Decisions

jaket · 6 Sep 2011 at 12:09

Well im not sure what solution to go for Storage wise;

I have a PC50B with lots of 5.25" bays free.
i5 750, Asus P7P55D.

Thinking of getting 2x Lian Li EX-33B1
6x 2TB Hard-drives. Different Raid setups. 4 Drives RAID 1. other 2 non-raid.
Storage used for photos, music, movies.

Any other ideas?

haddows101 · 6 Sep 2011 at 12:37

why so many? end up bein a waste of PSU Juice, space and money

thats 12TB your lookin at??? all i can say is thats a shed load of porn!!!!

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-368-WD

or

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-097-SA

if you wanted to but i would do some SSD but its a lot of money and data to loose if it all goes wrong.....

if you can afford it maybe these would be nice http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-241-WD

a lot less storage but will benifit more imo.

Gilbert89 · 6 Sep 2011 at 12:41

High Definition Pornography Content!

I would go with the 2TB since its pure storage you are after, Scrap the SSD idea as the expence to storage ratio is appauling depending on the usage.

jaket · 6 Sep 2011 at 13:09

I forgot to mention that the RAID 1 - 4x 2tb drives = 4TB useable will be used as Primary Storage for wedding shoots, 50GB roughly per wedding.....

4TB is for documents, movies, tv shows etc.. (currently at 1.8TB)

Reaper 392 · 6 Sep 2011 at 13:21

if your using 6x 2TB drives for storage then surely raid 5 would be far more sensible?

would allow for 8TB storage, and be able to recover all the data very quickly if one of the drives fails

i am thinking correctly that a raid 5 setup with x drives uses x-2 drives for storage, one drive as a parity disk and another as a hot swap that will take the role of a failed drive arent i?

jaket · 6 Sep 2011 at 13:26

Reaper 392 said:
if your using 6x 2TB drives for storage then surely raid 5 would be far more sensible?

would allow for 8TB storage, and be able to recover all the data very quickly if one of the drives fails

i am thinking correctly that a raid 5 setup with x drives uses x-2 drives for storage, one drive as a parity disk and another as a hot swap that will take the role of a failed drive arent i?

True however I believe RAID 1 to be better data protection incase of disk failures. Yes may be more expensive but i'd rather have better data protection.

RAID 5 is single parity drive, RAID 6 is what you refer to, double parity.

I want to keep photos seperate from movies, music.

Reaper 392 · 6 Sep 2011 at 13:37

jaket said:
True however I believe RAID 1 to be better data protection incase of disk failures. Yes may be more expensive but i'd rather have better data protection.

RAID 5 is single parity drive, RAID 6 is what you refer to, double parity.

I want to keep photos seperate from movies, music.

ah fair enough. i was only one away

Admiral Huddy · 6 Sep 2011 at 14:50

I'm not a great fan of parity RAID. You could use a nested array using RAID 10 or RAID 01.

RAID 10 (or RAID 1-0) is a nested array of disks and offer striping over two arrays. Each striped disk is mirrored to another disk within the same array. This means if one of the disks fail, then the mirror will pickup the recovery with the same array. The array isn't lost. You'll need at least 4 HDDs for this but provides a combination of improved latency with a true redundancy of data.

You could also consider a 6 disk RAID 0+1 configuration. This puts three of your HDD in RAID-0 which is directly mirrored across the other 3 HDD but in a seperate array. In your case, you'd have 6GB of total storage available but like raid-0, if one disk fails in the array you'll loose the RAID volume.

I hope i've explained this ok.. Been a long time

Personally, i find all RAID setups for home pointless. A fast SSD for the OS and a JBOBs works fine.