Most practical way to store 1.6 terabyte of data?

GizmoCC

Junior Member
Aug 9, 2004
20
0
0
Ok. This issue has been nagging me for a very long time.
I am a dedicated collector of movies and anime. Over the years my collection has reached a big size. I have everything backed up on CDs... but I want to move all my stuff to harddisks now.

A friend of mine told me I'd need RAID5 for this. He said I'd also need to buy a special RAID controller and an extra PSU (can a PC have 2 PSUs????)
Cost is definately a big issue for me here.
I was thinking of getting a mobo with 4 ide slots and just connecting 8 200-250gb harddrives on them. But yea, this seems like a rather unintuitive solution. What ya think?
I am assuming the RAID5 idea is better.
Lets assume I go for the RAID5 option.... is there a limit or restrictions to the amount of harddisks I can connect? Do all my harddisks have to be of the same size? Could I buy a few 200gb hds and several 80gb harddrives and connect them all up? Do I need an extra PSU?
I intend on using IDE harddrives only.

If someone can give me some recommendations or advice it'll be greatly appreciated!

Regards
 

Arcanedeath

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2000
2,822
1
76
I'd suggest buying a 3ware raid card that fits your needs and 5 of the 400GB 7k400 Hitachi HDDs and set up a raid 5 array that would be the cheapest way to do it, but due to formating capasity it gets you more like 1.45-1.5TB formated so you might need 6 drives as w/ raid 5 you get the capasity of all the drives minus one. Hope this helps.... :)
 

Arcanedeath

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2000
2,822
1
76
Also FYI about the PSU, if you have a quality 450+ watt PSU and a normal system it should be able to handle the 5 or 6 400GB drives + controler. Hope this helps... :)
 

Ryoga

Senior member
Jun 6, 2004
449
0
0
To answer your basic RAID questions:
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_05.html

RAID 3 would also work for you, and might be cheaper. Keep in mind that hard drives are not considered reliable long-term storage methods. Your best bet is DVD±R and a controlled atmosphere storage location.
 

GizmoCC

Junior Member
Aug 9, 2004
20
0
0
Hitachi/IBM drives have a bad rep so I wanna stay away from them.

A small question regarding RAID5.... why do I need 1 extra hd? What is its purpose? Also, how will the computer behave incase one of the drives fails?

And.... no one mentioned anything about simply using 4 IDE slots?

Thanks for your assistance!
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
why RAID5 and not RAID0? or no raid at all?

only real benefit with a RAID5 is performance, which I don't think you'd be likely to notice if all you're doing is playing movies. and with any kind of raid (especially 0 and 5), you're introducing a lot of potential issues like drive failure. if you have them all backed up on CD, it'd be a lot easier to recover from a single, non-raided drive failing than it would be to rebuild the entire RAID and restore them all from CD.
 

GizmoCC

Junior Member
Aug 9, 2004
20
0
0
Good point Loki.
I dont need performance. All I want is a stable system which has 8 BIG harddrives running.
So, what do you suggest?
Do you know any mobos with 4 or more IDE slots? I really need all the IDE connectors I can get. I dont care about the overall system much. I dont want to buy any expensive ram or cpu or anything.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
For such a large collection, I would seriously recommend you go with the RAID route. The number of hard drives here is too large to use without some sort of protection(odds of failure increase too much), so RAID 5 would seem to be the best bet. Things get a little tricky though in storing the number of hard drives you'd need; with the 400GB Deskstar(which is looking to be a good HD, BTW), it's 5 of those suckers, which is difficult to store in a normal computer case, but since SCSI is out of the question, you can't go with just an external drive case. What you're looking at if you go this route would be a $400 ATA RAID card(would have to be an 8 device card), a case big enough for the drives, a beefy power supply, and the drives. It isn't cheap, but 1.6 TB needs some redundancy.

Your other option would be to go about it like you said with a motherboard that has built-in RAID(and hence 4 ports allowing 8 devices), but since it will lack RAID 5, it means you won't have any sort of reasonable data protection. The motherboard will be a little spendy, and you'll still need the large case and beefy power supply; you'll have to worry about data integrity, and since everything will be across multiple volumes, there will be wasted space where you have a few gigs on a drive, but it isn't enough to store a whole series. Either way, it'll be a couple hundred cheaper at best, there is no "cheap" here.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: loki8481
why RAID5 and not RAID0? or no raid at all?

only real benefit with a RAID5 is performance, which I don't think you'd be likely to notice if all you're doing is playing movies. and with any kind of raid (especially 0 and 5), you're introducing a lot of potential issues like drive failure. if you have them all backed up on CD, it'd be a lot easier to recover from a single, non-raided drive failing than it would be to rebuild the entire RAID and restore them all from CD.

doesnt raid 5 have parity?
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
I think loki might have got RAID 0 and RAID 5 mixed up.

RAID 0 is not actually RAID, as you get no data protection - 1 drive failure and everything is toast.

RAID 5 gives additional performance (over no raid) and additional reliability (a single drive can fail and the RAID system will continue operating as normal). You can then replace the drive when possible, and the system will automatically copy the data back onto it, bringing the system back to full reliability.

However, you do need to have a 'parity' drive to store data needed to recover from a drive breakdown. i.e. you would need 5 400 GB drives for a 1.6 TB array - or you could use 8 250 GB drives for a 1.75 TB array.
It is recommended that all drives be the same size and model in order for optimal performance and best capacity.

Most motherboards with RAID do not have RAID5. While RAID5 can be done in software, a hardware RAID card is recommended for best stability and reliability - however, the powerful CPU needed for RAID makes these cards expensive. I think an 8 port SATA RAID card is about $500-600 - slightly less for PATA RAID.
 

GizmoCC

Junior Member
Aug 9, 2004
20
0
0
I appreciate all your replies. Upon further thought I think a RAID solution is beyond my budget.

Thing is folks, I already have my whole collection backed up on CDs.. and will continue to back them up on CDs. these harddrives will be my secondary store. So, I think I can compromise a some redundancy for cost here. rigth?

Since this system will mainly be for storage only. I intend on using a low-end CPU.
I will get a GOOD/stable mobo which can "somehow" connect ATLEAST 8 200gb harddisks. If I can get on-board sound and video then that will be even better. Maybe 256mb of DDR ram.
However, I will get a GOOD PSU and a GOOD vetilated case.
What do you guys think? Will a low-end system be able to handle this? Keep in mind I dont intend on running a file server or anything. Ofcourse my PC will be constantly downloading/uploading stuff on broadband. I will also do extensive CD-burning... but I dont think these tasks are CPU intensive.

Please, your feedback is appreciated a lot.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Budget smudget. You really need to shop better! ;) I work an $8 an hr job as a security guard and I have a pretty decent fileserver myself. You could easily double-up on mine!

I've been using the Promise SuperTrak SX6000 6-channel RAID5 card. It can be had for around $150 on eBay and supports up to 256MB of SDRAM cache memory with the latest BIOS (Standard DIMM). Most sellers either include 128MB (The previous maximum) or none, but you will need at least 32MB.

Originally posted by: Arcanedeath
I'd suggest buying a 3ware raid card that fits your needs and 5 of the 400GB 7k400 Hitachi HDDs and set up a raid 5 array that would be the cheapest way to do it, but due to formating capacity it gets you more like 1.45-1.5TB formated so you might need 6 drives as w/ raid 5 you get the capacity of all the drives minus one. Hope this helps.... :)

HA! Yeah, right. 120GB IDE is the sweet-spot for RAID5. WD 1200JB drives keep dropping as low as $39 after rebate at Circuit City! I just bought two more last week for even less, much less, after pricematch to OfficeMax. :) I buy 'em nearly every time they get cheap and have been doing so for nearly a year. As a result, I now have ten (Count 'em! 10. One Zero.) of them! I've been running six of them in a RAID5 array for some time. I plan on trading them for 7k400 400GB drives once I get enough.

GizmoCC: Get some friends to receive the rebates for you or fill out some address forwarding forms at the US Post Office so you can buy more than one per sale (Luckilly, I was moving often this past year and had three addresses for the majority of this!). Sweet!

I suggest getting two of these cards + 2x256MB SDRAM modules + 1 freakin' huge and insane PSU and two RAID5 arrays of 720GB each striped in a RAID0 using Windows XP Pro's built-in software RAID. You will loose 240GB of data total from the array but you will have double the fault-tolerance and nearly double the speed of a single RAID5 array (Possibly more than double when you factor in the reduced RAID5 overhead and second dedicate processor). It's even better than a 12-channel card because you have two dedicated processors handling the XOR operations and twice the supported cache memory (The card was originally only up to 128, so 512MB is really 4x that) :) Imagine how much cache memory that totals to! 608MB!

There are some nice drive cages that can fit five drives in three 5.25" CD-ROM bays with fans to cool them and rubber grommets to dampen the vibration. You'll probably want a few, but the place selling the best for a good price is having credit card fraud issues last I heard even though people are getting their merchandise so I will only link if you have a 1-time use card number to order or happen to live in the area for local pickup (I think it was Ohio). They were CHEAP and hopefully still are (You had to add a case to your cart, add it as an accessory then remove the case and check out). Something like $24. Heck, you don't even need that. I bought these drive cage extenders (Installed) at CompUSA for $10 and this Zalman thin fan (Installed) for pretty cheap and found a couple chipset fans to vent the top of the stack through the normal double-drive cage vent holes (Not shown, installed after pictures taken).

I used an Antec TruePower 430w PSU for mine but I'd suggest the best TruePower available for yours. I was ticked off that it had less connectors than the manual and the review sites because they sacrificed two connectors for a so-called "SerialATA upgrade" where they included those pseudo-SATA power connectors that are missing the new 3.3v lines rather than just include a freaking adapter like everybody else but it actually turned out better. Most SX6000 cards include the power splitters but my used one did not so I found a long extention cable with several in-line plugs on it that would power most of my drives with neat cabling. I have no pictures of that either, but you can use these to make your own like this.

It may take a long time to piece it all together while deal hunting but you'll need it to stock up on cheap drives anyway so I'll go ahead and try to put out my little estimate... About $150x2=$300 for two SuperTrak SX6000 cards with memory plus I dunno about $20 for shipping so that's $320 so far. Sounds steep, but you do not need to do this all at once. Hell, you can have a much smaller RAID5 array running on your current PSU with only one card and a few drives as long as you are prepared to back it all up as you expand the array. My point it, do not consider $320 the entry price before you can get something started. Get a few friends together for the next sub-$50 1200JB deals at Circuit City, OfficeMax or wherever it pops up next and front the money for a few of them. I spent $20 to $70 per drive but they now hit $59.99 and under more often than they were hitting $69.99 and over before because it's been more than a year so I estimate $40-50 average per-drive. Of course you expected to be spending a lot on the drives so once I ratchet that estimate up to 12 don't be "shocked". Just remember how much cheaper they are per GB than Hitachi 400GB 7x400 or Western Digital 250GB 2500JB drives. EASILY enough price-difference to pay for those RAID cards. So I'll say about $45 per-drive (Usually including tax ;)), but you can probably get 'em for less by paying attention to Anandtech Hot Deals. Times 12 for two maxed RAID5 arrays and you've spent another $540. I suggest using RebateRebate to manage your rebates, one database per address and MAKE SURE YOU DO NOT MESS UP ANY REBATES (I did :(). Make a check-list with things like "Does it ask for my signature? Did I sign? Did I make copies for my records? etc". Absolutely critical when you are handling that many (Usually two per drive). This brings the complete costs to an estimated $860 so far. Add the cost of a TRUE and high-quality name-brand ~500w+ PSU (ie, Antec TruePower 550w PSU = $111) and you've got your estimate. I'd say about $970. That's for 1.3 Terrabytes of useable data (You lose the capacity of two 120GB drives in a striped RAID5 array). Again, that's 1.3TB. Just short of what you were initially talking about, but I'm sure you were estimating and you can't beat the value. I can't possibly know what you'll need from here (If anything) well enough to start adding to the estimate, but your cards will probably include the power splitters, memory and other basics which you may want to improve on and with that many drives. I'd imagine you'll have to buy some thing to mount them in ;) Perhaps one of those cases with 5.25" drive bays all the way down the front so you can have some near the card slots? You'll definately need something.

Rather than splurging initially and having spare 120GB drives around in case of failure, I suggest perhaps using an identical drive as your boot drive. Should anything go wrong and you lose a drive from the array, you can dump the contents to the critical array and then throw it in and rebuild over it. Yes, that's sacrificing your boot drive but at least you'll still have all your data while you shop for another and you will have the flexability to buy a different drive to boot to. Of course, it cost me too much to invest in spares immediately and I passed on a couple $39.99 sales but I eventually got some and I suggest you do the same. I use them in other non-critical computers and I can back them up and throw them in the array if I ever need to.

BTW, the last two 1200JB's I bought are a slick-looking black all over. No more silver top. Looks good!

Hope I helped! It's a hell of a lot cheaper than storing everything on DVD and getting some 400-disc DVD changer (GOD I wish Sony would make a PC drive version of that DVD player!).
 

GizmoCC

Junior Member
Aug 9, 2004
20
0
0
Thanks for your replies guys.
I've been thinking about it more and more, and I think RAID is just too expensive for me. I am just a college student and as it is, I am building a gaming rig for myself.

anyway, I think I've had a revelation.
RAID5 is expensive and quite a hassle if you ask me. On the other hand, its not smart to just tug off all my harddrives in those IDE channels.
I am a better idea.
I will buy 8 200gb harddrives and put each one in a USB enclosure, essentially making them external harddrive. Now, my current mobo has only 2 USB slots free. Not a problem. I'll buy 2 USB-hubs... each hub will connect 4 USB harddisks.

I really like this idea since its MOST cost effective and I dont have to go thru any hassles (re)configuring my current system. I dont even have to worry about getting a power source, since each USB enclosure will get the power from the wall socket.
Now I realise that I am sacrificing some speed here, especially by using a USB-hub between 4 harddrives! But, like I said, I am going to mostly use this as a storage solution!! Ofcourse, my harddrives will be constantly downloading/upload but my bandwith doesnt exceed 500kb... and USB2 should have no problem handling that.

What do you guys say??? GOOD IDEA??

BTW, my friend suggested a similar solution... except with FireWire. FireWire is apparently faster than USB2... but... like I mentioned, USB2 speeds are sufficient for me. Does FireWire provide anything else? like... better stability, compatbility or something?
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Originally posted by: GizmoCC
I really like this idea since its MOST cost effective and I dont have to go thru any hassles (re)configuring my current system.

It is NOT the most cost-effective. I made a lot of edits above. Read them and you may just be interested yet ;) If you see my added estimates, you can see that you can build it for much cheaper than the cost of eight 200GB drives... Much cheaper than a new gaming rig in fact and it probably gives you far more bragging rights. Who else do you know that has terrabytes of data in their computer for less than $1,000?! Not even me with my array, I'll tell you! If you were planning on buying eight 200GB drives AND building a gaming rig you can do both for much cheaper with RAID5.

Unless all my trumpeting of the Promise SuperTrak SX6000's value on tech forums like I'm doing here has driven up the eBay price! :shocked:

For eight 200GB drives you're looking at $1600 + tax ALONE. Factor in another $250 + shipping for eight of the absolute cheapest crap enclosures you can buy and that's $1850. Of course, you've already paid nearly double the RAID5 plan and yet you are 600GB less than double the capacity. That, and you've sacrificed a lot of redundancy for what? Intolerably slow speeds? Factor in how you will never truely fill one drive completely and having redundant formatting data and you've lost a good bit of the capacity too. Where are you going to plug in all those units? That's going to be one heck of a power bill with each having it's own inefficient power supply (not the mention the USB hubs). A RAID5 array will sleep when your PC does. An external enclosure will not. How nifty is that? Multi-drive external enclosures cost thousands because they are for professional RAID implementations. That's a good bit more trouble than it's worth. An array of 120GB drives could be easily expanded once drives reach 600-to-800GB and the sweet-spot hits 400GB or so. Just buy a few and backup the array. Trade the drives being replaced for a few more 400GB drives to combine with the few you already have and you've got a quick and easy upgrade. You can't just keep buying larger and more expensive external drives as you run out of capacity or soon you'll have the same situation you have with your CDs and an unmanageable amount of drives to find a power plug for.
 

Vegito

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 1999
8,329
0
0
BTW, my friend suggested a similar solution... except with FireWire. FireWire is apparently faster than USB2... but... like I mentioned, USB2 speeds are sufficient for me. Does FireWire provide anything else? like... better stability, compatbility or something?


USB/USB2 - borrows ur CPU time
Firewires - does not

Just make sure your stack of usb enclosure has sufficent air circulation.. they will get hot
 

dmw16

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2000
7,608
0
0
I vote for the raid route as well, but I would set up an second computer for all of this. get a cheap tower, put a good PSU in it, and run win2k on it. Make a raid array either hard ware or software, or just a volume outta all those drives and share it. You could go gigabit for faster file transfers...might be cool
 

Zepper

Elite Member
May 1, 2001
18,998
0
0
I think you can get external firewire enclosures with room for several drives in each. Or if you want to stay with USB consider a 5.25" external enclosure with removable drive bays for the extra drives.
. Another option is to use mobile drive bays right in your computer case. Just add a cheap IDE adapter (e.g. the Syba IDE/RAID card from dealsonic.com <$25. shipped or the similar card from compgeeks.com) and you can have 4 plus however many free slots you have in your on-board IDE controller on line at once and have however many more you want to swap in and out at will. Some of the mobile racks can be had with hot-swap software... I think that would be the cheapest solution while still being highly flexible You will probably want a case with at least six 5" bays so you'll have room for some optical drives. A good 400-450W PSU should be adequate.
. For example, the mobile racks on compgeeks.com can be hot swappable but they say only in Win98/98SE. I'm wondering if a similar feature exists in in Win2k or XP? Perhaps M$ took it out for "security reasons".
. Of course, that's irrelevant if you just keep the stuff on line that you watch the most and can shut the system down to swap in the drives with the less frequently watched stuff on them...
. I also agree that the current line of Hitachi drives are as good as anything else.
.bh.

Where's the summer? :sun:
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Originally posted by: GizmoCC
I appreciate all your replies. Upon further thought I think a RAID solution is beyond my budget.

Thing is folks, I already have my whole collection backed up on CDs.. and will continue to back them up on CDs. these harddrives will be my secondary store. So, I think I can compromise a some redundancy for cost here. rigth?

Since this system will mainly be for storage only. I intend on using a low-end CPU.
I will get a GOOD/stable mobo which can "somehow" connect ATLEAST 8 200gb harddisks. If I can get on-board sound and video then that will be even better. Maybe 256mb of DDR ram.
However, I will get a GOOD PSU and a GOOD vetilated case.
What do you guys think? Will a low-end system be able to handle this? Keep in mind I dont intend on running a file server or anything. Ofcourse my PC will be constantly downloading/uploading stuff on broadband. I will also do extensive CD-burning... but I dont think these tasks are CPU intensive.

Please, your feedback is appreciated a lot.

Back to this and the questions you posed in it...

Like you suggested, it is a very good idea to use a low-end system for the file server though most storage servers are typically high-end. There are no two ways about it: Hard drives have been the bottleneck of even very dated systems. I demoted my 1.3GHz Pentium 4 computer to the task. It has an excessive 512MB of PC800 RDRAM that I've collected and didn't really have much use for in all my other non-RDRAM systems so I basically have it using the memory for optimized filesystem tasks. I forgot where I found that tweak but as I understand it it uses system memory as basically large and unsafe but super-fast cache memory for the drives.

I ditched add-in sound because I did not intend to do any video or audio playback on the actual machine and threw in a GeForce2 MX200. Since then, I've thrown in a GeForce3 just because my and my friend's other systems all had better cards and there wasn't anything else to use it in. Because you say you will be playing and downloading media on this machine, it's a good idea to have some sort of sound.

Also because you say you will be playing and downloading media on this machine, you should use virtualization software. Ever notice how Windows systems just degrade over time with use and have inexplicable and unfixable nuances that just anoy the crap out of you? You don't want to lose everything over some stupid misbehaving software or put up with a system that has broken video codecs or multimedia drivers. For instance, since setting up my file server on an existing machine, that installation of Windows had deteriorated into a mess. When I boot up, I can't get online for several minutes. I can't even log into the router! I have an IP address and everything on the network pings just fine but all HTTP requests time out. It takes an almost equal amount of time before new devices (Hard drives ;)) are detected and installed and for the Disk Management snap-in to populate ("display listing"). It's not an easy fix and recently required a reinstallation of Windows. It's almost like you could just sit there and watch your Windows installation corrupt itself but it is true that "a watched pot never boils" in this case leaving us with an interesting work-around... Use virtualization software! VMWARE is awesome. Any time I have ever needed to download anything to the fileserver, I just load up VMWARE, install whatever spyware-laden software I need to download on the virtual PC, download the file or program, test it on the virtual PC (Without retribution or danger of viruses! Wohoo!), copy it over the virtual network to the real PC fileserver, then with one click the virtual PC is restored to the state it was in before you started (ie, a fresh installation of Windows with no spyware or cluttered programs). VMWARE is so awesome :) Hell, I'm not condoning anything illegal, but they actually make it safe to find, download and execute a keygen to crack their own trial application. Just an example of what it can do and how powerful it is (Pay for it, or VirtualPC, really!).

Perhaps a Gigabit upgrade is in order? Get a Gigabit NIC and make your planned gaming system an nForce3 250GB or an nForce2 Ultra400 + the new Gigabit-capable south bridge to fully make use of it. With Gigabit, your hard drives are almost going to be the bottle neck even over the LAN (And certainly would be with more than one simultaneous access)!

You do not need a motherboard with onboard RAID to connect eight devices. You can use a SerialATA or UltraATA PCI controller card or even a RAID card for the same purpose.

Also, there is one thing that has not been suggested yet. You asked about combining drives of different capacities and you can't do that with any sort of RAID but you can do that with certain RAID cards ("JBPD") and/or Windows ("spanning"). I do not condone JBOD with a RAID card as it is just linking all the drives into one larger drive and splitting the filesystem over tham all as one. If one fails, you could lose everything. Strangely, I've taken spaned drives out and plugged them into a Windows system only to find the files still there and accessible, but this probably only works for the first drive with the FAT/MFT and no other files will be accessible. If another drive failed you'd possibly lose everything and if that was the one that failed you'd lose it's contents too. Instead, use the motherboard with four IDE ports or a RAID card with one spanned or striped array per drive (So it's not really spanning or striping) simply to connect all the drives to the PC and convert them to Dynamic Disks using XP's Disk Management. After doing so, you can span them in Windows. Because this uses standard NTFS filesystem features, you can access them in any XP system in case of a system failure and if any drive fails you can still access the contents of the other perfectly. You'll just notice the portion of your files that was on the failed drive dissapear or something. That's FAR better than losing everything in a JBOD array and you can mix and match different capacities just as you were asking about earlier.

Earlier you asked what the purpose of having one extra hard drive in each RAID5 array was. Fault-tolerance. Without it, having six drives in one stripped RAID0 array would mean that you are more than six times more likely to have a complete failure of all "drive" (array) contents due to the enevitable failure of any single drive. With a 500GB RAID5 array of six 100GB drives, you lose 100GB of the total 600GB and have 500GB of useable space. If you yank any one drive from the array the array remains functional and you do NOT lose 100GB from the array. Instead, you STILL have a functional array of 100GB drives with 500GB of useable space only now it is an array of five 100GB drives and not a single gigabyte is "wasted". The array is considered "critical" and performance will be poor until you add another drive and allow it to rebuild, but this is a much better way to look at it. You aren't losing a single gigabyte of storage in this critical 5-drive array. Nothing is being "wasted" by RAID5. Even when you consider the extra 120GB drive, you sould consider it a necessary "standby drive that will immediately take the place of any failed drive with its exact contents" except that it is required to already be there for initial creation and it's presence must remain for fault-tolerance and performance. There is no advantage to a "critical" RAID5 array missing its extra drive over a RAID0 until you restore that extra drive so in no way should it be considered "lost".
 

GizmoCC

Junior Member
Aug 9, 2004
20
0
0
Thanks for your lengthy replies CZRoe.

First of all, I dont live in the US. I live in the United Arab Emirates. Its EXTREMELY difficult to get high-tech parts like RAID controllers n stuff here.
Anyway, lets leave that for now.

Unlike you, I will need a MINIMUM of 8 harddisks; in other words. I need a RAID controller with 8 ports.
The one from 3ware costs 400$
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=16-116-020&amp;depa=0
Later in your post you said I could use 2 6-port Promise cards, that would give me a total of 12 channels for apprx 300$. Fine.
But thats still 300$... anyway.

In your third paragraph you talk about "improvement in speed". Well, my friend, like I said... I dont need the speed. I need cheap storage. I know about RAID0 and I will use it for my gaming rig.

Anyway, in your post you seem to be suggesting me to buy "smaller capacity" harddrives instead of 8 200gb harddrives. I can see it reduces costs, but doesnt it make the whole setup very messy? If I were to get the 120gb hdds I'd still need 12 drives (excluding the -1 for RAID5). And these 12 hdds would fill up all the slots on my card... thus imparining future upgradibility.

All said and done. I think RAID is still the expensive option. I am not trying to argue, I am just trying to
squeeze and much details and opinions I can.

You see, if I go with the "external USB" solution.... I dont have to worry about power because each external USB enclosure requires its own powersupply from the wall socket. Moreover, with the help of USB hubs I can connect upto 127 USB devices. And, my Uni pays the electricity bills :)

Ofcourse, like you said. I lose redundancy and speed. Infact, I will lose a lot of speed because 4 drives will be sharing 1 USB port. But thats ok because my downloads/uploads never exceed 500kb/sec. And USB2 should I have no problem with that... even if the speeds are shared.

Lets compare costs:
A USB enclosure costs around 35$ here.
8x35 = 280$
8 x 120$ (200gb hdds) = 960$
Thats it. A total of 1240$

on the other hand, a RAID solution:
2xPromise 6-port RAID controller = 300$ total (150$ each)
8 x 120$ (200gb hdds) = 960$
500w PSU = 110$
Thats 1370$ total..... and a fair bit of hassle while installation

Another point is that if I go with a RAID solution I will eventually reach a point where I will have saturated all my space (trust me, I download a lot). I have 1.4 tb of stuff RIGHT NOW beside me. But a USB2 solution can allow upto 127 devices connected! Everytime I run out of space, I can just buy a cheap harddisk (or a not-so-cheap) harddisk... attach it to an external USB enclosure, and Plug'n'Play does the rest!! :)


What do you think? Is my logic flawed?

Once again. Thanks for all your assistance.
 

vetteguy

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2001
3,183
0
0
With all due respect, I have a few observations:

You're saying that your primary constraints are having a ton of storage available, but your budget is extremely limited. I read your last post, and the difference you calculated between the RAID setup and the USB drives is only $120. IMO, that's a small price to pay for the peace of mind RAID 5 will give you, especially if you have this much data. If you just use 8 external drives, what happens when (not if) one of them fails?

Also, you keep saying how most of this collection is Anime, movies, etc. Can you honestly say that you need INSTANT access to ALL of it, ALL THE TIME? Is there ANY of your collection that you could just burn to DVD? It's not like you COULDN'T then watch it from the DVD, and it would cost CONSIDERABLY less to store that much raw data. Or, perhaps, maybe it's time to thin out the collection? Take a look at what you have, move some of your older, less-watched stuff to DVD, freeing up room in your server for new stuff. If budget truly is your primary concern, that would solve your problem, at least for the time being. Not to mention that DVDs are (as someone else mentioned) much safer if you're looking for long-term storage.

Just my $.02
 

geologist

Member
Aug 14, 2004
38
0
0
GizmoCC-

I have seen 8-bay, firewire, hard drive enclosures on ebay for less than $300. It was a stand-alone tower with its own power supply. Put them all in mobile racks, and they are hot swappable! Since data storage is your objective, and your files are already backed up, when one of them fails you are covered. No RAID required! This seems to be the simplest solution for your needs, and you wouldn't need a seperate computer to use it, but if you wanted one a low end pc could handle it.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Originally posted by: GizmoCC
Unlike you, I will need a MINIMUM of 8 harddisks; in other words. I need a RAID controller with 8 ports.
The one from 3ware costs 400$
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=16-116-020&amp;depa=0
Later in your post you said I could use 2 6-port Promise cards, that would give me a total of 12 channels for apprx 300$. Fine.
But thats still 300$... anyway.
Well, if your goal is simply to have 1.6TB of HDD storage attached to the PC, any old UltraATA or RAID card will do for adding additional capacity. These things are pratically free! Low-end RAID cards are the exact same things as UltraATA controllers with a different RAID-capable BIOS. Set them all up with individual drive letters and use them as you would the external USB drives or simplify and use them a little more efficiently as one large drive with Windows' built-in Dynamic Disc features. Actually, you can use it with the USB drives too *IF* you plan keep them attached as much as possible.

In your third paragraph you talk about "improvement in speed". Well, my friend, like I said... I dont need the speed. I need cheap storage. I know about RAID0 and I will use it for my gaming rig.
Well, I only spoke of it as losing two positive attributes while gaining negative aspects when eschewing for USB drives then again I referred to it as one purpose for the extra fault-tolerant drive in RAID5 (Not justification for choosing RAID5) ;) BTW, all drives in RAID5 are equals. There is not a single one set aside as a fault-tolerant/speed-improving drive, you can remove any one from the array and lose both performance and fault-tolerance. That's the last about RAID5 from me BTW ;)

Anyway, in your post you seem to be suggesting me to buy "smaller capacity" harddrives instead of 8 200gb harddrives. I can see it reduces costs, but doesnt it make the whole setup very messy? If I were to get the 120gb hdds I'd still need 12 drives (excluding the -1 for RAID5). And these 12 hdds would fill up all the slots on my card... thus imparining future upgradibility.

It's all about the gigabyte-per dollar. Nothing can touch the 120GB deals at the moment. The closest I've ever seen was a $19.99 160GB 1600JB after rebate and pricematch and nothing, not even the 1600JB has come close to that since. Of course, with no Circuit City, Best Buy, OfficeMax, etc in the United Arab Emirates there's no way you could cash-in on the insane retail deals. These prices are NEVER available online unless it's from their respective websites :( When only ordering internationally online, this changes things and I'll admit that I have no idea what the best gigabyte for your dollar price is. I don't know because it's priced so much higher than what's available to me that I have never considered researching it. As for the mess, you can't possibly think that eight stacked drives with tangled power and USB cords (Not to mention the USB hubs) would be very neat. Even if you manage to keep it tidy somehow, I don't see how you could avoid the mess I am describing when you start expanding and adding several drives in the future. Having eight or more larger drives internally is a much better idea when you consider that you do not need to buy $300 of RAID hardware to do so and, without the huge retail price difference, you will be using far fewer drives. It will not need a much more expensive PSU either, though you do seem to be planning for the future and it may be necessary to wire a second one (Possible) or purchase a premium one. I've seen normal mid-tower cases that could easily support 17-to-20 3.5" HDDs in the 5.25" bays with those cheap adapters and even more using the normal 3.5" bays internally (Which I assume it also has). I do believe that with a drive capacity like this, it would be hard to argue that room is an issue as you would be running out of room for that many external drives! :D

All said and done. I think RAID is still the expensive option. I am not trying to argue, I am just trying to
squeeze and much details and opinions I can.

Agreed, but I still think you should consider an internal setup.

You see, if I go with the "external USB" solution.... I dont have to worry about power because each external USB enclosure requires its own powersupply from the wall socket. Moreover, with the help of USB hubs I can connect upto 127 USB devices. And, my Uni pays the electricity bills :)

Awesome, but are you going to be there for a significant amount of time? Can the room even supply enough power for a large amount of external drives each with a 65% (or lower) efficiency PSU? ;) Expandability beyond a certain level is fruitless. I think 20 dynamic drives is enough because by the time you can fill up more than 20 drives you will already be purchasing larger drives and finding ways to get rid of and consolidate the smaller drives. You will even be able to mix and match SerialATA drives once larger capacities are only available this way using another controller card. I'm sure they will exist, but have you ever even seen a SerialATA USB enclosure? I'm sure there's a huge price-premium.

Ofcourse, like you said. I lose redundancy and speed. Infact, I will lose a lot of speed because 4 drives will be sharing 1 USB port. But thats ok because my downloads/uploads never exceed 500kb/sec. And USB2 should I have no problem with that... even if the speeds are shared.

Lets compare costs:
A USB enclosure costs around 35$ here.
8x35 = 280$
8 x 120$ (200gb hdds) = 960$
Thats it. A total of 1240$

on the other hand, a RAID solution:
2xPromise 6-port RAID controller = 300$ total (150$ each)
8 x 120$ (200gb hdds) = 960$
500w PSU = 110$
Thats 1370$ total..... and a fair bit of hassle while installation

Well, you can totally forget that RAID idea and the costs associated with it. Instead, subtract about $300 from the total and forget 500w PSUs (No longer powering 12x120GB drives ;))... The playing field is much more even! Now you base it on features and what you intend to do with it and I think Dynamic Disks is a strong argument for going the internal route. You can always add more, use every scrap of storage on each drive, access it as one large drive, consolidate on larger drives when you run out of room, dynamically expand the total sotrage with each additional drive and connect/disconnect individual drives at will. You can connect as many as you have ports for. Many 200GB+ Western Digital retail drives include UltraATA controller cards for free and they can be had for $5-10 all over the place so you are really only limited by how many PCI slots you have! Most are even modable into RAID cards :)

Another point is that if I go with a RAID solution I will eventually reach a point where I will have saturated all my space (trust me, I download a lot). I have 1.4 tb of stuff RIGHT NOW beside me. But a USB2 solution can allow upto 127 devices connected! Everytime I run out of space, I can just buy a cheap harddisk (or a not-so-cheap) harddisk... attach it to an external USB enclosure, and Plug'n'Play does the rest!! :)

That's exactly another reason to go with Dynamic Disks... Every time you run out of space you can throw in an extra drive or consolidate with a larger capacity drive. With up to 20 in a normal system, I don't think you'll be "forced" to consolidate until you would have had to do so with USB anyway.

What do you think? Is my logic flawed?

Once again. Thanks for all your assistance.

Very good actually ;) You are 100% right: RAID5 and the setup, hassles and restrictions are not for you. You do not need the fault-tolerance of RAID5 when it's already on optical discs or the restriction of being stuck with all identical drives. You sound like you can use the expandability of USB or Dynamic Disks. Or even both! You can run the external drives with eachother or even in combination with internal drives as Dynamic Discs but it's more expensive. The only trade-off I see now is that external drives require an expensive amount of USB enclosures and clutters your workspace while internal drives require a beefy and expensive PSU and a well designed case with cheap mounting accessories.
 

Adul

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
32,999
44
91
danny.tangtam.com
Originally posted by: Arcanedeath
I'd suggest buying a 3ware raid card that fits your needs and 5 of the 400GB 7k400 Hitachi HDDs and set up a raid 5 array that would be the cheapest way to do it, but due to formating capasity it gets you more like 1.45-1.5TB formated so you might need 6 drives as w/ raid 5 you get the capasity of all the drives minus one. Hope this helps.... :)

I concur

a good high quality PS is all you need as well.


Also TekRam has a nice new RAID 6 card out if you really your data safe.