| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Greg, speaking of following the money...
On 9/8/13 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:18:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 10:07 AM, wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:03:19 -0400, Earl wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:15:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why not RAID them? With 4 drives you can set up a fairly high efficiency array and have a soft failure of any single drive. With some controllers you don't even need to bring the system down to swap out the bad drive. The whole thing is invisible to the OS. SATA hardware itself is hot swap capable. He can't afford to pay his taxes. Do you really think he can afford a $1500 Raid controller? $1500? More like $40 and most SATA controllers support RAID. You may have to pay a little more for RAID 5 but not much My little server is running under RAID. Something called Synology Hybrid RAID (SHR) with data protection of 1 disk fault-tolerance. I'm not sure what the hell that means, actually.  That does sort of look like RAID 5. Is that "backup" drive actually just the conglomerate "wasted" drive in a RAID array? Basically RAID 5 writes "stripes" across all of the drives in the array and the way they are laid out, you have one more drive than the amount of data you can store. When you lose one, the data can be recovered from the stripes on the other drives. You can hot swap out the bad one and the system will restore the array while you work. That sort of sounds like the description I sort of read and sort of understood on the synology site. I think. Oh...the cheapo Seagate drive in my iMac was replaced with an apple-branded drive (shows up as an apple branded drive) that allegedly is a twice the price Hitachi Ultrastar drive that is "enterprise-rated" for servers. That from a fellow on one of the apple forums who had a similar problem and whose drive was replaced by one with the same apple description and model number. If apple updates the iMac substantially this fall or in 2014, I'll sell this one and get the upgrade, especially if it has a large capacity SSD instead of the combo apple now is using in the latest iMacs. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money...
On 9/8/13 11:11 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:33:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 12:21 PM, wrote: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:18:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 10:07 AM, wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:03:19 -0400, Earl wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:15:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why not RAID them? With 4 drives you can set up a fairly high efficiency array and have a soft failure of any single drive. With some controllers you don't even need to bring the system down to swap out the bad drive. The whole thing is invisible to the OS. SATA hardware itself is hot swap capable. He can't afford to pay his taxes. Do you really think he can afford a $1500 Raid controller? $1500? More like $40 and most SATA controllers support RAID. You may have to pay a little more for RAID 5 but not much My little server is running under RAID. Something called Synology Hybrid RAID (SHR) with data protection of 1 disk fault-tolerance. I'm not sure what the hell that means, actually. That does sort of look like RAID 5. Is that "backup" drive actually just the conglomerate "wasted" drive in a RAID array? Basically RAID 5 writes "stripes" across all of the drives in the array and the way they are laid out, you have one more drive than the amount of data you can store. When you lose one, the data can be recovered from the stripes on the other drives. You can hot swap out the bad one and the system will restore the array while you work. That sort of sounds like the description I sort of read and sort of understood on the synology site. I think. Oh...the cheapo Seagate drive in my iMac was replaced with an apple-branded drive (shows up as an apple branded drive) that allegedly is a twice the price Hitachi Ultrastar drive that is "enterprise-rated" for servers. That from a fellow on one of the apple forums who had a similar problem and whose drive was replaced by one with the same apple description and model number. If apple updates the iMac substantially this fall or in 2014, I'll sell this one and get the upgrade, especially if it has a large capacity SSD instead of the combo apple now is using in the latest iMacs. I am not sure all of that "enterprise" stuff really means much but Hitachi is a pretty good drive. I still don't really trust any of them. I am also not convinced SSDs last forever. "Cause nothin' lasts forever Like old fords and a natural stone..." |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money..
On 9/8/2013 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:18:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 10:07 AM, wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:03:19 -0400, Earl wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:15:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why not RAID them? With 4 drives you can set up a fairly high efficiency array and have a soft failure of any single drive. With some controllers you don't even need to bring the system down to swap out the bad drive. The whole thing is invisible to the OS. SATA hardware itself is hot swap capable. He can't afford to pay his taxes. Do you really think he can afford a $1500 Raid controller? $1500? More like $40 and most SATA controllers support RAID. You may have to pay a little more for RAID 5 but not much My little server is running under RAID. Something called Synology Hybrid RAID (SHR) with data protection of 1 disk fault-tolerance. I'm not sure what the hell that means, actually. That does sort of look like RAID 5. Is that "backup" drive actually just the conglomerate "wasted" drive in a RAID array? Basically RAID 5 writes "stripes" across all of the drives in the array and the way they are laid out, you have one more drive than the amount of data you can store. When you lose one, the data can be recovered from the stripes on the other drives. You can hot swap out the bad one and the system will restore the array while you work. I am going the other way with mirroring. It is less efficient in drive usage but even if you lose the array, you only lose that block of data. (one drive's worth) I guess I am simple... I have three external drives, all have all of my work and files, don't back up systems and programs, don't steal them, have the install disks and if I have to rebuild I like to start from scratch anyway... I do have one cloud account for two folders of recent artwork and business files too... but I really don't know much about it, I put stuff in, it backs it up at night... Supposed to be always there for me, I sure hope so |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money..
In article ,
says... On 9/8/2013 12:21 PM, wrote: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:18:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 10:07 AM, wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:03:19 -0400, Earl wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:15:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why not RAID them? With 4 drives you can set up a fairly high efficiency array and have a soft failure of any single drive. With some controllers you don't even need to bring the system down to swap out the bad drive. The whole thing is invisible to the OS. SATA hardware itself is hot swap capable. He can't afford to pay his taxes. Do you really think he can afford a $1500 Raid controller? $1500? More like $40 and most SATA controllers support RAID. You may have to pay a little more for RAID 5 but not much My little server is running under RAID. Something called Synology Hybrid RAID (SHR) with data protection of 1 disk fault-tolerance. I'm not sure what the hell that means, actually. That does sort of look like RAID 5. Is that "backup" drive actually just the conglomerate "wasted" drive in a RAID array? Basically RAID 5 writes "stripes" across all of the drives in the array and the way they are laid out, you have one more drive than the amount of data you can store. When you lose one, the data can be recovered from the stripes on the other drives. You can hot swap out the bad one and the system will restore the array while you work. I am going the other way with mirroring. It is less efficient in drive usage but even if you lose the array, you only lose that block of data. (one drive's worth) I guess I am simple... I have three external drives, all have all of my work and files, don't back up systems and programs, don't steal them, have the install disks and if I have to rebuild I like to start from scratch anyway... I do have one cloud account for two folders of recent artwork and business files too... but I really don't know much about it, I put stuff in, it backs it up at night... Supposed to be always there for me, I sure hope so Wow, this from the alleged purveyor of technical support..... |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money..
On 9/8/13 1:46 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 9/8/2013 12:21 PM, wrote: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:18:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 10:07 AM, wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:03:19 -0400, Earl wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:15:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why not RAID them? With 4 drives you can set up a fairly high efficiency array and have a soft failure of any single drive. With some controllers you don't even need to bring the system down to swap out the bad drive. The whole thing is invisible to the OS. SATA hardware itself is hot swap capable. He can't afford to pay his taxes. Do you really think he can afford a $1500 Raid controller? $1500? More like $40 and most SATA controllers support RAID. You may have to pay a little more for RAID 5 but not much My little server is running under RAID. Something called Synology Hybrid RAID (SHR) with data protection of 1 disk fault-tolerance. I'm not sure what the hell that means, actually. That does sort of look like RAID 5. Is that "backup" drive actually just the conglomerate "wasted" drive in a RAID array? Basically RAID 5 writes "stripes" across all of the drives in the array and the way they are laid out, you have one more drive than the amount of data you can store. When you lose one, the data can be recovered from the stripes on the other drives. You can hot swap out the bad one and the system will restore the array while you work. I am going the other way with mirroring. It is less efficient in drive usage but even if you lose the array, you only lose that block of data. (one drive's worth) I guess I am simple... I have three external drives, all have all of my work and files, don't back up systems and programs, don't steal them, have the install disks and if I have to rebuild I like to start from scratch anyway... I do have one cloud account for two folders of recent artwork and business files too... but I really don't know much about it, I put stuff in, it backs it up at night... Supposed to be always there for me, I sure hope so Wow, this from the alleged purveyor of technical support..... The problem with not backing up operating systems and programs is that it takes a hell of a lot of time and attention to reinstall them. When I got my iMac with the new HD in it yesterday, I ran a "Time Machine" restore, went out for lunch, and when I came back an hour and a half later, the new HD was up and running with all the contents it had on it, just as it was the day before I took the iMac up to the apple store. All I had to do was type in my system password. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money..
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 14:46:25 UTC-3, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 9/8/2013 12:21 PM, wrote: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:18:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 10:07 AM, wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:03:19 -0400, Earl wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:15:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why not RAID them? With 4 drives you can set up a fairly high efficiency array and have a soft failure of any single drive. With some controllers you don't even need to bring the system down to swap out the bad drive. The whole thing is invisible to the OS. SATA hardware itself is hot swap capable. He can't afford to pay his taxes. Do you really think he can afford a $1500 Raid controller? $1500? More like $40 and most SATA controllers support RAID. You may have to pay a little more for RAID 5 but not much My little server is running under RAID. Something called Synology Hybrid RAID (SHR) with data protection of 1 disk fault-tolerance. I'm not sure what the hell that means, actually. That does sort of look like RAID 5. Is that "backup" drive actually just the conglomerate "wasted" drive in a RAID array? Basically RAID 5 writes "stripes" across all of the drives in the array and the way they are laid out, you have one more drive than the amount of data you can store. When you lose one, the data can be recovered from the stripes on the other drives. You can hot swap out the bad one and the system will restore the array while you work. I am going the other way with mirroring. It is less efficient in drive usage but even if you lose the array, you only lose that block of data. (one drive's worth) I guess I am simple... I have three external drives, all have all of my work and files, don't back up systems and programs, don't steal them, have the install disks and if I have to rebuild I like to start from scratch anyway... I do have one cloud account for two folders of recent artwork and business files too... but I really don't know much about it, I put stuff in, it backs it up at night... Supposed to be always there for me, I sure hope so Wow, this from the alleged purveyor of technical support..... ~~ SNERK ~~ Oh boy.. his former customers didn't realize what shaky ground they stood on. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money..
On 9/8/13 2:22 PM, True North wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2013 14:46:25 UTC-3, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 9/8/2013 12:21 PM, wrote: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:18:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 9/8/13 10:07 AM, wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 22:03:19 -0400, Earl wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:15:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Why not RAID them? With 4 drives you can set up a fairly high efficiency array and have a soft failure of any single drive. With some controllers you don't even need to bring the system down to swap out the bad drive. The whole thing is invisible to the OS. SATA hardware itself is hot swap capable. He can't afford to pay his taxes. Do you really think he can afford a $1500 Raid controller? $1500? More like $40 and most SATA controllers support RAID. You may have to pay a little more for RAID 5 but not much My little server is running under RAID. Something called Synology Hybrid RAID (SHR) with data protection of 1 disk fault-tolerance. I'm not sure what the hell that means, actually. That does sort of look like RAID 5. Is that "backup" drive actually just the conglomerate "wasted" drive in a RAID array? Basically RAID 5 writes "stripes" across all of the drives in the array and the way they are laid out, you have one more drive than the amount of data you can store. When you lose one, the data can be recovered from the stripes on the other drives. You can hot swap out the bad one and the system will restore the array while you work. I am going the other way with mirroring. It is less efficient in drive usage but even if you lose the array, you only lose that block of data. (one drive's worth) I guess I am simple... I have three external drives, all have all of my work and files, don't back up systems and programs, don't steal them, have the install disks and if I have to rebuild I like to start from scratch anyway... I do have one cloud account for two folders of recent artwork and business files too... but I really don't know much about it, I put stuff in, it backs it up at night... Supposed to be always there for me, I sure hope so Wow, this from the alleged purveyor of technical support..... ~~ SNERK ~~ Oh boy.. his former customers didn't realize what shaky ground they stood on. Maybe they did. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money..
On 9/8/2013 10:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:39:11 -0400, skin a cat wrote: On 9/8/2013 12:21 PM, wrote: I am going the other way with mirroring. It is less efficient in drive usage but even if you lose the array, you only lose that block of data. (one drive's worth) I guess I am simple... I have three external drives, all have all of my work and files, don't back up systems and programs, don't steal them, have the install disks and if I have to rebuild I like to start from scratch anyway... I do have one cloud account for two folders of recent artwork and business files too... but I really don't know much about it, I put stuff in, it backs it up at night... Supposed to be always there for me, I sure hope so I guess if you don't have a lot of stuff, rebuilding the system from scratch is not that bad but I have a lot of things running and configuring all the apps is a PITA. You may not even realize you forgot to load one until you try to use it. On a windoze system you should have a C: drive image that is not too old, even if you do have RAID. I am still pretty unimpressed with Windoze backup. Yeah, I run about a dozen or so programs but I will take a week or two to rebuild when I do. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg, speaking of following the money..
On 9/8/13 11:31 PM, skin a cat wrote:
On 9/8/2013 10:56 PM, wrote: On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:39:11 -0400, skin a cat wrote: On 9/8/2013 12:21 PM, wrote: I am going the other way with mirroring. It is less efficient in drive usage but even if you lose the array, you only lose that block of data. (one drive's worth) I guess I am simple... I have three external drives, all have all of my work and files, don't back up systems and programs, don't steal them, have the install disks and if I have to rebuild I like to start from scratch anyway... I do have one cloud account for two folders of recent artwork and business files too... but I really don't know much about it, I put stuff in, it backs it up at night... Supposed to be always there for me, I sure hope so I guess if you don't have a lot of stuff, rebuilding the system from scratch is not that bad but I have a lot of things running and configuring all the apps is a PITA. You may not even realize you forgot to load one until you try to use it. On a windoze system you should have a C: drive image that is not too old, even if you do have RAID. I am still pretty unimpressed with Windoze backup. Yeah, I run about a dozen or so programs but I will take a week or two to rebuild when I do. Well, I suppose if you are unemployed and have nothing else to do, wasting a "week or two" rebuilding the contents of a computer drive is at least something to do, eh? |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Yo, Greg and John... | General | |||
| Hey Wayne and Greg... | General | |||
| Yo Greg! | General | |||
| Yo, Greg! | General | |||
| Yo Greg! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
