've done is tell me
> hurr that's stupid
You haven't come up with ANY reason at all for it.

>>17912352

Dont buy Seagate/Maxtor drives

problem solved

>>17912357
ZFS used for RAID-Z supports snapshots too.

RAID 5 used to be good. But with large drives and increasing probability of an unrecoverable read error, it can fail.

RAID-Z and especially RAID-Z2 works even if there is an URE.

>>17912377
>It's better than having a backup drive
just stop fucking posting already

>>17912439
You can't think of a single reason why I'm wrong.

>>17912466
I can think of 1000 reasons, it just makes my blood boil over how utterly retarded you are

>>17912466
I'd love to see the look on your bosses face when you tell him "we don't need fucking backups, we have RAID, it's *better* than backups"

and then then entire fucking array goes down due to a hardware failure and you have jack shit to restore from

>>17912500
No you can't. Or you would have named some.

>>17912510
Jesus Christ just wipe the blood off your vagina and leave.

>>17912341
>>17912510
see >>17912397
>>17912341
> With RAID-Z2, you can have any two drives fail and still have all your data.

>>17912537
I have a vagina because I work with RAID arrays every day, and shit does happen, and they do die

supercoolstorybro.gif

People always talk about "needing" a backup, but unless your drive literally catches on fire it'll give you enough signs that it's coming to an end, allowing you time to go out and purchase a new one.

Backups are only necessary for very important files. Even then this is for a very, very limited scenario of where your hard drive shits itself immediately. Usually if the build is that poor it'll shit itself sooner rather than later.

>>17912510
> and then then entire fucking array goes down due to a hardware failure
A drive dies, you replace it. It keeps working.

Two drives?
still works.

Broken OS?
just reinstall it and rebuild.

Broken motherboard/SATA controller?

get a new one and rebuild.

All your data is still there.

Clearly, you do not know how RAID-Z works.

>>17912542
>>any two drives fail and still have all your data.
that's nice? you can do that with RAID-6 as well, big fucking deal

doesn't mean you still shouldn't have backups

RAID is not a fucking backup solution, if you think otherwise you're doing it fucking wrong. full stop. there's no counter argument.

>>17912548
> I have a vagina because I work with RAID arrays every day, and shit does happen, and they do die
You've used traditional RAID ararys.

You have not used a RAID-Z

>>17912568
>Clearly, you do not know how RAID-Z works.
clearly you've never worked with RAID in an enterprise setting

2x1TB as RAID1 == better speed, better safety

Avoid 2TB drives for the moment.

>>17912576
> that's nice? you can do that with RAID-6 as well, big fucking deal
RAID-Z does it better. Because it can withstand URE's.
And you don't need an expensive controller.
And it supports snapshots.

> there's no counter argument.
to a nonexistent argument.

>>17912139
>implying all cloud solutions are insecure.

laughinggirls.S

>>17912589
> baseless accusations in an attempt to sidestep the point

>>17912605
?

2TB drives are fine. Only ones that had problems were those horrendous seagates.

>>17912589
Clearly you've only ever glanced at traditional RAID arrays.

>>17912521
if someone were to go and overwrite your files, you would have no backup to go to. if something were to happen and your drives were physically or electrically damaged, i.e. someone shorts the hdds or drops the computer/the server rack breaks/etc you would have no backup to go to. if your computer or the building it was in were to catch on fire, you would have no backup to go to. if someone were to steal your computer, you would have no backup to go to. i think you get the idea. raid is only good for a drive failure, but nothing else. hence why it doesn't work well as a real backup solution

>>17912658
> if someone were to go and overwrite your files, you would have no backup to go to.
see >>17912397

>>17912613
if you worked for me, and tried telling me we don't need backups because we use RAID-Z, or any other RAID configuration, I'd fucking fire your ass on the spot

>>17912658
If aliens abduct you, you'll lose your data

>>17912679
I doubt anyone would want to work for you.

>>17912671
and snapshots need to be configured, and have to be fucking stored somewhere, which eats into the primary storage pool. you think those just get stored in the aether somewhere?

so now you're storing your only means of recovery on your primary storage? kill yourself

>>17912658
If your backup catches fire, you'll lose your data.
if someone steals your backups, you'll lose your data.
If your backups suffel electrical failure, you'll lose your data.

>>17911747

> I'll tell you what

>>17912703
> and snapshots need to be configured
Oh, the horror.

> and have to be fucking stored somewhere
Really? you have to store data on disks?
NO FUCKING WAY?!?!?!

>>17912713
>I've never heard of storing backups in a secure location
confirmed for 12 years old and never working in anything even remotely close to a proper datacenter

>>17912671
and the snapshots go where, somewhere offsite? that's a backup then. onto the same hdd it is snapshotting? onto another hdd in the same machine? that does nothing if there is some sort of catastrophic physical damage to the drives, i.e fire, theft, etc

>>17912748
Confirmed for butthurt can't think of an actual reply.

>>17912755
> if aliens destroyed the Earth, you'd lose your data.
You should always store data on the moon.

>>17912713
assuming something were to happen to your backups, unless something also happened to your primary data at the same time in a catastrophic fashion, you can make another backup. if you have no backup and something happens to your data, you don't have another copy you can use.

>>17912735
>Really? you have to store data on disks? NO FUCKING WAY?!?!?!
you're ignoring the entire fucking point, that your only "backups" are stored on the primary storage pool, which has 2 huge implications

1) if your entire array dies, those snapshots mean fuckall
2) they're eating away at the primary storage pool, meaning less space for actual data

>>17912778
> unless

>>17912792
unless what, you pull a backup out of your ass?

RAID is about availability. It's meant to keep the server up when a drive fails so the admin can install a new drive the next day without the whole office being down in the meantime.

Backup is about archiving, which lets you recover from corruption, mistakes, or more severe hardware failure than just one disk.

You can get away with not having RAID. You can't afford to not have several backups.

>>17912779
> 1) if your entire array dies, those snapshots mean fuckall
If you die, your health insurance means fuck all.
I think the only one missing the point here is you.

2 x 2tb raid

>>17912810
I used your own word.

ITT: Master troll.

I can't believe this has gone on for so long.
10/10

>>17912813
>I think the only one missing the point here is you.
if that's the case, then please enlighten me

the only "point" I seem to be missing is that RAID-Z is somehow infallible, and should be used unquestionably instead of backups, because it can never fail, and can recover data from thin air in any circumstance

>>17912813
i really hope you are trolling, but knowing how retarded people are today, i can't be sure.

>>17912713
>If your backup catches fire, you'll lose your data.
Yes, but it is in a physically different place then the chances of that happening at the same time as losing your primary are low.
>if someone steals your backups, you'll lose your data.
Yes, but you keep your backups in a secure location (safe deposit box?).
>If your backups suffel electrical failure, you'll lose your data.
Your backups should be offline.

>>17912846
>confusing trolls with unparalleled ignorance and lack of experience
I'm curious as to who you think the "master troll" is

>>17912847
Actually the point is that if I used your logic, nothing is infallible ever.
> I can recover the data if aliens destroy Earth because I always keep backups on the moon, Mars and Saturn

>>17912855
> Yes, but if you keep backups on the moon, you'll be safe from literally anything

>>17912872
Nothing *is* infallible, ever. The point is to reduce fallibility by having lots of distinct (not on the same disk, or in the same place) copies of your data

>>17912868

The guy who keeps replying and appears to be really, really dumb. Or maybe he actually is just dumb and the real troll is the guy who keep arguing with him.

The funny thing here is that all we're talking about is a storage system for one guy's personal files.

And yet we have some guy saying
> oh no RAID is never appropriate ever you need 7 backups in 5 different countries durr

>>17912872
I never claimed backups were infallible, but their ability to recover data in the event of data loss is many many times greater than relying on a primary data array.

and for very sensitive data, you normally have more than 1 tier of backup. something like:
1) primary backup to disk
2) offload backups from disk to tape
3) periodically rotate tapes to secure off-site storage location

in the even of a catastrophic disaster (i.e. the datacenter is destroyed by a tornado), you can use the off-site backups to recover from. Does RAID-Z protect from such events as well? you seem to think it does

>>17912872
in theory, nothing is infallible. but you can do things to greatly reduce the chances of completely losing your data. the chance of your drives being stolen/physically damaged may not be very high, but is still quite possible. the chance of both your primary drives and backup being stolen/physically damaged at the same time are much lower.

>>17912901
> Nothing *is* infallible, ever.
see >>17912912

>>17912924
The probability that aliens will destroy Earth isn't zero.
Therefore you should always keep backups on the moon.

>>17912912
>oh no RAID is never appropriate
I'm fairly certain no one has stated, or even suggest this, once, in this entire thread

reading comprehension fail

RAID is perfectly fine, and has many practical uses. But using it as a means to ignore any sort of backups is not one of those practical uses. That's just asking to get fucked when something happens and you lose absolutely everything

>>17912912
if you actually want to keep some of your files safe, it really isn't that hard to get a proper backup solution. and getting multiple in different places of the world isn't hard either, in this day and age. not like its any different uploading data to the US or europe.

>>17912948 when something happens and you lose absolutely everything

Such as? I am pretty sure most people keep their back ups in the same place if not the same room as their computer.

>>17912948
> I'm fairly certain no one has stated, or even suggest this, once, in this entire thread
Ever heard of an exaggeration?

You did keep saying that it wasn't enough, as if it was some universal rule that applied universally.
For one guy's personal files.

>>17912963
You're talking about offsite backups for a single home user. And that's also assuming their internet connection will be adequate for the terabytes of data.

>>17912978
it depends by what you mean by "most people"

and just because many people do it, doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. and it also depends on what sort of disaster you're trying to recover from, like I stated earlier.

having your backup in the same room basically says "I'm protecting from simple hardware failure". If there's a fire or other such event you're likely screwed. It's up to the individual to decide what's acceptable in terms of data loss. But having even a second external USB drive that you swap with another that you leave at a friend's/relative's house when you visit is a very cheap and simple way to have offsite backups for stuff you really don't want to lose

>implying I don't print out all my files to paper.
>binary files in 1's and 0's, of course.

I keep my backups at my parent's house, in a filing cabinet.

>>17913024
I'm guessing by 'most people' he means 'more than 50% of people'.

>>17912986
>one guy's personal files
>RAID array
fucking pick one

I didn't change the argument or set the tone by suggesting RAID, others did. In my view, the instant you start talking about RAID, you're not talking about simple home file storage any more

4x1tb +1

Raid 5 and a hot spare.

>>17913052
> fucking pick one
Says the guy suggesting off-site backups are 100% required in all cases.

>>17913052
RAID 1 is a pretty cheap and easy thing to do for home users.

>>17913076

For personal data, like documents and such, offsite is good for everyone.

You can even use gmail for that. Make an encrypted zip and upload to your email.

>>17913109
> terabytes of music, movies, TV shows
> store on gmail

>>17913076
lol?

I never said anything close to that
>It's up to the individual to decide what's acceptable in terms of data loss.

but using *only* your primary RAID array with 0 backups tells me that you ok with complete data loss in the case of *any* disaster with no means of recovery. hardware, environmental, or otherwise

>>17913120
> If you use any kind of RAID array for redundancy, you are 100% guaranteed to lose your data in 1 second

>>17913116
>personal data like documents
>terabytes of music
idontthinksotim.jpg

1x unlimited cloud storage > 1x 2TB > 2x 1TB > 4x 500GB

>>17913139
[citation needed]

>>17913143
> people don't ever store music or movies

>>17913155
i did ur'e mom last nite

>>17913155
source: >>17913120

>>17912978
such as fire, tornado, earthquake, theft, flood, something crashing into your house, landslide, tsunami, etc. what the "such as" is depends on where you live.

>>17913018
you don't need to necessarily do a full backup of every file. keep what can't be re-acquired if it's not possible to back everything up. the point of a backup isn't just to make a copy of everything you have. it's to have something to fall back on to save files that may have otherwise been lost forever. backing up everything is just convenience.

>>17913162
>implying music are considered "personal files"

>>17913180
ah, so I see you're over-exaggerating, and completely didn't read the bit about "with 0 backups"

>>17913116

You cannot fucking read. You are illiterate.

Leave /g/ and never come back.

>>17913188
facepalm.jpg

>>17913226
missingthepoint.jpg

>>17913206
> I'm over exaggerating
fixed