Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: JasonSobel on February 04, 2008, 07:44:25 PM
-
hey folks, I'm about to purchase some more external Hard drive space. I want a network drive, so that I can access it from my windows computer, my wife will be able to access it with her mac, and an eventual third computer that will be used only for playing music. (maybe a linux box, but maybe a mac mini).
anyway, at this point, I think I'm going to go for a terrabyte. I'll probably need 2 or 3 three to get my whole music collection on there, but I've got to start somewhere, and I think 1 TB will allow me to get a sizeable portion of my Phish collection onto one drive.
I'm about to go for the 1TB version of the "LaCie Ethernet Big Disk"
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10882 (http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10882)
my only reservation about this drive, based on what I've read on the internet (about this drive specifically, and external hard drives in general), is that this drive has two 500 GB drives in it. From what I understand, this increases the chances of failure, because if one of the drives go, the whole thing is gone.
So, should I go for it? or would it be better to get two 500 GB drives (in separate enclosures, so that if one goes, the other one doesn't necessarily go with it). any thoughts?
-
I just bought one of the new silver 1TB MyBook externals. Its one drive instead of two. I had it for a week with heavy transfers back and forth on it and so far so good.
I would always be very wary of any consumer grade drive that relies on two drives to make one big one. Especially if you are going to put stuff on it that is irreplaceable.
-
I thought that I'd read somewhere that the new WD drives have some sort of software restriction that limits which files can be accessed via the ethernet connection. like it wouldn't let you read/write some types of media files. perhaps I'm wront about that, but that turned me off from the WD drives.
I would always be very wary of any consumer grade drive that relies on two drives to make one big one. Especially if you are going to put stuff on it that is irreplaceable.
everything on the drive would be replaceable. just time consuming to replace.
-
I thought that I'd read somewhere that the new WD drives have some sort of software restriction that limits which files can be accessed via the ethernet connection. like it wouldn't let you read/write some types of media files. perhaps I'm wront about that, but that turned me off from the WD drives.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/06/2119240
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/06/western-digital-netw.html
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1495&p_created=1168641440&p_sid=bLTfVJLi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NSw1JnBfcHJvZHM9MCZwX2NhdHM9MCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX2ZubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PS5hdmk*&p_li=&p_topview=1
-
I like 1tb drives..., but if it goes, thats a lot of gone data.
if its important, a dual drive mirror setup is the way to go. Otherwise I just backup all the *must not loose* data on DVD, several copies....
I lost all of my 2006 masters on my NAS drive. stay away from Netgear SC101.
fwiw...
I should have had it mirrored. but I didn't. My bad. Lots of excellent recordings never to be heard again.
-
Lots of excellent recordings never to be heard again.
dude, I thought you said that they were your tapes?
;)
-
:flipa:
-
I like 1tb drives..., but if it goes, thats a lot of gone data.
That is why I have about 3 or 4 500 GB hard drives, if one goes, I still have backups.
-
is it your 'reference copy', or a copy of something else. if it is your 'reference/only' copy, i WOULD NOT keep it on a single drive, and esp 2x500 made up to one 1tb drive, as statistically it would have twice the failure rate.
your best bet is two (or four, or 6 etc) independent external drives, that you have two copies of everything at all times. at this point it would matter less if they were 2x500 or single terabyte drives, since you have a backup. if you want to uber geek out and automate it, a RAID 1/5/6 setup would do the same thing, but it sounds like you want externals, and in that case, you gotta back it up manually.
-
thats why I back things up to DVD. put them in a case, and on the stack.
the HDD copies are for normal "use"...., and I'm certain that I'll be moving things (probably EVERYTHING) to Flash based storage in the not too distant future.
no need to run out and get on the cheap HDD bandwagon...its just one rung in the ladder of technology that we climb ...way too fast all ready.
-
and I'm certain that I'll be moving things (probably EVERYTHING) to Flash based storage in the not too distant future.
We'll have to see how things go but no way do I see flash as proven being more reliable yet...
Of course it is necessary to disinguish between active use of flash for recording vs. archival. For field recording, the flash seems kinda shakey even in comparison to all the delicate mechanics of hdisks.
And we're still a Long way from having terabytes of affordable flash for archive.. I don't think flash has been used much for long term archiving, so it is somewhat untested. A static shock is not going to destroy mag media (maybe the controller but not the media). But I'm not so sure about flash... One thing about flash is there are so many companies doing controller chipsets and combining it with memory chips, etc. So there is a lot of variety and that may be part of the reason why there are so many issues. With hard drives there are very, very few manufacturers and I'd wager the Q/A is more mature. Stories of cameras recovered from riverbeds and the flash being fine are encouraging.
I guess I have more confidence in the magnetic recording process than in flash. Opti media makes me even more nervous and not just because I buy it at sam's club. I wish mag media densities were increasing Much faster...
-
I like 1tb drives..., but if it goes, thats a lot of gone data.
My plan is to back up my large drives to a bunch of DATs ::) 8)
-
theres no way hard disks are gonna be obsolete in the next 10 years. flash will emerge as a faster alternative as it becomes cost competitive, but cheap storage will favor the hard drive for a while. 750gb drives are like $150, and we have the technology today to make 1.66 TB drives (5 333GB platters), we'll be at 2TB soon enough, and in two years they will be under $200
-
guaranteed that moving parts, spinning platters..etc will be gone and SS storage *de facto* for computer storage in 10 years. Absolutely. It will become cheaper to manufacture, thus more profitable to the big companies.
Think how long a laptop battery would last if your system ran off of a 32gb SolidState drive ? (or a 64gb, which will be next year or there after..., then 128, 258, 512, 1024 (1TB flash babby!!!).
look back 10 years and tell me what you see. You couldn't even get a 32gb HDD back then. w/the move always being towards smaller and faster, how can flash not be the clear choice ?
And also put faith in the thought that flash technology will also advance in security and reliability right along side its storage capabilities.
Solid State !
10 years ago, a system w/4gb of storage was sufficient.
now you can carry that on your keychain.