Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro

In article , android wrote:

nospam:
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.

Sandman:
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!

As well as data backup. The same data exists in two different places.

It may not be sufficient data backup for you, but it's still backup.

To back up data you need to store it on an independent filesystem.

I would recommend that, too. But that doesn't mean that data stored in the
same file system on two different disks isn't backup.

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!

Agree with that to.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , android wrote:

nospam:
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.

Sandman:
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!

As well as data backup. The same data exists in two different places.

It's on the same filesystem! I might help you keep some data in the case
of limited hardware failure.

It may not be sufficient data backup for you, but it's still backup.

To back up data you need to store it on an independent filesystem.

I would recommend that, too. But that doesn't mean that data stored in the
same file system on two different disks isn't backup.

It's on the same filesystem! If the filesystem craps out you lose your
data!!!

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!

Agree with that to.

The IT support now closes for the weekend...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

On 8/14/2014 11:20 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.

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


The deserved reply follows:


--
PeterN

In article , android wrote:

Sandman:
As well as data backup. The same data exists in two different
places.

It's on the same filesystem!

But in two different physical locations.

I might help you keep some data in the case of limited hardware failure.

Hence, it's backup. Case closed.

android:
To back up data you need to store it on an independent
filesystem.

Sandman:
I would recommend that, too. But that doesn't mean that data
stored in the same file system on two different disks isn't
backup.

It's on the same filesystem!

Yes, even now - ten rows later in the post!

If the filesystem craps out you lose your data!!!

There is *always* an if that would render every backup invalid. The
existence of an "if" does not mean that it's not backup.

If you have an off-site incremental backup and your local copy burns up in
a house fire, your data is lost *IF* your offsite backup is hit by a meteor
before you can restore from it.

android:
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!

Sandman:
Agree with that to.

The IT support now closes for the weekend...

Is that the IT support that said that the same data on two different
physical location isn't backup? They should close forever.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
Agree with that to.

The IT support now closes for the weekend...

Is that the IT support that said that the same data on two different
physical location isn't backup? They should close forever.

As long as they are in a RAID configuration they are one FS.

Special advice 4 Sandman ONLY:

Why don't you reconfigure your RAID1 to RAID0? You'll get twice the
storage and almost twice the speed. At no extra cost for you! You data
will be stored on two disks and according to you therefore totally safe!
You said that you were a developer???

4 the kids: Don't do the above at home... Do it at the principals office!
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article , android wrote:

Sandman:
Agree with that to.

android:
The IT support now closes for the weekend...

Sandman:
Is that the IT support that said that the same data on two
different physical location isn't backup? They should close
forever.

As long as they are in a RAID configuration they are one FS.

Is the IT support now claiming that the two copies of the file that reside
on two different physical disks are on the same physical device, or is the
IT support just telling me irrelevant information that I already knew?

Special advice 4 Sandman ONLY:

Why don't you reconfigure your RAID1 to RAID0? You'll get twice the
storage and almost twice the speed. At no extra cost for you! You
data will be stored on two disks and according to you therefore
totally safe! You said that you were a developer???

Are you an idiot by birth or do you work hard on a daily basis to be one?
Is it an effort or does it come natural?

If you don't understand that a mirrored raid has every piece of data stored
on two seperate physical devices, then you have no place to talk about
these matters.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

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"

if a drive fails in a raid you do not have downtime. that's all you get.

data is just as vulnerable to loss/corruption as it would be in a
single drive.

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.

nobody said otherwise.

as far as backups are concerned, a raid and a single drive are the same
since it's one entity.

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.

raid is not a backup against losing data.

it's a backup against having downtime if a drive fails.

a drive can fail and your system keeps going. that can be *very*
important in some cases, such as a business with a steady stream of
customers.

for a typical home user, downtime is not critical and they do not need
the additional expense of a raid.

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.

that's no downtime and i'm not adding anything.

your claim is *not* correct. a raid is *not* a backup. period.

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.

exactly, which is why raid is not a backup.

you must have *additional* copies to have a backup.

if you do not (and a raid does not), then you don't have a backup and
you are vulnerable for data loss.

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.

it's not.

all it protects against is downtime. that may be important to some
users but it does not in any way protect loss of data.

There are
many ways to make backups, and you should choose one based on the level of
protection you desire.

there are, but raid is not among them.

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

or a clone, or a cloud service.

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

raid guarantees uptime if a drive fails. that's all.

if multiple drives fail or if the raid controller itself fails, you may
have downtime.

if there is a hardware failure that failed in a way that corrupted the
data, you've lost data.

meanwhile, a pair of drives with a traditional backup strategy is a lot
cheaper than a raid and protects against hardware failure *and* data
loss.

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

again, raid is not a backup.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...-class-philoso
phy-structure-and-why-raid-isnt-a-solution/2
RAID is not a backup. RAID is not a backup, ever. Not RAID 1, not
RAID 5, not RAID 6. The ³R² in RAID refers to redundant, not
³backup.² While it¹s true that a basic RAID 1 will protect against
the sudden failure of a single disk, it¹s no protection against
simultaneous failure, external disaster (flood, fire, electrical
surge), or incremental sector failure that results in a corrupted
write. If a malicious user accesses and wipes critical data on Disk
0, Disk 1 happily follows suit.

Part of the problem here is linguistic. In other contexts, ³backup,²
³spare² and ³redundant² are often used interchangeably. Here, the
distinction matters. In the original paper that proposed inexpensive
drive arrays, defined the first five RAID types, and created the
standard, the authors stated ³To overcome the reliability challenge,
we must make use of extra disks containing redundant information to
recover the original information when a disk fails.²

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/n...a-recovery-tal
es-raid-is-not-backup
Using " fault-tolerant" RAID, the very name of which contains the
word "redundant", often brings with it the temptation to ignore
backups. This is wrong. In fact, RAID doesn't by itself provide
reliable data storage, but instead primarily reduces the downtime
when a disk fails.

So why isn't RAID acceptable as a backup strategy? Here are five
reasons why.
1. Human error
2. RAID controller / software failure
3. Fire, flood or other calamity
4. Theft, hacker attack, or other offensive action
5. Multiple disk failures and URE

http://www.petemarovichimages.com/20...raid-as-your-b
ackup-system/

A RAID is still a single device and because of that, also a single
point of failure.
None of this means you should not use a RAID. Many photographers I
know love the DROBO system. This is fine. JUST BACK IT UP! (I have
never used a DROBO, but for another photographer¹s opinion on DROBO
see Scott Kelby¹s post he
http://scottkelby.com/2012/im-done-with-drobo/

A BACKUP needs to be a complete and recoverable copy of your data
that resides on a separate hard drive possibly even a RAID. Just DO
NOT USE SOFTWARE THAT MIRRORS THE PRIMARY DRIVE TO THE BACKUP or you
will run into the same problems as above with at RAID 1. Proper
backup software will perform a full backup and then hourly or daily
backups of changed files.

In article , Sandman
wrote:

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.

Sandman:
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!

As well as data backup. The same data exists in two different places.

it's not a data backup. the data is in *one* place, redundant within
the raid which covers *downtime* not data loss.

It may not be sufficient data backup for you, but it's still backup.

raid is not a backup. period.

To back up data you need to store it on an independent filesystem.

I would recommend that, too. But that doesn't mean that data stored in the
same file system on two different disks isn't backup.

raid is not a backup.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...-class-philoso
phy-structure-and-why-raid-isnt-a-solution/2
RAID is not a backup. RAID is not a backup, ever. Not RAID 1, not
RAID 5, not RAID 6. The ³R² in RAID refers to redundant, not
³backup.² While it¹s true that a basic RAID 1 will protect against
the sudden failure of a single disk, it¹s no protection against
simultaneous failure, external disaster (flood, fire, electrical
surge), or incremental sector failure that results in a corrupted
write. If a malicious user accesses and wipes critical data on Disk
0, Disk 1 happily follows suit.

Part of the problem here is linguistic. In other contexts, ³backup,²
³spare² and ³redundant² are often used interchangeably. Here, the
distinction matters. In the original paper that proposed inexpensive
drive arrays, defined the first five RAID types, and created the
standard, the authors stated ³To overcome the reliability challenge,
we must make use of extra disks containing redundant information to
recover the original information when a disk fails.²

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/n...a-recovery-tal
es-raid-is-not-backup
Using " fault-tolerant" RAID, the very name of which contains the
word "redundant", often brings with it the temptation to ignore
backups. This is wrong. In fact, RAID doesn't by itself provide
reliable data storage, but instead primarily reduces the downtime
when a disk fails.

So why isn't RAID acceptable as a backup strategy? Here are five
reasons why.
1. Human error
2. RAID controller / software failure
3. Fire, flood or other calamity
4. Theft, hacker attack, or other offensive action
5. Multiple disk failures and URE

http://www.petemarovichimages.com/20...raid-as-your-b
ackup-system/

A RAID is still a single device and because of that, also a single
point of failure.
None of this means you should not use a RAID. Many photographers I
know love the DROBO system. This is fine. JUST BACK IT UP! (I have
never used a DROBO, but for another photographer¹s opinion on DROBO
see Scott Kelby¹s post he
http://scottkelby.com/2012/im-done-with-drobo/

A BACKUP needs to be a complete and recoverable copy of your data
that resides on a separate hard drive possibly even a RAID. Just DO
NOT USE SOFTWARE THAT MIRRORS THE PRIMARY DRIVE TO THE BACKUP or you
will run into the same problems as above with at RAID 1. Proper
backup software will perform a full backup and then hourly or daily
backups of changed files.

In article , Sandman
wrote:

The IT support now closes for the weekend...

Sandman:
Is that the IT support that said that the same data on two
different physical location isn't backup? They should close
forever.

As long as they are in a RAID configuration they are one FS.

Is the IT support now claiming that the two copies of the file that reside
on two different physical disks are on the same physical device, or is the
IT support just telling me irrelevant information that I already knew?

they're telling you raid is not a backup.

see below and in other posts for links.

Special advice 4 Sandman ONLY:

Why don't you reconfigure your RAID1 to RAID0? You'll get twice the
storage and almost twice the speed. At no extra cost for you! You
data will be stored on two disks and according to you therefore
totally safe! You said that you were a developer???

Are you an idiot by birth or do you work hard on a daily basis to be one?
Is it an effort or does it come natural?

If you don't understand that a mirrored raid has every piece of data stored
on two seperate physical devices, then you have no place to talk about
these matters.

it's still one entity, and risks data loss.

what it protects is downtime.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...-class-philoso
phy-structure-and-why-raid-isnt-a-solution/2
RAID is not a backup. RAID is not a backup, ever. Not RAID 1, not
RAID 5, not RAID 6. The ³R² in RAID refers to redundant, not
³backup.² While it¹s true that a basic RAID 1 will protect against
the sudden failure of a single disk, it¹s no protection against
simultaneous failure, external disaster (flood, fire, electrical
surge), or incremental sector failure that results in a corrupted
write. If a malicious user accesses and wipes critical data on Disk
0, Disk 1 happily follows suit.

Part of the problem here is linguistic. In other contexts, ³backup,²
³spare² and ³redundant² are often used interchangeably. Here, the
distinction matters. In the original paper that proposed inexpensive
drive arrays, defined the first five RAID types, and created the
standard, the authors stated ³To overcome the reliability challenge,
we must make use of extra disks containing redundant information to
recover the original information when a disk fails.²

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/n...a-recovery-tal
es-raid-is-not-backup
Using " fault-tolerant" RAID, the very name of which contains the
word "redundant", often brings with it the temptation to ignore
backups. This is wrong. In fact, RAID doesn't by itself provide
reliable data storage, but instead primarily reduces the downtime
when a disk fails.

So why isn't RAID acceptable as a backup strategy? Here are five
reasons why.
1. Human error
2. RAID controller / software failure
3. Fire, flood or other calamity
4. Theft, hacker attack, or other offensive action
5. Multiple disk failures and URE

http://www.petemarovichimages.com/20...raid-as-your-b
ackup-system/

A RAID is still a single device and because of that, also a single
point of failure.
None of this means you should not use a RAID. Many photographers I
know love the DROBO system. This is fine. JUST BACK IT UP! (I have
never used a DROBO, but for another photographer¹s opinion on DROBO
see Scott Kelby¹s post he
http://scottkelby.com/2012/im-done-with-drobo/

A BACKUP needs to be a complete and recoverable copy of your data
that resides on a separate hard drive possibly even a RAID. Just DO
NOT USE SOFTWARE THAT MIRRORS THE PRIMARY DRIVE TO THE BACKUP or you
will run into the same problems as above with at RAID 1. Proper
backup software will perform a full backup and then hourly or daily
backups of changed files.

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
Is that the IT support that said that the same data
on two different physical location isn't backup? They should
close forever.

android:
As long as they are in a RAID configuration they are one FS.

Sandman:
Is the IT support now claiming that the two copies of the file
that reside on two different physical disks are on the same
physical device, or is the IT support just telling me irrelevant
information that I already knew?

they're telling you raid is not a backup.

This IT support should then take a permanent leave of absence.

android:
Special advice 4 Sandman ONLY:

Why don't you reconfigure your RAID1 to RAID0? You'll get twice
the storage and almost twice the speed. At no extra cost for
you! You data will be stored on two disks and according to you
therefore totally safe! You said that you were a developer???

Sandman:
Are you an idiot by birth or do you work hard on a daily basis to
be one? Is it an effort or does it come natural?

If you don't understand that a mirrored raid has every piece of
data stored on two seperate physical devices, then you have no
place to talk about these matters.

it's still one entity, and risks data loss.

The two seperate physical disks are not one entity.

All backup solutions risks data loss, just to varying degrees.



--
Sandman[.net]