Barracuda 10TB

>>58056719
Lurking out of interest.

>>58056719
>RAID 1
>Did I fuck up?
wew

why do you want RAID 1?

>>58056736
the real question is why would you want anything else?

File: 1399331781047.gif (71KB, 864x496px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 864x496px

>>58056733
>>58056736

Explain yourselves you damn fools. Should I get two more and do RAID 5?

>>58056719
You fucked up with the RAID 1 part, and buying a Pro drive for consumer use. So everything.

>>58056750
You should get one more and do raid 5
Or just do raid 0
Why spend that much twice just to essentially back it up?

File: 1399334616464.jpg (127KB, 522x696px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 522x696px

>>58056753

>>58056719
Yes, you either buy cheap hitachi mechanical drives for bulk storage, or SSDs. Nothing else makes sense

>>58056719
>seagate
>10TB
>RAID

in any case, I thought the entire point of raid is data redundancy if a drive dies. this means having 20x 1TB drives in raid1 is better than 2x 10tb drives in raid1.

>>58056787
The point of raid is uptime.

File: image.jpg (149KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x1000px

>>58056787
>20 drives in raid 1
When your anime is linked to your heartrate

File: 1395167358652.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>58056787

Sure thing buddy... You must be concerned about heat, noise or power draw.

/g/ proves once again it's out of touch and full of poor people

>>58056805
>>58056795
>RAID
>Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks
>redundant
>inexpensive disks

>>58056787
>1TB written 20 times vs 10TB written twice

>>58056775
This. I really doubt that you're doing so many important calculations that you need a constantly up to date copy in case your drive fails. Just do a fucking normal incremental backup like a human.

>>58056815
>JBOD
>get the storage of one drive for the price of 20

>>58056815
Yeah, also, laptop means it must be used on a lap, because names.

>>58056815
Raid 5 is one-drive redundant, raid 6 is two-drive redundant, raid 1 basically one drive backed up to every disk
What situation are you in where you don't have time to replace one bad drive before another goes bad? How shitty are your HDDs?

>>58056815
Yeah what if 19 of your drives fail?

Bottom line is if you aren't running a server (that the world actually fucking uses, not your media server) There's no need for anything other than RAID 0, and even then it's just for organization it won't actually do anything.

>>58056852
more drives in raid = better performance

been collecting/hoarding all movies and gaymes i like since 2003
already migrated once from old nas

shits aint passed 6tb yet

>>58056898
In raid 5, 6, or 0, but not 1
Raid 1 gives you better reads and usually slightly worse writes, raid 5 gives you better read and write speeds and more capacity than raid 1 (which gives you one drive's worth of GB)
Raid 6 is basically an extended, two-drive version of raid 5
Raid 0 has no redundancy at all, gives you 100% of the capacity, and you get much better reads and writes with each disk (better than any other raid setup, but no redundancy)

>>58056923
And don't forget with raid 0, not only is it not redundant but if one drive fails, all your data on the raid array is fucked

>>58056942
this is why using raid 0 by itself is fucking retarded.

go raid10 atleast.

File: taeyeon-mdstat.png (15KB, 667x386px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 667x386px

>>58056719
Sort of, because both drives are of the same brand and model and likely from the same batch too.

>>58056750
If you can buy similarly sized drives from another brand then sure, go for it. The reason I say this is that drives from the same series / type / batch have a tendency to fail under the same conditions and/or the same wear and tear. If two drives die at the same time in a 4 drive raid5 array then you'll be looking for those backups and perhaps realize that you saved something important to you the last few days.

>>58056825
Raid is not backup. That's not the point of it.

>>58056923
What you are saying about raid1 really depends on the workload. If you do a lot of random reads of different files then raid1 will speed things up, specially with mechanical drives. You'll be reading one file from one drive and another from the other and with some workloads this will help a lot. It even helps when staring some random software program - but one SSD beats two mechanical drives in raid1 for that (and a lot of other things).

>>58057012
Hotswappable backup is basically the biggest point of RAID 1 with two drives

With 10tb disk you don't want conventional raid. If a disk dies, your rebuild of your new replacement disk will take a biblical huge amount of time in which other disks can (and will fail with that size) and you lose your whole raid. This is less the case with a simple two disk raid 1 as you can still read that single disk standalone from the raid, but a raid5/6 system will be lost completely. Just one (or two with raid6) corrupt sectors is enough...
As another anon said, just do incremental backups from one disk to the other.

But if your really want a raid system to secure your files, go for a freebsb or linux zfs raidz mirror, which is comparable with raid1 but a hell lot more secure against failing sectors. Zfs can repair those more easily with the build in hashing functionality. Its not even bad to lose one sector completely as only the files affected will be unavailable, the other ones are still available.

>>58057085
>linux zfs
that would require me to setup a local server to access my content though, since i definitely do not want to use linux as my main OS.

how much overhead would there be for local network access vs direct?

File: image.jpg (117KB, 900x644px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 900x644px

>>58057085
I am a cynical 4chan poster and find nothing wrong with this post

>>58056719
>it will take over 18 hours for you to fill up just one of those drives
>at less than 15% free space the HDD will slow to a crawl, meaning you're losing 1.5tb of potential space
why even bother? shit is stupidly slow, will take forever to defrag, and will fill up in no time if you try to hoard as much as possible.

>>58057112
With raid 1 using only two HDDs, I'm sure it would be the same

>>58057072
If you have 3-4 drives to use for your raid1 array and you replace one or two of the raid1 drives regularly then sure, that's fine. Some do this.

If you just have two drives in a computer in raid1 then that's not backup, generally raid isn't. If you overwrite some important file and you need a copy of it then you're shit out of luck unless you have a backup of it somewhere. And yes, you can make sure you have that with a raid1 array where you hot-swap one of the drives with one or two others regularly.

>>58057132
It's a backup against random drive failure, not your own stupidity
I'm sure these are the same people who backup their drives after they get a virus

>>58057121
Nice, however I plan on doing it with around 10 drives.

Since this is technically software raid, do you know if ZFS will allow me to RAID HDD's of different sizes and existing data on them? Would save me $1000

File: freenas.png (73KB, 1910x557px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1910x557px

You really dont want to use raid anymore

When your looking at Raid vs ZFS or other checksum file systems your looking a night and day diffrence

Raid is a parity system that puts trust in the disks and with 10TB of shit rattling around in there in the coming years there may be files that you dont access in months

The controller or the software raid in a machine trusts that the disks are working and their only info otherwise is if the smart data tell the OS or the controller that there is a issue.

Files can become corrupt there can be errors in the disk especially these new high capacity and shingle drives and the bad data will just be Copied back and fourth and when you access the file it will be corrupt as there was no checks along the way

ZFS or freenas or whatever else you choose checkes the data regularly and doesn't trust the disks

If your network doesn't suck, as in you have a gigabit network, then it will be as fast as a local raid1.

>>58057114
Found one myself (^:
freebsb -> freebsd

>>58057175
Nope, existing data will be overwritten as it will be formatted. And the raidz 5 array will be the size of the smallest hard disk x amount of total disks - 1 roughly.

>>58057175

you can but the effective size the disks can use will be limited to the smallest drives capacity

unraid is best for random pile of shit drives but only has one disk loss redundancy

>>58057112
>>58057207
Forgot quote

>>58057201
Exactly as this anon also says.

You have multiple options for OS.
Freenas is freebsd based and gives you a very easy GUI.
With Linux you can use OpenMediaVault but you have to install the zfs plugin manually, which can be daunting for the inexperienced.

>>58057175
JBOD mah nigga, just plug them all in and don't tell anybody

>>58057175

Those 10tb drives would make a great secondary backup to the main array

I use 3x6tb drives in ZFS1 as backup to my main 14x3TB ZFS3 array

>>58057207
>14x3TB
Why do you have this much storage?
What do you hoard?

>>58057287
Not the anon >>58057270 which you meant, but I have too a reasonably huge storage.

6x4tb, 5x2tb, 3x700gb (old disks which just dont die).
And a few zfs 1tb single disks in pc's. This way you know which file fails even if you don't have redundancy to repair it.

>>58057346
Well what exactly are you using all this space for? And here I thought I was king of /g/ for having 30TB

File: 2016-12-18 03_07_05-Program Manager.png (208KB, 1162x490px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1162x490px

>>58057287

1080p rips of complete TV series over 400 BR-rips

Got Kodi setup on a Nvidia Shield

>>58056719
Seagate's 1st, 2nd or 3rd batch of a new product, FUCK THAT MATE NO LOL

>>58057397
What's the most recent stuff in the movies?

>>58057397
>storing tv shit "just in case"
put your house on fire and shoot yourself while being inside

>>58057433
I agree, he could be storing something worthwhile, like books or other forms of human knowledge that it would be a tragedy if lost. But no, let's store some shitty TV.

What makes new Barracuda drives special? I mean the ones that 2TB and a little bit more.

File: you-in-trouble-with-mpaa-why-not-mpaa-thumb.jpg (12KB, 305x303px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 305x303px

>>58057425

Nice try MPAA

>>58057452
Awh, come on, just one more fine and I get my own office!

>>58057433

>Implying this is all the folders in my 30TB array

File: Chris_Hansen.png (48KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 183x275px

>>58057467
That sure is A LOT of CP, anon.

File: pizza-box-stack.jpg (144KB, 610x439px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 610x439px

>>58057487

>>58057433
this.

here I was thinking he had an expansive array of collections. but no, its just bloated tv series.

>>58057515
I was hoping for software and books.

>>58057446

>implying that critically acclaimed Film and TV canceled shows and documentaries are not worthwhile

not like I'm storing hentai

There is no fucking way RAID 5 will rebuild with 10TB disks. If you must go RAID 10

Poor choice due to $/GB.

>>58057532
As worthwhile as scientific, engineering; mathematics or information technology knowledge? No? I didn't think so.

>>58057524

Used to store Software it has no use for me with sites like oldversion

I used to professionally scan hundreds of textbooks. unbind, scan and OCR. I think I helped enough.

>>58057567
>Textbooks.
Granted, though I don't suppose you'd be in the mood to give away any of those digital copies, mhm?

File: 2016-12-18 03_27_26-Рип библиотеки_ it-ebooks.info - 2014.12 [PDF, ENG] __ RuTracker.org.png (387KB, 1878x609px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1878x609px

>>58057557

Ill nest this in next to the Bee Movie for you

>>58057532
>mfw 3tb of doujin
>2tb of booru* siterips
>3tb of dlsite h-content/games
>1tb of h-ovas
thats just my hentai collection. i havent even calculated my regular porn and my 'other' porn

>>58057610
Which forum? Thank you though.

>>58057652
rutracker

File: 59dae_WESTERN-DIGITAL-696x392[1].png (177KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 696x392px

>>58056719
1 of these drives cannot fit all of my stuff.

>>58057714

taking half a month to copy a drive to full at gigabit ethernet speeds

no thanks

>>58057688
Thank you.

>>58057714
>WD

lel no

If youre gonna go expensive drives you might as well go hitachi drives or nothing.

>>58056719
>Did I fuck up?

Next time ask BEFORE buying.
Anyway, as long as you don't Raid0 meme yourself and monitor SMART data, your OK.

>>58057768
He should Raid 10 and I ain't even memeing.

>>58057766
Except Hitachi was bought out by fucking WD and renamed HGST or Hitachi Global Storage Technologies.

>>58057833
What a terrible name.

>>58057833

They still make their own drives, and wd makes their own drives too.

do
not
buy
wd

you might as well go full plebian and get a mac

>>58057844
It says HGST right on the FUCKING DRIVE you retard.

>>58057855
are you dumb or what

>>58057844
It's an UltraStar not a Caviar.

>>58057844
Hitachi's 3.5" drive lines were split and sold to Toshiba during the merger.

WD retained the 2.5" manufacturing lines while Toshiba got the 3.5"

Hitachi's brand name went to WD.

There is no Hitachi left.

File: 1434694949029.jpg (36KB, 400x418px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x418px

>>58056719
>I just ordered two of these for RAID 1 storage... Did I fuck up?
You just don't know how fucking much...

File: HGST.png (57KB, 1414x257px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1414x257px

As such, as of October 19, 2015, HGST is a Western Digital brand, and no longer a separate entity.

File: 385559_v01_b[1].jpg (107KB, 626x900px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 626x900px

What makes this one special? Pic related.

>>58057911
It's named after a fish?

>>58057925
No seriously. This new Barracuda is in a top 10 amazon hard drives.

>>58057911
>>58057940
To be honest, I think it is all over-hyped bullshit. I'd just stick with a normal decent HDD, or in my case a SSHD that I managed to kill 200GB of via Gutmanning it.

File: images.duckduckgo.com (51).jpg (17KB, 450x370px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 450x370px

>>58056719

>SMR

you dun goofed

>>58057911
Wow, who would think a 2TB mechanical drive made sense at this point?

>>58057911

it's a meme with $30 price premium over regular 2TB hard drives to get retards to fork over extra money, just like Western Digital's equivalent "WD RED/WD BLACK"

>>58058023
>>58058020
What if it cost the same as WD Blue?

>>58058020
You'd be surprised the sheer amount of people who opt for a 1TB drive instead of a 2TB drive just to save a few bucks at the shop, but yeah the 2TB models is one of the most popular capacities with similar price to 240/256G SSDs.

So 240/256G SSD + 2TB HDD is one of the more popular combos.

>>58058023
Except the differences between the Red, Black and Blue drives are substantial.

>>58058012

oh fuck, it's actually the regular normal PMR technology

you done good OP

Sorry I jumped the gun, it's just that Seagate uses SMR very much. Western Digitals Helium 12TB version is also PMR but their 14TB is SMR

http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/barracuda-senpai/barracuda-new/en-us/docs/100804071c.pdf

>>58056719
Should have bought 6. Mirror 3 of them and with one spare. Then have the last two in external closure for rotating backups.

If your data is remotely important that is.

>>58058066

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE HIROSHIMAAAAAAAA!!!!!

it has "f_a_m" without the underscores in the website link but of course it gets automatically changed by gook moots faggot algorithm

glad i didn't cave in an bought a 4chin pass

File: 68708461.jpg (15KB, 251x206px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 251x206px

It looks like there is a lot of smart people knowing shit about HDD's ITT. Please tell me should i get new 3TB BarraCuda or 3TB WD Blue? Same price, same cache. BarraCuda is 7200rpm and WD is 5400rpm.

>>58058066
>barracuda-senpai

Perfect

>>58058097

Not an expert enough to choose, but keep in mind that the WD Blue "Low Power" are rebranded WD Greens. This is because Western Digital phased out the Green line (probably because of the bad press regarding head parking every 8 seconds resulting in premature death since hard drives have a limited number of times it can do that).

You probably could use WD's official "wdidle3.exe" DOS program to change that behavior (I did on my 3TB WD Green (from 8 seconds to 500 seconds (since permanently removing the parking is bad, apparently))).

>>58058139
They use the green line for low capacity SSDs now.

You don't need wdidle3 on newer green drives, I have two of them and they both don't have the head parking problem out of the box.

>>58057383
haha yeah, go to hard forum and be ready to be amazed.
50+ tb build topic: https://hardforum.com/threads/h-ard-forum-storage-showoff-thread-2015.1847026/

Mostly complete steam library backup, all console game backups (PS2/PS3/PSVita/PSP/Wii), visual novels, movies & series (also /a/), music, virtual machine images etc

Is there any practical difference between RAID01 and RAID10 or are they just the same thing in reverse order?

>>58057616
are you me?

File: 1477611591508.jpg (70KB, 640x379px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x379px

>>58056739
Because raid 10 is a thing

>>58056805
THEN RAID CONTOLLER FAILS. CHEKCKMATE!

>>58058576
>SWAP OUT RAID CONTROLLER FOR BACKUP
>ACTUAL CHECKMATE

>>58056783
>cheap hitachi mechanical drives
cheap seagate drives actually

Seagate is the manufacturer that most data centers seem to use the most. We also use seagate for all of our big RAIDS.

>Why?
It's the least expensive per GB. You don't need overpriced enterprise jew drives when you have RAID and backup

>>58058217
>that fucking watermark at the bottom

what is this, fucking 9gag?

File: P1140017.jpg (416KB, 1225x1632px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1225x1632px

pls

>>58056852
>>58056815
>>58056795
RAID isn't just about uptime. It's also about

1. protecting yourself from data loss since the last full backup
2. bit rot / file corruption.

Because let's face it, you don't exactly do full backups every minute either, and if you're using only a single drive for your live media then bit rot will just get propagated to your backups as well.

There's no sane reliable storage solution that doesn't use both RAID *and* backups to an independent system.

WTF is bit rot? Please don't tell me there's something else to worry about.

>>58056719
Just run it raw. It's a 10TB with helium in it. Built to last.

>>58058762
You need to worry about the rotational velodensity too.

>>58058762
The SATA specification allows for 1 bit flip per TB transferred

>>58058762
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=bit+rot

>>58058687
>1. protecting yourself from data loss since the last full backup
For the last time... RAID is not backup.
You should have duplicated RAID arrays at a minimum.
RAID failure cascades* are far more common than you'd think. And when they happen you need a real backup.
*When you build your array out of the same brand drives, which then all fail in a short time-span.

Make sure it is not SMR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR_bfbOTY1o

I don't believe that particular drive in OP is.

>>58058838
I don't need your meme “hurr raid is not backup” parroting. At least fucking TRY to understand my post until you knee-jerk react to any post that has “RAID” and “backup” in the same sentence.

jesus christ

>>58058619
NOT BUYING HARDWARE WITH DOUBLED RAID CONTROLLER. TRIPLE CHECKMATE.

>>58057746
You poor or what?
You don't have 100GbE yet?

File: 6048R-E1CR90L_angle.jpg (112KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 960x720px

>>58058670
You poor or what? Why don't you have the ultimate storage solution?

>>58056719
10Tb

is 2016

>>58059437
What's the year for? 10Tb drives have been around for over half a decade.

>>58059635
10 Tb is only 1.25 TB

>>58059656
That's my point.

>>58058066
>barracuda-senpai

>>58056775
>RAID 5 with 10TB drives
No you fucking idiot. RAID 5 hasn't been a good suggestion since 2010. Not even Dell has been willing to touch that shit in half a decade. RAID 6 exists entirely to deal with the fact you're going to lose all your fucking data on the rebuild of a RAID 5 array, and it deals with it like soap and water deal with gonorrhea. Really fucking poorly.

ZFS or RAID 10 with far 2 or far 3 layout. Not offset. With a normal filesystem like EXT4 or XFS. Don't fuck around with Btrfs' raid modes. Yes it's cool that you can just give it disks and say "I want this shit in raid 10 with Y copies of data and Z copies of metadata over X disks" - but storage isn't supposed to be cool, it's supposed to be stable.

File: ibm-ds8880.jpg (140KB, 654x570px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 654x570px

>>58059483
>Ultimate
how cute

>>58060309
You seem knowledgeable, can you answer this? >>58058197

>>58060342
You quoted three of my posts yet not one of them mentioned anything to do with RAID being used as a backup. Willing to bet mine are far from the only ones too. I'd also like to point out how pathetically autistic you are and that massquoting belongs on >>>/b/

>>58060309
fucking this

I wouldn't touch raid 5 for anything over 1tb drives, your chance of double failure is too high. How long do you think it would take to resilver a 10tb drive? It takes me 60 hours to resilver failed 3tb drives on zraid2. Are you going to leave your data vulnerable for a week when one of these fails?

This isn't taking into account the read error rate of these drives, which virtually guarantees data loss.

>>58056719
>HDD
>over 2tb
>shitgate
>RAID 1

You fucked up pretty much on every level

>>58056736
>why do you want RAID 1?
He wants RAID1 so he can watch his array fail when he needs to replace one drive and the other drive dies during the 3-4 days it takes to resilver the replacement.
Bye bye 10TB...

>>58060309
fucking this

File: jlydon-tits.jpg (137KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1200x800px

>>58060309
ButtHurtFS
RAID

>>58058197
So you have three RAID types here. RAID 0+1 (mirrored stripes), RAID 1+0 (striped mirrors), and RAID 10 (striped mirrors). The difference between RAID 1+0 and RAID 10 is twofold; RAID 1+0 must use an even number of four or more disks (as per the standard) while RAID 10 can use three or more. Following this, RAID 10 allows the specification of one of three 'layouts'.

A 'near' layout is identical to RAID 1+0, where duplicated data shares the same location in each mirror - so if you were to look at position 0 on multiple disks, you'd find the same data (chunk A).

A 'far' layout has that data duplicated in different positions, such that reads can be done in parallel. If you were to look at position 0 on multiple disks, you'd find different data (chunk A one one disks, chunk B on another, chunk C on another, etc).

'offset' has the data duplicated on an offset - very rarely does anyone want this since it introduced increased risks when consecutive disks fail. Like a 'far' layout you'd find different data at a single position, but it wouldn't be ordered in such a way you'd be able to read in parallel.

This is all sort of summarised, since it's difficult to illustrate how it actually looks with just words. There's plenty of guides online (including the md manpage), so I'd suggest you look at them for a better explanation.

>>58056719
Anon the fuck are you going to use them for?

>>58061039
Storing 20TB

>>58056719
I would just buy one, and use Backblaze or Crashplan. (Call me paranoid but I don't trust mdadm/raid controllers/etc that much. Also they say that if the drives are from the "same series" they tend to fail at the same time.)

>>58059483
>a possible 1.2PB in a 4U enclosure
holy fucking shit man

File: 1481403242858.jpg (69KB, 634x531px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 634x531px

How /g/ backup if raid* suck?

File: 4.jpg (78KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x450px

>>58056719
>falling for the raid meme

File: apustaja silicia gel.png (261KB, 1039x559px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1039x559px

>>58060342
>>58060335
Must feel good to be an autist

File: 1.gif (905KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 240x228px

>>58056795
>home user
>uptime
thats just wasted money. most turn off their computer when they have checked their facebook and that works fine with a single drive.

File: 1481366503061.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>58056719
This is the only pro way to backup and archive your shit.
Prove me wrong, faggots.

>>58060335
>>58060342
RAID is for what?

>>58061326
for disk failure
but it is not a backup.
Backup means duplicating data in case of fuckup caused by viruses or something.

>>58056815
i thought i got memed with the acronym, but nope.

Solid meme

>>58061349
>for disk failure
But thats what people want?

>>58057446
why would i waste space on something that i would never open? the drives aren't free so i store whatever i care about on them

>>58061392
People want what? Destroying their drives?
What the fuck are you smoking, kid?

>>58061246
Servers are wonderful and you're not doing it right if you don't have one.
>wasted money
Even my DP 2GHz PowerMac G5 from 2004 only consumes ~$10/mo while running 24/7, using modern hardware it'd be much less.

>>58061392
Its purpose isn't to retain data though, it's to keep the data online while it also sits in a properly stored backup elsewhere.

>>58061064
the fuck are you gonna use 20 TB for.
You know you can watch porn on the internet now right?

>>58061439
>I can't read

>>58061479
Yes, you clearly can't read.

>>58061462
I'm not OP but my next build's going to have 4x4TB drives. As for what I'll be storing, every TV show and movie I could ever possibly want to watch along with every song I could want to listen to and then some.

>>58061462
reminds me of a thread a few days ago where someone asked for the source of a cropped out porn video image
the original video was no longer there, but i found a torrent of it, and i seeded over 20GB of it that night, probably from people in that thread trying to get it

you can't rely on stuff to stay where they are on the web, if you want it, download it

>>58061462
>on the internet now
>now

That's the whole point lad. It's there NOW.

>>58061601
This, my old iPod's got ~60 bookmarks of porn videos and 15 or 20 of links didn't work last I checked

>>58061568
But it is fucking 18000 GB, anon.
What could need for such storage, unless you were going to Greenland for good amount of years for research or some shit, then I can't see why you could need storage of that size.

>>58061247
bretty gud

>>58060335
>>58060342
>>58061349
except it is a back-up.

were not running a nas or a server here.
you're all autistic
please kill yourself

>>58061757
>What could need for such storage
I literally just told you its purpose.

>>58061757
people have said that about any larger-than-average-for-the-time storage solutions since forever

File: 20161218_112557.jpg (2MB, 4608x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4608x2592px

>>58061247
My 17 TiB comfy premium backup

>>58061779
I will bet that you could not even fill that amount of tv shows/movies and songs at such a large amount of storage. M8 I get that it is nice to be a richfag, but come on that is way too overkill.

File: hdds.png (10KB, 173x146px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 173x146px

>tfw i have 7tb storage and no raid or backups
still no data loss and i have never done backups

File: 1458434640759.jpg (36KB, 390x388px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 390x388px

>>58061839
>click... click... click...

>>58061820
I'm already up to 6TB and have barely started. Once the drives are in I'll have shit downloading 24/7 till they're all full.
>richfag
I work at a gas station.

>>58061820
just download some flac vinyl rips and bluray movies. the flac albums are ~1gb and movies can be over 50gb

>>58061861
thats just normal on seagate drives. used to have a 200gb seagate that did that and it worked fine for many years. dropped it twice after putting it in an external enclosure and that was too much for it.

>>58061378
>Solid
no, it's hard ;^)

>>58061247
This is only good if you are shipping that off to a secure, cold storage facility.

>>58061064
>raid 1 on 10TB drives
>anything above 10TB
Senpaiugh, are you sure you know how RAID works?

>>58056719
>Seagate
Prepare for both to die at the same time.

>>58062375
I know how RAID works. Don't know why you'e asking me though, OP's the one who's putting two 10TB drives in a RAID1 array.

>buying storage space exlusively to store anime bullshit
/g/ in nutshell

>>58056719
>RAID 1
please stop the memes

>>58060309
I say this shit all the time and you retards bitch about it, why are you agreeing now?

>>58061157
How do you get 1.2PB with 90 10TB drives?

>>58061757
Yeah 18000gb raw. If you value your data then you'd use half of that to back up the other half. I have lose to 20TB raw storage but half is lost to backups.

>>58058667
it's called post-ironic shitposting gramps

>>58061247

Any more ideas like this to storage shit?

so what do you store in there ? japanese porn or some shit like that ?

>>58061757
As a photographer, I need 2x2TB storage every year... My archive is 8x2TB now, plus the personal stuff from the past 10 years, 2x2TB. So...

>>58057844
I bet you think Barracuda's have better reliability compared to WD's blacks/blues/etc

>>58061247
can you point to any links or give me any advice on how to properly store tapes?

Would greatly appreciate it anon

>>58065959
Not him but afaik you want it to be cold, dry and dark

>>58066036
yeah, I assumed that much,
I suppose include silica gel, bubble wrap and store it in an airtight plastic container.

RAID will protect you from physical drive failure. That's all it does.

If one of your drives in an array craps out, the others will either compensate by being a full copy of the data (raid1), or by computing the missing data by using parity in the case of 5 and 6. With 5/6, you have overhead in computing that parity, or using it in the case of a drive failure.

Raid5 is a terrible option with drives larger than about 1TB, as the chance of an error occurring when using that parity to rebuild the missing drive is pretty high. It's like using two books to write a third - you're counting on those two books having no typos whatsoever. If the books are bigger, the chance of having a typo in there gets exponentially higher the bigger they get. Raid6 helps a lot, but it still isn't perfect.

RAID does nothing whatsoever to protect your data against corruption ,bit rot (data getting corrupted by bits flipping on a drive over time due to time, temperature, or a bad write head), or events like ransomware. If you delete and overwrite a file or your MFTs get hosed, RAID isn't going to help you.

It also introduces some problems if you don't have a RAID controller with a battery, as data can be written to one drive, and not the other. RAID doesn't have a lot of mechanisms to deal with reading a 0 from one drive and a 1 from the other - it doesn't know which drive to trust.

For most home use, a single drive with a separate backup makes the most sense. You may not be able to keep using your computer when your drive fails, but as soon as you replace it, you're back up. If you can't deal with that downtime, feel free to use RAID1, but don't use it in place of an actual backup.

You can back up at home with a NAS or other appliance that uses RAID or a disk-aware filesystem like ZFS or BTRFS, in which case that redundancy makes sense. There's also the option of going the botnet route w/ a cloud service.

>>58066065
Consider buying hard drives, blu-rays or M-DISC instead

Tapes are not economical for small scales

>>58066372
>Tapes are not economical for small scales
simply not true
older LTO is dirt cheap

>>58066233
A simpler way of summarizing all of this is that RAID is disk-level redundancy. When it comes to data loss and corruption, you want redundancy on as high a level as possible.

* Bit-level redundancy will protect you from cosmic rays but not from a failed sector
* Block-level redundancy will protect you from a failed sector but not from a failed platter/disk
* Disk-level redundancy will protect you from a failed drive, but not from a failed controller
* Controller-level redundancy will protect you from a failed controller, but not from a failed mainboard
* Mainboard-level redundancy (i.e. machine-level redundancy) will protect you from a failed machine, but not from a fire in the rack
and so on

The higher up you can go with your redundancy, the safer you are against failure. There's not some fixed point where it suddenly starts becoming “backup”, it's more of a gradual transition based on how much you can afford to pay for your data integrity.

The second component which I have not touched upon is that a true backup is characterized not just by redundancy but also by immutability, which also comes in different levels/hierarchies. For example filesystem-level immutability will protect you from accidentally deleting files, but not accidentally nuking the block device, and so on.

The more redundant you can make your data, and the more immutable you can make it, the safer it is. Statements like “X is not backup” are total bullshit, because at what point you consider something to be “backup” is entirely your fucking opinion.

>>58060446
Im sure this is just an epic shit post but holy fuck you are fucking with my paranoia

>>58066468
Wow best post I've ever seen on /g/.

>>58067012
t-thanks

>>58056750
Raid 5 is bad.


You want raid 6 or raid z2

>>58066233
So youre saying that raid 1 isnt an acceptable home backup?
Why is that?

>>58066372
>be 2017
>tape backups are still not affordable
>mfw

>>58067282
The tape jew doesn't want you to use them unless you know what you're doing, so they don't get sued by your stupid ass for storing your tapes in your closet

>>58066468

Great summary.

Generally the hallmark of a backup is that you archive changes in data over time, whereas with redundancy you copy the data as it is on a constant basis.

The simplest backup is just a full copy of a disk or array at a point in time. If the data on the array changes, the backup doesn't. The issue with simple full backups is that they take up the full utilized capacity of whatever they're backing up for every image. If you want to do a weekly backup of a 500gb image this way, you're going to fill up a 2tb drive in a month.

The next best way is incremental backups. These write one full image, and then write what changed over time at regular intervals. If your base image is 500gb, and you change 50gb of data every week, it'll take seven and a half months to fill a 2tb drive.

Usually, you find a point where you don't need weekly backups going seven months back. You can then only keep one out of four (monthly backup), and keep the weeklies going for only a month. With this scheme, you'll have the original image, four weeklies, and 26 monthly backups. You can then do quarterly/annual backups of the monthlies.

The issue you run into with this strategy, is that you're depending on that original image to be bulletproof. The usual fix is to take full backups on a monthly basis, and run incrementals for the weeklies. This increases the amount of storage needed, but reduces the chance of total backup failure. If one backup fails, you can go back a month. Not exactly ideal, but better than nothing.


BTRFS and ZFS change the equation - they archive changes as they're written. This is great, because they're effectively backing up incrementally at a file-change level. You can restore from the exact point in time the file was changed. They also have built in redundancy as long as they have direct access to the drives they're writing data to. You don't want to use a RAID controller when running ZFS or BTRFS - use an HBA.

>>58056719
>Seagate
I hope you don't use them for backups.
You always buy Hitachi (HGST) for storage.

>>58067304
b-but thats the best place to store them

>>58066468
>>58067382
It's also important to note a point touched on by >>58066233 is the importance of checksums. Basically, redundancy alone is not enough to protect you from data corruption unless you have a method of figuring out which version of the data was the correct one

Filesystems like ZFS and BTRFS use checksums internally which allows them to checksum on the block level. So when a bit gets randomly flipped in the middle of your JPEG, ZFS/BTRFS will automatically be able to reconstruct the correct version of the image by abusing the fact that they have disk-level (and therefore also block/bit-level) redundancy in combination with checksums for all blocks.

This is a big improvement over “classic” RAID (i.e. dumb raid controllers, mdraid), and it's one of the phenomena that only happens at lower scales (because when you suffer from data corruption at a higher scale than the bit/block level, it's usually pretty damn obvious which version is “correct”)

>>58060446
sure, but RAID is not a replacement for off-site backups anyway.

>>58067498
Disk-level redundancy is weaker than site-level redundancy, yes, but not everybody can (or wants to) afford to invest into site-level redundancy, especially not for all of their data.

(For example, I want to keep my anime folder on RAID, but I can't afford offsite backups for it)

>>58061601
>>58061721
>>58061697
This.
I think everyone has "that one" video they watched a million times but ended up being losing forever because they never thought to save it.

File: 1480388891320.jpg (59KB, 497x750px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 497x750px

>>58058217
This is literally the WORST raid there is.
>False sense of redundancy
Everything is butterflies and rainbows until your motherboard raid controller decides it's had enough or if your raid controller dies.

Raid 1 = Even if your raid controller explodes into smithereens and takes on of the hard drives with it, you still have 100% of your data!

Can you add drives to a RAID6 array without losing the data? I don't want to have to wait till I've got the money for all five HDDs

>>58064137
With 14tb drives

>>58056951
Raid 0 makes a lot of sense when you are manipulating huge files that exist on mechanical storage (but in a non manipulable format) on a shelf right next to the raid array.

>>58056719
>Seagate
rip data

are you people stupid? you don't even know what type of data is going to be on this shit. how can you give a non-bullshit suggestion?

raid10 or seriously figure out a way to kill yourself.

File: 1442855962141.png (26KB, 273x200px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 273x200px

>>58056750
You should get a bunch of 1 or 2TBs and RAID them as a RAID 10 to reach your space demands.

>>58070175
>Using motherboard fakeraid
>Not ZFS on Linux or FreeNAS
Took me two weeks to properly migrate off of the mother of all mistakes: Board based fake RAID 5.
Just get a good file system with checksums and a logical volume management built right in.
As long as you have a stable CPU on a well supported architecture you're golden.

>>58057746
It'd only take 31 hours and if it's one drive you can just use SATA3 or some shit.
The only situation i can think of where this wouldn't be possible is if you're backing up an ancient NAS that doesn't even have esata or usb3

File: 1a9.gif (1MB, 446x469px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 446x469px

>>58066969
Nope, he's 100% correct.

>>58060309
This.

>>58060620
RAID 1+0 is RAID 10
You can't have striped mirrors with 3 disks. How the hell would that even work?

>>58061769
So how do you get all your data back from a RAID if you accidentally delete or wipe it all out with cryptolocker malware?

>>58070175
RAID controllers write configuration data on the drive, You can put in a new RAID controller if necessary, it detects the drives have been signed by the failed RAID controller and allow you to import the configuration. Unless you have a shitty Chinese RAID controller you got for 20 bucks.

File: 1481077440774.gif (2MB, 354x468px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 354x468px

Decent thread for once.

>>58056719
those drives would be useful for me. i have a shitty motherboard with only 4 sata ports that are all in use and theres only 1 pcie port and thats also in use.

>>58075652
>tfw 22 SATA ports and 6 PCI-e slots
I'm running out of physical room in my case's hard drive bay though

File: 1481559286640.png (86KB, 500x455px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x455px

>>58056719
made in china, with bags of sand and a bunch of cheap ass sdcards.

File: IBM3380_Hard_Drive_Assembly_1980s.jpg (162KB, 2329x1705px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 2329x1705px

>>58058020
Wow, who would think a 1GB mechanical drive made sense at that time?