If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
In article 2014081208474139936-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 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? the original poster may have a mac, but the answer is not mac specific. the answer would be the same for someone with a 1 tb windows laptop (other than afp being highly desired). 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. he didn't ask about a backup but he absolutely needs to consider that because if the server fails and there is no backup, the images are lost. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
In article , android
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... usb requires a cable and a network server does not. also, a raid is not needed unless he requires constant availability which is unlikely. Jupp, he saves on the cable... The should make the deal a done one! ;-p it's not about saving money on the cable. it's about convenience and workflow. ;-PPPPP ??? he has a laptop, so why would he want to be tethered to a hard drive, which he'll have to plug and unplug all the time as he moves about? Faster file access. He might wanna work them files, you know... 802.11n (and certainly 802.11ac) is more than enough for accessing and editing files since it's cached. a network share will be available no matter where he is in his house or office, and can even be configured to be accessible from the outside world if that's desired. True. It might be a steeper learning curve to configure a NAS that way though... there are nas devices that require nothing more than plugging them in. it will also be accessible from another computer should he get one at a later time (or maybe he already has one). He asked about access from his Mac. If he wants to work from a Linux box or something too: Then you're right, off course! it's the same no matter what computers he has. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
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. I currently have a 12TB RAID5 NAS on my desk, all data backed up for hardware failure. -- Sandman[.net] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
In article , Sandman
wrote: 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. raid is not a backup. raid is high availability. if you have a hardware failure in a raid, you can keep working while you replace the failed drives. that's very useful for a business who won't want to turn away customers while the restore takes place. for a home user, it's not a big deal if there's a little down time while a restore takes place. it's annoying, but it's not the end of the world. go out to dinner or play tennis or something. 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. if multiple drives fail at the same time and it's more than you have redundancy, you lose all. it's also not unusual to have a hard drive in a raid fail and when you replace it, another drive fails *while* it's working hard to rebuild the redundancy. remember, it's going to work non-stop to rebuild. if that happens before it's done rebuilding, you lose everything. this is more common than one might think because people frequently buy drives in a group and load up the raid, which means they come from the same batch and are likely to fail around the same time. 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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
On 8/12/2014 1:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2014081208474139936-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 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. raid is not needed unless he needs high availability, which he more than likely does not. 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. 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? the original poster may have a mac, but the answer is not mac specific. the answer would be the same for someone with a 1 tb windows laptop (other than afp being highly desired). 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. 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. raid is not a backup. he didn't ask about a backup but he absolutely needs to consider that because if the server fails and there is no backup, the images are lost. Always a good idea. -- PeterN |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
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! I currently have a 12TB RAID5 NAS on my desk, all data backed up for hardware failure. -- PeterN |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
In article , PeterN
wrote: 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. what's *your* assumption that he does? other than businesses that can't afford any downtime, very few people do. it's a *very* safe bet that he does not. but if he needs it, he can respond that he does. and the differences were explained and he can figure it out on his own anyway. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
On 8/12/2014 3:01 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: 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. what's *your* assumption that he does? Wxactly where did i make that assumption. You make an assumption based upon unknown conditions. other than businesses that can't afford any downtime, very few people do. it's a *very* safe bet that he does not. Exactly what do you know about his needs? but if he needs it, he can respond that he does. Not an answer. and the differences were explained and he can figure it out on his own anyway. Stop weasling and answer my question, or admit you made an assumption without basis in fact. -- PeterN |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
In article , PeterN
wrote: 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. what's *your* assumption that he does? Wxactly where did i make that assumption. You make an assumption based upon unknown conditions. nope. i am going by the information he gave when he asked the question. you're assuming he has withheld information and you're also trying to start an argument, as usual. other than businesses that can't afford any downtime, very few people do. it's a *very* safe bet that he does not. Exactly what do you know about his needs? by what he wrote. duh. but if he needs it, he can respond that he does. Not an answer. it is. if he has withheld critical information then there's not much anyone can do. and the differences were explained and he can figure it out on his own anyway. Stop weasling and answer my question, or admit you made an assumption without basis in fact. i'm not the one who is weaseling. you're trying to start yet another argument. you're a sad sorry case. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Best storage/retrieval system for images & MacBookPro
On 2014-08-12 18:54:26 +0000, PeterN said:
On 8/12/2014 1:35 PM, nospam wrote: In article 2014081208474139936-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 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. raid is not needed unless he needs high availability, which he more than likely does not. 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. 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? the original poster may have a mac, but the answer is not mac specific. the answer would be the same for someone with a 1 tb windows laptop (other than afp being highly desired). 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. 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. raid is not a backup. he didn't ask about a backup but he absolutely needs to consider that because if the server fails and there is no backup, the images are lost. Always a good idea. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mass-storage appliance for saving camera images? | Bert Hyman | Digital Photography | 22 | April 21st 07 11:14 PM |
Storage & retrieval of movie still photos? | Maria | Digital Photography | 7 | December 24th 06 05:02 PM |
Logiciel de CBIR (content based usage retrieval) | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 10th 05 03:29 PM |
Physical storage of images | dperez@juno_nospam.com | Digital Photography | 36 | November 11th 04 07:40 PM |
Weird order of retrieval from Finepix S5000 | Trentus | Digital Photography | 9 | August 3rd 04 12:44 PM |