Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro

On 8/13/2014 9:14 AM, android wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 8/13/2014 3:25 AM, android wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 8/12/2014 2:07 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , nospam wrote:

Savageduck:
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.

raid is high availability and most people don't need that.

raid is not a backup.

Uhm, a mirrored raid most certainly is backup, saved me a number of times.
Yup!

Nope! A RAID1 might save your filesystem if ONE disk fails... Other
errors like code rm -R / /code (don't do it) can't be fixed with
that!!!

I did not mean to say a RAID is a permenant backup, and was not focused
on that point. The mirrored RAID is only a temporary, backup good whil
working.

Well... It's only a backup for harddisk failure then. Everything else
requires a separate backup. Like a Time Machine slice or a cloned copy
of the disk. Investigate whats the best solution for your system is.


Yup! There are some here who ting what is good for "most people" is
right for all.


--
PeterN

In article , Sandman
wrote:

With a RAID, you will never lose any data at any point in case of an
hardware failure, since all data is mirrored the second it is written to
disk.

that is absolutely false.

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

raid is not a backup. it's high availability.

Mirrored raid is backup.

it's a backup against *downtime*.

the data is still at risk.

if a drive fails in a raid, the system keeps going while you get a
replacement drive and it rebuilds.

Correct, no data lost since it was backed up.

no *time* was lost.

no downtime may be important to some users, but for most people, it's
not a big deal.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

Hi, if you don't want a cable, then expect things to be very slow.

802.11ac is quite fast.
802.11n is fast enough for most purposes.

they're not going to match directly attached drives, but the added
convenience more than makes up for it. having to tether to a laptop is
a pain.

images can be cached locally if needed.

It is appaerent from your post that you do minimal post. I have
802.11.n, and if I want to play on my laptop I plug in a USB3 drive. The
difference in speed is undeniable.

i didn't say it was as fast as usb 3.

the problem is that the original poster said he does not want to plug
anything in.

What works for you, is not what works for all. You don't seem to get
that. As for "most people," I have never met him.

what works for you does not work for the original poster, who said he
wants wireless.

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Don Tuttle:
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

Sandman:
Hi, if you don't want a cable, then expect things to be very slow.

802.11ac is quite fast. 802.11n is fast enough for most purposes.

They're dead slow when working with 36 megapixel RAW files. My data which
you snipped was iSCSI over 1TB ethernet.

it's not dead slow.

it's not the fastest possible speed but that's not always needed, and
who said he had 36mp raw files? maybe they're all small jpegs.

they're not going to match directly attached drives, but the added
convenience more than makes up for it. having to tether to a laptop
is a pain.

images can be cached locally if needed.

He can't cache 4TB of images on a 1TB drive. Every new image he wants to
work with will take more than a second to read and display in most
applications. For applications that read thumbnails it can take a long time
to view a folder/album of images.

you obviously don't understand what caching means.

On 8/14/2014 3:49 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

Hi, if you don't want a cable, then expect things to be very slow.

802.11ac is quite fast.
802.11n is fast enough for most purposes.

they're not going to match directly attached drives, but the added
convenience more than makes up for it. having to tether to a laptop is
a pain.

images can be cached locally if needed.

It is appaerent from your post that you do minimal post. I have
802.11.n, and if I want to play on my laptop I plug in a USB3 drive. The
difference in speed is undeniable.

i didn't say it was as fast as usb 3.

the problem is that the original poster said he does not want to plug
anything in.

What works for you, is not what works for all. You don't seem to get
that. As for "most people," I have never met him.

what works for you does not work for the original poster, who said he
wants wireless.

Never said it did. The questions you asked are some of the questions
that should have bewen asked before giving your opinion, not after.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

Hi, if you don't want a cable, then expect things to be very slow.

802.11ac is quite fast.
802.11n is fast enough for most purposes.

they're not going to match directly attached drives, but the added
convenience more than makes up for it. having to tether to a laptop is
a pain.

images can be cached locally if needed.

It is appaerent from your post that you do minimal post. I have
802.11.n, and if I want to play on my laptop I plug in a USB3 drive. The
difference in speed is undeniable.

i didn't say it was as fast as usb 3.

the problem is that the original poster said he does not want to plug
anything in.

What works for you, is not what works for all. You don't seem to get
that. As for "most people," I have never met him.

what works for you does not work for the original poster, who said he
wants wireless.

Never said it did. The questions you asked are some of the questions
that should have bewen asked before giving your opinion, not after.

once again, you fail to understand what you read and talk out your butt.

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
raid is not a backup. it's high availability.

Sandman:
Mirrored raid is backup.

it's a backup against *downtime*.

And against hardware failure.

nospam:
if a drive fails in a raid, the system keeps going while you get
a replacement drive and it rebuilds.

Sandman:
Correct, no data lost since it was backed up.

no *time* was lost.

And no data.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

if a drive fails in a raid, the system keeps going while you get
a replacement drive and it rebuilds.

Sandman:
Correct, no data lost since it was backed up.

no *time* was lost.

And no data.

yes data.

if you accidentally corrupt or delete one or more files, it's then
instantly mirrored to all drives in the raid. that data is *gone*.

if a drive in the raid fails, you'll have no down time, but you will
have the corrupted files or they'll be missing entirely. they're gone.

if someone breaks into your house and steals the raid or if the house
burns down, you lose *all data* (and you will have some downtime too).

for a backup, you *must* have additional copies, with at least one
offsite to protect against fire/flood/theft/etc. the more copies the
better.

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
if a drive fails in a raid, the system keeps going while you
get a replacement drive and it rebuilds.

Sandman:
Correct, no data lost since it was backed up.

nospam:
no *time* was lost.

Sandman:
And no data.

yes data.

No.

if you accidentally corrupt or delete one or more files, it's then
instantly mirrored to all drives in the raid. that data is *gone*.

But that's not what you said above. You said "if a drive fails in a raid",
not "if you corrupt data"

Corrupted data is being written to a non-incremental backup as well and is
equally lost unless you happen to detect that it's corrupt before the next
backup cycle.

The only way to protect against corrupted files is to have an incremental
backup, which of course what is recommended, but that doesn't mean that all
other forms of backup aren't backup.

if a drive in the raid fails, you'll have no down time, but you will
have the corrupted files or they'll be missing entirely. they're
gone.

If a drive fails, without a corrupted file, the data is not lost, like I
said. You don't get to add parameters to the scenario to make my correct
claim incorrect.

if someone breaks into your house and steals the raid or if the
house burns down, you lose *all data* (and you will have some
downtime too).

True for normal backup as well.

for a backup, you *must* have additional copies, with at least one
offsite to protect against fire/flood/theft/etc. the more copies the
better.

Agreed - that doesn't mean that a mirrored raid is not backup. There are
many ways to make backups, and you should choose one based on the level of
protection you desire.

To protect against file corruption or accidental file deletion, you would
use an incremental backup strategy.

To protect only against hardware failure, you could use a mirrored raid.

Both are backup, only different kind of backup. Both have their advantages
and disadvantages.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
if a drive fails in a raid, the system keeps going while you
get a replacement drive and it rebuilds.

Sandman:
Correct, no data lost since it was backed up.

nospam:
no *time* was lost.

Sandman:
And no data.

yes data.

No.

if you accidentally corrupt or delete one or more files, it's then
instantly mirrored to all drives in the raid. that data is *gone*.

But that's not what you said above. You said "if a drive fails in a raid",
not "if you corrupt data"

Corrupted data is being written to a non-incremental backup as well and is
equally lost unless you happen to detect that it's corrupt before the next
backup cycle.

The only way to protect against corrupted files is to have an incremental
backup, which of course what is recommended, but that doesn't mean that all
other forms of backup aren't backup.

if a drive in the raid fails, you'll have no down time, but you will
have the corrupted files or they'll be missing entirely. they're
gone.

If a drive fails, without a corrupted file, the data is not lost, like I
said. You don't get to add parameters to the scenario to make my correct
claim incorrect.

if someone breaks into your house and steals the raid or if the
house burns down, you lose *all data* (and you will have some
downtime too).

True for normal backup as well.

for a backup, you *must* have additional copies, with at least one
offsite to protect against fire/flood/theft/etc. the more copies the
better.

Agreed - that doesn't mean that a mirrored raid is not backup. There are
many ways to make backups, and you should choose one based on the level of
protection you desire.

To protect against file corruption or accidental file deletion, you would
use an incremental backup strategy.

To protect only against hardware failure, you could use a mirrored raid.

Both are backup, only different kind of backup. Both have their advantages
and disadvantages.

Oki!
This is not that difficult... A RAID1 is a hardware backup! To back up
data you need to store it on an independent filesystem. On a Mac you can
use a Time Machine drive or clone the data drive to a disk image...
There are zillions of methods!
You can't have to many backups!
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography