Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro

In article 2014081215204021263-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

He didn't ask about a back up. You are the first who spoke of back up
in this thread.

he needs a backup, whether he asks about it or not.

As do all of us, all you are doing is bleating the obvious.

despite backing up being obvious, most people don't do it.

apple created time machine because the numbers of those who backed up
were under 10%. that's pretty bad.

For all we
know his 4TB of image files might well consist of originals and back
ups, but that is just speculation on my part.

could be, but he was asking to consolidate multiple drives to one drive.

if some of those drives were backups, then the consolidation would
eliminate the backups because it's all on one drive.

and again, i only mentioned backup in the context of raid, which was
mentioned by others.

...and yet for some a RAID, depending on configuration can be a viable
back up. Certainly not a striped RAID. All depends on the level of
redundancy and the specific configuration.

it can be, but most people don't need raid. nothing he said indicates
he does.

some people might think it's a backup, but it isn't. worse, they may
use a raid instead of a true backup, which would be bad.

On 8/12/2014 6:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro. Images are at present on
several external HD. What is best way to store images for ready
retrieval? Anything more efficient/suitable than "network attached
storage" (NAS) like the units sold by Buffalo?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/network-storage

A external USB RAID should be faster.I would have asked this in
comp.sys.mac.system...

Agreed, a RAID would probably be best If not USB3 then consider FW800
or Thunderbolt. I usually got to OWC for my drives and stuff Mac,
they
have quite a few options.

The OP did not specify whether he needed high availability.
What is the basis for your assumption that the OP does not need high
availability.

Huh? Your question doesn't make sense.
The OP asks "What is the best way to store images for ready retrieval?"
Nothing above mentions "high availability". That term is first used by
*nospam* below.

You have snipped the OP's (Don Tuttle) & Android's attributes which
confuse the dialog. You appear to be responding to *nospam*, but his
first quote only appears below this little rant of mine.


If I made a misattribution, it is because of nospam's snipping.

you're the one who snipped, including several levels of quotes.

don't blame others.

However, i think the original statement about RAID not being suitable
for the oP was made and repeated by nospam.

based on what he said, it's not needed.


In this case, as in most othrs when I snip the snip appears. In this
case I snipped to make it clear that I was only referring to your
statement. You did other snipping in your replies. Stop your ****.
You aare a known snipper. Anything snipped is irrelevant to my point
that you made an assumption without basis.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro. Images are at present on
several external HD. What is best way to store images for ready
retrieval? Anything more efficient/suitable than "network attached
storage" (NAS) like the units sold by Buffalo?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/network-storage

A external USB RAID should be faster.I would have asked this in
comp.sys.mac.system...

Agreed, a RAID would probably be best If not USB3 then consider FW800
or Thunderbolt. I usually got to OWC for my drives and stuff Mac,
they have quite a few options.

The OP did not specify whether he needed high availability.
What is the basis for your assumption that the OP does not need high
availability.

Huh? Your question doesn't make sense.
The OP asks "What is the best way to store images for ready retrieval?"
Nothing above mentions "high availability". That term is first used by
*nospam* below.

You have snipped the OP's (Don Tuttle) & Android's attributes which
confuse the dialog. You appear to be responding to *nospam*, but his
first quote only appears below this little rant of mine.

If I made a misattribution, it is because of nospam's snipping.

you're the one who snipped, including several levels of quotes.

don't blame others.

However, i think the original statement about RAID not being suitable
for the oP was made and repeated by nospam.

based on what he said, it's not needed.

In this case, as in most othrs when I snip the snip appears. In this
case I snipped to make it clear that I was only referring to your
statement. You did other snipping in your replies.

i did not.

Stop your ****.
You aare a known snipper.

i only snip what is not relevant, which is what you're claiming you're
trying to do.

Anything snipped is irrelevant to my point
that you made an assumption without basis.

your point is wrong.

yet another to add to an extremely long list.

In article 2014081208474139936-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-12 15:32:22 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014081208291514061-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro. Images are at present on
several external HD. What is best way to store images for ready
retrieval? Anything more efficient/suitable than "network attached
storage" (NAS) like the units sold by Buffalo?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/network-storage
Thanks.
Don

A external USB RAID should be faster.I would have asked this in
comp.sys.mac.system...

Agreed, a RAID would probably be best If not USB3 then consider FW800
or Thunderbolt. I usually got to OWC for my drives and stuff Mac, they
have quite a few options.

raid is not needed unless he needs high availability, which he more
than likely does not.

if he doesn't, then a normal network share + good backup strategy is
*much* better and less expensive.

raid is not a backup.

his question is also not mac specific.

What part of "I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro" isn't Mac specific?

It sounds to me that he is looking to consolidate the 4TB of image
files from the several external HDs he is currently using, and a good
RAID with some redundancy can provide that storage with easy retrieval.
He didn't ask anything about back up, that is a different question.
That said having the RAID as part of a network server is also a viable
possibility.

I am OP. Sorry, should have said I want a solution that does not
require a cable.
I don't have the background to understand all of this discussion, e.g.,
"RAID as part of a network server," which I think sounds like what I
want. I am going to get with local Mac specialist. Thanks for help.
Don

On 2014-08-13 01:34:30 +0000, Don Tuttle said:

In article 2014081208474139936-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-12 15:32:22 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014081208291514061-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro. Images are at present on
several external HD. What is best way to store images for ready
retrieval? Anything more efficient/suitable than "network attached
storage" (NAS) like the units sold by Buffalo?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/network-storage
Thanks.
Don

A external USB RAID should be faster.I would have asked this in
comp.sys.mac.system...

Agreed, a RAID would probably be best If not USB3 then consider FW800
or Thunderbolt. I usually got to OWC for my drives and stuff Mac, they
have quite a few options.

raid is not needed unless he needs high availability, which he more
than likely does not.

if he doesn't, then a normal network share + good backup strategy is
*much* better and less expensive.

raid is not a backup.

his question is also not mac specific.

What part of "I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro" isn't Mac specific?

It sounds to me that he is looking to consolidate the 4TB of image
files from the several external HDs he is currently using, and a good
RAID with some redundancy can provide that storage with easy retrieval.
He didn't ask anything about back up, that is a different question.
That said having the RAID as part of a network server is also a viable
possibility.

I am OP. Sorry, should have said I want a solution that does not
require a cable.
I don't have the background to understand all of this discussion, e.g.,
"RAID as part of a network server," which I think sounds like what I
want. I am going to get with local Mac specialist. Thanks for help.
Don

OK. That is clear, find somebody you can trust and understand there are
some practical ways of doing all of this. .
note that when threads derail here everything can go downhill very
quickly. So good luck, & let us know how it works out.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Don Tuttle
wrote:



I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro. Images are at present on
several external HD. What is best way to store images for ready
retrieval? Anything more efficient/suitable than "network attached
storage" (NAS) like the units sold by Buffalo?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/network-storage
Thanks.
Don

A external USB RAID should be faster.I would have asked this in
comp.sys.mac.system...

Agreed, a RAID would probably be best If not USB3 then consider FW800
or Thunderbolt. I usually got to OWC for my drives and stuff Mac, they
have quite a few options.

raid is not needed unless he needs high availability, which he more
than likely does not.

if he doesn't, then a normal network share + good backup strategy is
*much* better and less expensive.

raid is not a backup.

his question is also not mac specific.

What part of "I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro" isn't Mac specific?

It sounds to me that he is looking to consolidate the 4TB of image
files from the several external HDs he is currently using, and a good
RAID with some redundancy can provide that storage with easy retrieval.
He didn't ask anything about back up, that is a different question.
That said having the RAID as part of a network server is also a viable
possibility.

I am OP. Sorry, should have said I want a solution that does not
require a cable.

i figured as much.

I don't have the background to understand all of this discussion, e.g.,
"RAID as part of a network server," which I think sounds like what I
want. I am going to get with local Mac specialist. Thanks for help.

the first question you need to ask yourself is do you need high
availability?

is it a problem if your images will be inaccessible for a couple of
hours in the event of a hard drive failure? will your work screech to a
standstill and you'll lose money because of that? will customers get
mad because you can't access anything?

or does a little downtime not matter all that much? will a couple of
hours to restore a backup while you do something else not matter? no
angry customers, no money loss?

if you need the former, then you need a raid. if it's the latter (which
is what i think it is), then you don't need a raid, and just about any
server will work.

either way, you need a backup strategy, which means another drive.

ideally you also want something also offsite, but that is something
that be rotated every week or whatever makes sense for how often the
files change. presumably, the bulk of the 4tb images will not change
all that much, if at all.

one possibility is have the server be an archive of what doesn't change
anymore and what's on the laptop be the recent images you're currently
working with and constantly changing.

there are many other questions too, and hiring a local person is a good
idea.

On 8/12/2014 9:34 PM, Don Tuttle wrote:
In article 2014081208474139936-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-12 15:32:22 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014081208291514061-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro. Images are at present on
several external HD. What is best way to store images for ready
retrieval? Anything more efficient/suitable than "network attached
storage" (NAS) like the units sold by Buffalo?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/network-storage
Thanks.
Don

A external USB RAID should be faster.I would have asked this in
comp.sys.mac.system...

Agreed, a RAID would probably be best If not USB3 then consider FW800
or Thunderbolt. I usually got to OWC for my drives and stuff Mac, they
have quite a few options.

raid is not needed unless he needs high availability, which he more
than likely does not.

if he doesn't, then a normal network share + good backup strategy is
*much* better and less expensive.

raid is not a backup.

his question is also not mac specific.

What part of "I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro" isn't Mac specific?

It sounds to me that he is looking to consolidate the 4TB of image
files from the several external HDs he is currently using, and a good
RAID with some redundancy can provide that storage with easy retrieval.
He didn't ask anything about back up, that is a different question.
That said having the RAID as part of a network server is also a viable
possibility.

I am OP. Sorry, should have said I want a solution that does not
require a cable.
I don't have the background to understand all of this discussion, e.g.,
"RAID as part of a network server," which I think sounds like what I
want. I am going to get with local Mac specialist. Thanks for help.
Don


The folks at the Apple store are generally knowlagble and helpful. If
they don't know the answer they will get it for you. In my experience
they are good and competent people.
BTW I do the vast majority of work on Windows machines.
Good luck.


--
PeterN

On 8/12/2014 8:14 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I have 4TB of images and a 1TB MacBookPro. Images are at present on
several external HD. What is best way to store images for ready
retrieval? Anything more efficient/suitable than "network attached
storage" (NAS) like the units sold by Buffalo?
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/network-storage

A external USB RAID should be faster.I would have asked this in
comp.sys.mac.system...

Agreed, a RAID would probably be best If not USB3 then consider FW800
or Thunderbolt. I usually got to OWC for my drives and stuff Mac,
they have quite a few options.

The OP did not specify whether he needed high availability.
What is the basis for your assumption that the OP does not need high
availability.

Huh? Your question doesn't make sense.
The OP asks "What is the best way to store images for ready retrieval?"
Nothing above mentions "high availability". That term is first used by
*nospam* below.

You have snipped the OP's (Don Tuttle) & Android's attributes which
confuse the dialog. You appear to be responding to *nospam*, but his
first quote only appears below this little rant of mine.

If I made a misattribution, it is because of nospam's snipping.

you're the one who snipped, including several levels of quotes.

don't blame others.

However, i think the original statement about RAID not being suitable
for the oP was made and repeated by nospam.

based on what he said, it's not needed.

In this case, as in most othrs when I snip the snip appears. In this
case I snipped to make it clear that I was only referring to your
statement. You did other snipping in your replies.

i did not.

Stop your ****.
You aare a known snipper.

i only snip what is not relevant, which is what you're claiming you're
trying to do.

Anything snipped is irrelevant to my point
that you made an assumption without basis.

your point is wrong.

yet another to add to an extremely long list.


Look at the posting from the OP. He states that it looks like a RAID
server would fill his needs.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Look at the posting from the OP. He states that it looks like a RAID
server would fill his needs.

actually he didn't.

he said a raid *sounds* like what he wants.

he's not sure.

the answer to the question i posed in the other post will determine if
he needs it or not.

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
Uhm, a mirrored raid most certainly is backup, saved me a number
of times.

raid is *not* a backup because it's still a single copy. you're only
covered if there's a single drive failure. if you corrupt a file or
accidentally delete it, it's gone.

Hardware failure is what you use backup for mostly. It may not be the type
of backup you require or the type of backup neither of us would recommend,
but it is backup nonetheless.

In your scenario, off-site backup on a time schedule isn't true backup
either, since you can create and accidentally delete or corrupt a file
within the time span of one backup schedule, losing the data.

There are different kinds of backup methods, some against hardware failure,
some against data lost, some including both. RAID is backup against
hardware failure.

Sandman:
I currently have a 12TB RAID5 NAS on my desk, all data backed up
for hardware failure.

not unless you have *another* 12 tb drive.

I disagree with your definition of backup.


--
Sandman[.net]