XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on May 30, 2012 0:35:11 GMT
Hi all,
Which backup is better? Have all folders from one NAS, HDD or SDD backup in another NAS, HDD or SDD or have say Audio folder backup in one NAS, HDD or SDD and Video folder in another NAS, HDD or SDD if I only have that two folders in the original NAS? Or just go RAID and forget about backup. Also backup to Cloud?
Yeah, all ideas which you feel is your best backup strategy are welcomed as this is for BRAINSTORMING in a typical HOME IT usage envrionment.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 30, 2012 13:58:47 GMT
After working on this for 30 years and making my own backup software, I've learned a few things, some the hard way. One is to always maintain possession and control of your files. Two is if you put extra copies elsewhere, for example the cloud, never confuse the copies and never have one copy write over top of another until you've personally verified the one that's going to replace the other copy. Three is when using backup software or RAID, never allow that software to write over an existing file just because it thinks a new file is newer or better. HDD's give the best performance, security, economy ratio of all media. HDD's are virtually impervious to xrays and the like, but from what I remember can be damaged by large magnetic pulses from such things as a nuclear detonation in the upper atmosphere. I don't know if lead shielding helps any with that, but it could be worth looking into. Most electrical and electronic infrastructure today is being hardened against accidental damage and remote sabotage - it shouldn't raise the cost much.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on May 31, 2012 1:53:28 GMT
After working on this for 30 years and making my own backup software, I've learned a few things, some the hard way. One is to always maintain possession and control of your files. Two is if you put extra copies elsewhere, for example the cloud, never confuse the copies and never have one copy write over top of another until you've personally verified the one that's going to replace the other copy. Three is when using backup software or RAID, never allow that software to write over an existing file just because it thinks a new file is newer or better. HDD's give the best performance, security, economy ratio of all media. HDD's are virtually impervious to xrays and the like, but from what I remember can be damaged by large magnetic pulses from such things as a nuclear detonation in the upper atmosphere. I don't know if lead shielding helps any with that, but it could be worth looking into. Most electrical and electronic infrastructure today is being hardened against accidental damage and remote sabotage - it shouldn't raise the cost much. Thanks. Can I say it's: 1) Use HDD for the obviously the best value. 2) Set the back up software not to overwrite the older files of the same names until you investigated them like when we save files. 3) Make sufficient copies of the same files at different sites and thru employing more methods like RAID to have full control and possession of your files will be best as storage is relativedly cheap nowadays. Err, I don't think I need radiation proof as it's for home storage. Btw, I'm asking this as my relatively new (connection less than 15 hours) Hitachi 2TB NAS didn't boot up after that NAS connected to Wifi too hang after my wireless TV had accessed to it. That really scared me as I have many audio and video files in that. Fortunately, it's only corrupted TOC and the NAS booted up again after Scandisk and the auto fix to it. Phew! After today, that will change as I'm going to get another or two 3TB NAS if possible at a good price to do backup.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 31, 2012 6:03:58 GMT
That all sounds good. From past experience, I always made sure to have 3 copies of everything at least. The reason is, if I have only 2, like with 2 harddrives, then if one fails, I have total dependency on just one drive, which at that point in time could fail also. Put another way -- statistically speaking, the odds of two drives failing the same day if you select the day in advance are remote odds - not likely. But when one drive has already failed unexpectedly, and all you have left is one, the odds of that failing are much much higher than 2 drives failing. So for me, I maintain at least 3. And one sits in a bank security deposit and I rotate that out every couple of months. If you're not doing Cloud storage, then offsite storage of at least one harddrive is the best bet.
|
|
|
Post by PinkFloyd on May 31, 2012 9:01:41 GMT
Blimey Dale, I'd be more concerned with protecting "me" in the event of a nuclear detonation My "hard drive" would be the last thing on my mind.
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on May 31, 2012 11:09:10 GMT
First thing that struck me when I removed it from the box was the sheer "weight".... it's a very compact little amp measuring only 90 x 63 x 28mm (LWD) but, my god, it's a SOLID affair! You could drop this billet of aluminium from the Empire State building and it would bounce back up and knock you out..... it's the most solid "portable" I have ever seen. See what I mean? BULLET proof! This puppy won't cry out in pain if you sit on it or drop it, it's built to withstand a nuclear attack. Ok.... the enclosure is as solid as the Gibralter Rock..... At least the little Neco will survive the blast itself. Maybe not the NEMP (nuclear electromagnetic pulse), but at least the little box. Back on track: There's no such thing as absolute data protection. But you can get very close to that. One thing is the distribution of risks. If you want a good backup, then you can't rely on just one copy of the data. You have to make at least two copies. Both stored at different locations and maybe also on different media. Magnetic media has only a quite small life expectancy (think demagnetisation, headcrash, failure of the electronics), but is cheap and offers a lot of capacity (in case of harddisks). Backup tapes of all kind aren't really better than harddrives in kind of life expectancy. Optical media is at least not sensible to magnetics, but todays CD-R's or DVD+/-R's are produced very cheap. I wouldn't expect too much life expectancy from them. Magneto-optical (MO) drives are probably the best thing so far, but they are absolutely NOT common today and the capacity is small. SSD or other Flash based media are a very bad solution for keeping data over a long time: Too costly at the moment, very sensitive to electro-magnetic influences and failing electronics or a bug in the firmware could ruin all the data. At least, SSD's don't care about high G force... Today's best media for long time storage guarantee no more than 30 years of life expectancy. I'll question even this 30 years. You don't know if you can still read the media in 30 years and there's not much experience around. The quotes rely on tests in a lab with forced ageing. In the end, there's only one real solution. Keep the data at least on two media (two copies) and store them at two different places (one MUST be outside of your house/aparment). Every couple of years, you have to copy the data again on new media. You should do this on a regular base while keeping always in mind how long the life expectancy of a specific media is. Some will have a problem of course: If you don't believe in checksums and data integrity, you can't backup your stuff for the eternity. I'm so sorry about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 11:18:22 GMT
Who wants to live forever ?
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on May 31, 2012 11:34:35 GMT
|
|
funk1969
250+
Some things are so easily overlooked...
Posts: 481
|
Post by funk1969 on May 31, 2012 13:18:02 GMT
How nice...
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 31, 2012 14:39:48 GMT
Blimey Dale, I'd be more concerned with protecting "me" in the event of a nuclear detonation My "hard drive" would be the last thing on my mind. I'm thinking when we're back to the stone age after the blast, I could trade a couple of pocket harddrives for Manhattan island. It worked the first time...
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on May 31, 2012 20:51:11 GMT
Speaking as a Loss Adjuster I have a master, and then backup the master source via HD on a timetabled basis that suits your vulnerability. Apple's Time capsule is, as far as I know, the best at doing this seemlessly. Then take a third backup (which in iteslf could be son, father grandfather etc) and move it off site. I have copies of my most valuable files (which often are quite small bits of personally written data) on a 32gb pendrive. The music I can replace if destroyed. Whilst its my job I have lost track of the multiple data backups all stored near the small fire & smoke damage which destroyed them all in one go. I have, as yet, not come across a claim for data loss following a nuclear generated elctrical impulse but I still quite young.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 21:36:46 GMT
A mistress?
|
|
mrarroyo
Been here a while!
Our man in Miami!
Posts: 1,003
|
Post by mrarroyo on Jun 1, 2012 10:35:19 GMT
The files reside on my iMac, and are backed up to an external HD. I also have three additional hard drives which contain all my data and are only connected about one a month or when I have more than 1 GB of new stuff. A bit overkill but ...
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Jun 1, 2012 13:04:41 GMT
The files reside on my iMac, and are backed up to an external HD. I also have three additional hard drives which contain all my data and are only connected about one a month or when I have more than 1 GB of new stuff. A bit overkill but ... I don't think so after what I had gone thru .................
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Jun 3, 2012 1:05:21 GMT
So the change .................... 1st stage! I'm waiting for WD 3TB, to try all brands, to go USB 3 at a good price before getting another NAS. More to come as backup strategy goes full steam ................... Thanks all for your suggestions. Btw guys, what brands of NAS you have tried that gives you the best satisfaction? Yeah, least problem with Win 7 64 bits. This bloody Seagate NAS I bought on first plug in was not recognised by my laptop until a 2nd try and Win 7 went into installing the driver that was best for this Seagate. I also naturally did the scandisk before using to make sure this new drive was good but the drive hang at the last few clusters of processing. Damn it!
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 3, 2012 3:03:02 GMT
I use Toshiba drives. I'm afraid of Seagate and WD after reading too many failure stories on pro photo forums.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Jun 3, 2012 6:13:11 GMT
I use Toshiba drives. I'm afraid of Seagate and WD after reading too many failure stories on pro photo forums. Thanks. I think I may give the WD a miss then and go for another brand. I'm sure the Hitachi was formerly an IBM drive. My laptop is also using a Hitachi 500GB HDD and so far after close to a year of daily usage, still going strong and have not crashed and deserted me yet.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 3, 2012 12:21:03 GMT
Hitachi sounds good to me. Could even be OEM from Toshiba or another Japanese manufacturer.
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on Jun 3, 2012 15:11:28 GMT
Chong, the external harddrive in the picture above doesn't seem to be a NAS. "NAS" means "network attached storage". You've bought an external harddisk ("external drive" is even mentioned on the box). Regarding harddrives, you'll have soon only the choice between crap and crap. Seagate and Western Digital are notoriously known for their unreliable drives. Samsung, which made good harddrives, was acquired by Seagate. Hitachi makes also good drives, but Western Digital wants also acquire Hitachi. Hitachi still makes harddrives, but that's only because market regulators have stopped the Hitachi/WD deal. I don't know how the current state of the affair is. Seagate makes also reliable harddrives (SAS or SATA 24/7) series, but that a premium price point. After announcing the Seagate/Samsung and WD/Hitachi deals, both Seagate and WD have lowered their warranties. If you want real data protection, you'll need the data at least on two drives/places. You could buy a NAS which supports RAID1, but mirroring disks isn't exactly a backup, it only increases the availability of a system. Think of lightning strikes, software/firmware/virus problems. If your apartment is burning, everything would be lost unless you have a copy outside of your apartment. It's simply not enough to have the data only on one system/media. If you really want a easy to use and quite reliable NAS, I'd point you to Synology. They make very user-friendly NAS systems and have a good reputation. You can also choose from a lot of models. I own three Synology NAS system (DS107+, DS508, DS209+). I've seen also some QNAP NAS systems, they are also not bad. If you want more options for tuning and configuration, you'll should also look at QNAP. Generally, Synology will probably the better deal. www.synology.com/I'm not a fan of cloud computing, but, depending on the provider, a backup on cloud storage could be also an idea if you want something simple at home (an external HD for example).
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on Jun 3, 2012 15:22:47 GMT
Hitachi sounds good to me. Could even be OEM from Toshiba or another Japanese manufacturer. Hitachi had acquired the former IBM harddrive branch. They make very good drives and have no relation with Toshiba. The big player is Hitachi and NOT Toshiba. If someone would make OEM drives for Toshiba, then it's Hitachi (and not the contrariwise). Toshiba itself was mostly active with notebook harddrives and was not one of the major players in the HD market. They've acquired some manufacturing capities form WD recently: storage.toshiba.com/docs/press-releases/hddtransaction_release.pdf?sfvrsn=12(download the PDF) www.toshibastorage.com/I'm almost sure that WD was forget to sell some plants by market regulators to make the deal with Hitachi possible. At the moment, if you buy a 3.5" Toshiba drive, you'll get a WD drive with Toshiba label. The stuff is made in Thailand. So much about quality of the current Toshiba drives. Their notebook drives had a good repuation though. But those drives are not made in former WD manufacturing facilities. IMO: Forget about Toshiba at the moment for 3.5" SATA or SAS drives. Perhaps they will make something good in the future. I'd recommend their own 2.5" harddrives though.
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on Jun 3, 2012 15:26:15 GMT
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Jun 4, 2012 1:14:16 GMT
the external harddrive in the picture above doesn't seem to be a NAS. "NAS" means "network attached storage". You've bought an external harddisk ("external drive" is even mentioned on the box). Thanks for that pointer! Actually, by real definition and usage, how do we differentiate a NAS from an external drive? I keep on using NAS as an external drive as that was what I was using to refer to many years ago. Until now I'm still using that. So please let me make the CORRECT change from your clarifiaction. Regarding harddrives, you'll have soon only the choice between crap and crap. Seagate and Western Digital are notoriously known for their unreliable drives. Samsung, which made good harddrives, was acquired by Seagate. Hitachi makes also good drives, but Western Digital wants also acquire Hitachi. Hitachi still makes harddrives, but that's only because market regulators have stopped the Hitachi/WD deal. I don't know how the current state of the affair is. Seagate makes also reliable harddrives (SAS or SATA 24/7) series, but that a premium price point. After announcing the Seagate/Samsung and WD/Hitachi deals, both Seagate and WD have lowered their warranties. Yup, once I Plug & Play the Seagate HDD and recieved a Plug & Don't Play initially as well as the hang up during Scandisk, I really don't have much confidence in the Seagate I bought. But I'm going to use it anyway until I get a 3rd NAS or external HDD. In fact when I surfed to the Seagate support forum after the didn't play episode, I saw so many complaints instead of praises there that I was underwhelmed about Seagate now. With Dale and your comments on this issue, I'm going to move away to other brands other than Seagate or WD if possible. If you want real data protection, you'll need the data at least on two drives/places. You could buy a NAS which supports RAID1, but mirroring disks isn't exactly a backup, it only increases the availability of a system. Think of lightning strikes, software/firmware/virus problems. If your apartment is burning, everything would be lost unless you have a copy outside of your apartment. It's simply not enough to have the data only on one system/media. Yup, that's what I'm going to do from the comments of all the people in this thread. First layer will be the external HDDs. Second layer will be a REAL NAS configured for RAID 5 (The best from what I had read some time ago and if I remembered correctly) like Synology or QNAP. I think I will go towards Synology as locally the Synology DS1511, if if I remember correctly, is the favourite AV NAS in the local hifi scene. If you really want a easy to use and quite reliable NAS, I'd point you to Synology. They make very user-friendly NAS systems and have a good reputation. You can also choose from a lot of models. I own three Synology NAS system (DS107+, DS508, DS209+). I've seen also some QNAP NAS systems, they are also not bad. If you want more options for tuning and configuration, you'll should also look at QNAP. Generally, Synology will probably the better deal. www.synology.com/Yup, in my radar screen. Only will happen when I'm earning again or rob the nearest bank. The latter option will guarantee it not happening as I will be a jail bird. Only consolation is that I don't have to worry about meals. I'm not a fan of cloud computing, but, depending on the provider, a backup on cloud storage could be also an idea if you want something simple at home (an external HD for example). Actually, cloud can also be a good option if cheap enough as don't forget our NAS or external HDDs don't last forever. We also need to scan the HDDs and do maintenance as well now and then. Cloud can forget about those and remembering to backup to several HDDs or a REAL RAID NAS. ;D All these are cost and time to us as well.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Jun 4, 2012 1:25:37 GMT
Hitachi had acquired the former IBM harddrive branch. That's correct. I was also from Ministor doing 1.8" HDDs and after that firm closed, the whole manufacturing team went to setup IBM HDD facility in Singapore. I didn't go with that team as I went to Malaysia to venture. Much later, IBM HDD Manufacturing was acquired by Hitachi.
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on Jun 4, 2012 1:41:03 GMT
The problem with cloud computing is that you don't have a real control over your data in the end. If the Internet connection fails, you'll lose also connection to your cloud provider.
It's also not a good idea to store ripped music files in the cloud (think of copyright and legal mumbo jumbo).
About RAID5/RAID6: These RAID levels are a good thing for real server installations, but I wouldn't recommend them for a NAS. Why? Three reasons: A NAS system usually needs a long time to recreate a failed disk from parity data. That means it could take days in a worst case scenario. While recreating a failed disk, the risk of total data loss is massively increased. One disk at a time can fail with RAID5, while a RAID6 array survives two failing disk. Second reason: single disks within a RAID5/6 setup can't be read elsewhere. It would be possible sometimes to move the whole RAID5/6 setup to a Linux computer to access the data, but especially Synology uses modified filesystems that don't comply exactly with standards. This could be also a problem for RAID1 or a single disk setup, but it would be a lot easier. Last reason: The speed of a single 3.5" harddisk is already much faster than the maximum bandwidth of Gigabit-Ethernet (125MB/s in theory, pratical limit is around 112.5MB/s if you subtract around 10% for overhead and the best benches I've seen so far are around 110MB/s). I have a current Seagate 3.5" harddrive here with 2TB capacity. Peak transfer rates in the fastest media zone are approx. 206MB/s. You don't need RAID5/6 for better performance in a NAS. Even those with more than one Gbit-Enet port don't benefit much. The trunking of two or many Gbit-Enet ports needs also special Enet switches that support trunking (I have such hardware at home). It doesn't makes sense at all for a single client since most client only have one Gbit-Enet port. You'd have also to make sure that you can trunk your ports in the OS. Not every OS supports this out of the box.
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on Jun 4, 2012 1:49:39 GMT
I've tested various RAID configurations on my DS508 a long time ago. I've had a RAID5 setup first, but I've switched to RAID1 later. Sure, I've lost capacity, but I've got reliability. Reading performance was about 10MB/s better with RAID5 (max. around 85MB/s with jumbo frames enabled on the NAS, switch and client), but writing was only around 50MB/s since the little CPU of the NAS had a lot to do with the RAID5. With RAID1, I've got around 75MB/s for reading and writing with less CPU load on the NAS. For me it was the better compromise. The NAS systems that are currently sold have better CPU performance of course, but the main limit for speed is still Gbit-Enet and the switching hardware. If you switch doesn't support jumbo frames, you can hardly reach over 50-60MB/s.
BTW: The (quite old) disks I'm using in my NAS systems deliver around 95MB/s in the fastest media zone. I've used Samsung F1 disks with 750GB or 1TB capacity. Even one single disks would give you better performance if connected to a local SATA controller in your PC.
|
|