Multimedia Storage Server

[ezkim0x]

http://www.buy.com/retail/prod...?sku=202308876&loc=101

would this be the best route to go on buying something to store all of my media on?

right now I have almost 1tb already on 4 different hdd's .. 250gbx2 500gbx1 and 200gbx1.. I'm wanting to setup a raid system as well so if if one of the hdd's fail I don't lose my data.. I'm not sure which number that is though? raid-5 ?

but when I looked up raid-5 it looks like it's using 3 hdd's instead of 2.. so I'd be losing a lot of storage that I could be using. but is that probably what I need to do regardless if I want to be safe from losing data?

also if I needed more storage in the future.. would I just buy another one of these? and just keep plugging them into my network to add extra storage?

 

[airhendrix13]

RAID 5: Striped Set (3 disk minimum) with Distributed Parity. Distributed parity requires all but one drive to be present to operate; drive failure requires replacement, but the array is not destroyed by a single drive failure. Upon drive failure, any subsequent reads can be calculated from the distributed parity such that the drive failure is masked from the end user. The array will have data loss in the event of a second drive failure and is vulnerable until the data that was on the failed drive is rebuilt onto a replacement drive.

RAID 6: Striped Set (4 disk minimum) with Dual Distributed Parity. Provides fault tolerance from two drive failures; array continues to operate with up to two failed drives. This makes larger RAID groups more practical. This is becoming a popular choice for SATA drives as they approach 1 Terabyte in size. This is because the single parity RAID levels are vulnerable to data loss until the failed drive is rebuilt. The larger the drive, the longer the rebuild will take. With dual parity, it gives the array time to rebuild onto a large drive with the ability to sustain another drive failure.

----quoted from wikipedia----

I think RAID 6 is ideal for your setup.

You could just buy another one of these and plug them in via USB, although RAID does work within this product alone, I don't think you can RAID your PC with this because it is connected via USB.

The product you are looking at is a pretty expensive and you can save some money going this route:

4 of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822148108

If you don't have a big enough drive cage to fit 8 drives then this:

2 or 3 of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822136131

With these 2 options you save a lot of money, and your storage will stay internal, thus making RAID a sure thing.

Good luck,

airhendrix13

 

[ezkim0x]

hm.. do you think it'd be better to just buy a cheap pc with a lot of hdd cages and start loading it up?

it looks like raid-6 is using 4 hdds? all for 1 ..so if I had 750gbx4 .. it'd really only have 750gb of storage.. cause the other 3 would be used for backing up on the first hdd in case one of them ended up failing? I'm hoping I have this part wrong.

 

[masteraleph]

Originally posted by: ezkim0x
hm.. do you think it'd be better to just buy a cheap pc with a lot of hdd cages and start loading it up?

it looks like raid-6 is using 4 hdds? all for 1 ..so if I had 750gbx4 .. it'd really only have 750gb of storage.. cause the other 3 would be used for backing up on the first hdd in case one of them ended up failing? I'm hoping I have this part wrong.

No, RAID 6 using 750GBx4 would be 1.5 TB.

With RAID 5, assume that you're losing one HDD from the array for storage. For RAID 6 assume that you're losing 2. This isn't exceptionally significant with 4 drives, actually, since losing 2/4 drives quickly is pretty rare. But with, say, 8 drives, it becomes much more significant.

RAID 6 in 4 drives gives you the ability to lose any 2 drives and still keep all the data. RAID 0+1 is less effective in protecting data because if you lose 2 drives on opposite sides of the mirroring you'll lose the array. Ditto with RAID 10 (which is the opposite- if you lose 2 drives in the same mirror you'll lose the array).

So in summary: RAID 6 gives you very good hardware redundancy; RAID 5 gives you decent hardware redundancy and more storage. Your choice, really.

As always, remember that RAID is not a backup. Always make sure to back up the really important stuff regularly.

 

[ezkim0x]

what are the real chances of 2 hdds going bad at exactly the same time though?

I'd probably end up going with raid-5.

also can anybody suggest a good fileserver with a decent amount of hdd bays. (without the hdds.. but everything else) .. so I can just install the hdds and go from there?

 

[ezkim0x]

what do you think about this?

http://www.drobo.com/

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: ezkim0x
what are the real chances of 2 hdds going bad at exactly the same time though?

In the past year, I've seen it happen three times. All Seagate SCSI server-rated drives. That's why I'd never recommend a RAID array for data protection.

 

[Trashman]

Keep your eyes on this, as an option HP MediaSmart Server should be out soon, 2nd half of '07, but you know how delays can be.

 

[spc hink]

If you don't mind spending more time on the project, I would recommend using a separate pc as a media server. If you want to use your existing drives though, you will not be able to utilize raid without loosing a significant amount of space.

You can buy a cheap system and throw one of these in there. They are only really necessary if you need to be able to replace a hard drive without taking apart your system, but I think they look cool.

You might also want to look into a raid card like one of these. Even though this is a relatively low end card, it is still a bit expensive, but still worth it in my opinion.

To touch on raid again, I would go with raid 5 with three 500GB or 750GB drives and you can add additional drives if you wish to expand. If you want to minimize your chances of having two drives fail simultaneously, you might want to buy drives with different lot numbers in case there is a flaw with a certain batch of drives. This sounds anal, but if you are serious about maintaining data uptime, it might help.

I have been researching for a file server build for a long time and am about ready to start, so if you have any questions, let me know. Best of luck.