http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8299/moe80jg1.jpg

(10^3 not 2^10 count)
Which kinda sucks, as my 80gig harddrive cant store it anylonger, lol !

The most interessting part is, that it was only about 60gig large 1 month ago.

So it grew ~ 16gig in 30days! o_O

If this keeps up, I need some external drives to store moe ^^

On a sidenote, I do plan to make a rapidshare out of it sometime. As well as a torrent.
Rapidshare for danboo will be cool, too ^^

Rapidshare is the worst.

feel free to mirror to MU or other hosters...

RS works best for me so i dont bother

petopeto said:
Rapidshare is the worst.

Agreed. Since rapidshare did that so call upgrade and upped the file size to 200mg the speed has only averaged 50-60kbps. Which sucks for even a free file hoster and 200mg limit.

ps: My high res folder of all my high res is only 6gb. 2000 ish flies

Seriously if you gonna put files up NEVER EVER use rapidshare or any one host out there. Why?

because there is much better sites out there, like:
http://www.uploadjockey.com/ who is my favourite but there is more:

http://www.sharebee.com
http://www.shareonall.com
http://www.ftp2share.com
http://www.massmirror.com
http://www.xirror.com
http://youmirror.biz
http://www.mirrorit.de
http://xlice.net
http://nextspread.com
http://www.xlspread.com
http://www.75d.de
http://filespreading.com/
http://dr.ag/multiupload.aspx
http://tinyload.com
http://www.afrid.com

Theese are multi filehosts uploader.

In any event RS is the worst host to upload large files to, 2 hours in between a download.

And no I wouldn't recommend you to encourage peoples to go and pay them money as there is free hosts out there without limits!

as said, there will be a torrent too

but unfortunately my IPS throttles torrents, so i couldnt redownload it anywhere as fast as i would with RS...

Due to speedlimit RS waiting times are a thing of the past, too i think.
See it like that : Time = Money.
If you dont care about the speed get the torrent.
If the torrent has no/slow seeders dl free from rapid with 62k
If you have an account, get Danboo (~60gig+) in < 440 minutes...

MugiMugi said:
Seriously if you gonna put files up NEVER EVER use rapidshare or any one host out there. Why?

because there is much better sites out there, like:
http://www.uploadjockey.com/ who is my favourite but there is more:

http://www.sharebee.com
http://www.shareonall.com
http://www.ftp2share.com
http://www.massmirror.com
http://www.xirror.com
http://youmirror.biz
http://www.mirrorit.de
http://xlice.net
http://nextspread.com
http://www.xlspread.com
http://www.75d.de
http://filespreading.com/
http://dr.ag/multiupload.aspx
http://tinyload.com
http://www.afrid.com

Theese are multi filehosts uploader.

In any event RS is the worst host to upload large files to, 2 hours in between a download.

And no I wouldn't recommend you to encourage peoples to go and pay them money as there is free hosts out there without limits!

Add mediafire.com please... :)

But... IMHO I think that gathering the whole imageboard is quite... bulky and not useful, because you can access it anytime and anywhere, updated with the last posts.

The only case I would consider to download whole imouto, is when the site would get down (any cause).

Torrent is okay, but I've never downloaded any torrent bigger than 10GB. Maybe 80GB at 90kB/s would be an eternity for me... :-/

jiraiya said:
Add mediafire.com please... :)

But... IMHO I think that gathering the whole imageboard is quite... bulky and not useful, because you can access it anytime and anywhere, updated with the last posts.

The only case I would consider to download whole imouto, is when the site would get down (any cause).

Torrent is okay, but I've never downloaded any torrent bigger than 10GB. Maybe 80GB at 90kB/s would be an eternity for me... :-/

seconded, getting the entire imageboard while it's stored online and freely accessible is kinda useless. Though if you plan to make folders with Artists tags i might download all-tags of my fav artists.

I have 200kbps upload max, upped 80gb for me could take a bit >.<

Is it possible to download all Picz from moe.imouto.org? I'm a (german) Student and haven't enough time to download every single Pic...

(My Downloadspeed is very fast, faster than 10 Megabytes! per Second)

Greetz

Sind doch grad semesterferien oder nich ? ;)

und joar, mit rsync zb... nen torrent gibts och , wenn auch veraltet...

Zum normalen danbooru hät ich RS links ;)

Schön dass es hier auch in deutsch geht:) Die RS-Linkz hätte ich sehr gerne, ich hab mal rsync recherchiert, aber das gibts wohl nur für Linux:( Kannste mir die RS-Linkz mal bitte schicken? ICQ wäre mir am liebsten: 316673301

THX:)

Vielleicht weißt du ja auch ein ähnliches Prog wie rsync nur eben für Windoof....

Greetz vom STRYKER

rsync gibts och für windows, nennt sich zb cwrsync und wurd in dem anderen thread ausführlich behandelt

die rs links sind nich für moe, sondern fürs (grottenlahme) echte danbo! (danbooru.donmai.us)

we already hit 103 gb btw...

although ~7gb are for samples, so its like 5gb left til real 100gb

aoie_emesai said:
Agreed. Since rapidshare did that so call upgrade and upped the file size to 200mg the speed has only averaged 50-60kbps. Which sucks for even a free file hoster and 200mg limit.

ps: My high res folder of all my high res is only 6gb. 2000 ish flies

Oh man, I'm so bad, I actually downside/convert to .jpg for my hi-res images ;_;

Gratz, moe. <3

MDGeist said:
we already hit 103 gb btw...

although ~7gb are for samples, so its like 5gb left til real 100gb

main image size is now about 200gb !
my rar archive goes up to 196, no samples/previews though...

good thing: 1gb cost only like 6 cent storage wise...

The site is certainly expanding. At this rate I'm going to have to get an additional internal HDD as well as the NAS.

I already couldn't keep all images on my HDs, so I'm using the site as my 3rd HD =D

MDGeist said:
main image size is now about 200gb !
my rar archive goes up to 196, no samples/previews though...

good thing: 1gb cost only like 6 cent storage wise...

I got sick of trying to deal with multiple drives and finally found a 6 channel hardware raid card for under $200, right now the SAN is building the raid 5 parity which has taken all weekend for 2 TB. When my image folders passed 350gb (excluding videos, that's almost a TB) I decided something had to be done, too much chaos. And to organize it all I broke down and made my own wiki (using shimmie2) to tag and organize everything.

I don't trust hardware RAID. Too proprietary--if the card breaks, you'd better hope the company is still in business...

petopeto said:
I don't trust hardware RAID. Too proprietary--if the card breaks, you'd better hope the company is still in business...

I can't imagine using software (usually called fake raid) based raid. It's slower and sucks up system resources (especially raid 5). There's less than a handful of manufacturers that make real/quality raid cards anymore, LSI, Adaptec, and 3Ware. Getting software/drivers/bios or drivers isn't that hard anymore.

Software RAID isn't "fake"; nobody but an Adaptec marketing shill would call it that. Only "RAID 0" is "fake".

If the purpose is reliability--not losing data from hardware failure--then I don't care how fast it is, if the hardware failing means I lose all of my data. If the on-disk format is proprietary, then if the card or motherboard dies and I can't get another one (because it's no longer manufactured, or the manufacturer no longer exists--all very real possibilities, especially with consumer hardware), then I'm screwed.

I've heard plenty of horror stories of RAID card "recovery" wiping out data wholesale, and other assorted mess. For a low-end server, I'd just stick to Linux software RAID. It's probably faster at reading than most hardware RAID, too. I think most or all on-motherboard RAID is actually software RAID, too, just hidden in the drivers.

Note that RAID is not a backup. Backups protect you from accidentally deleting everything; RAID doesn't. A particularly bad lightning strike might fry every drive in your system, RAID or not. You don't need tapes; you can use hard drives for this, with eSATA or an external drive mount, as long as you don't leave the drives in when you're done.

petopeto said:
I don't trust hardware RAID. Too proprietary--if the card breaks, you'd better hope the company is still in business...

I once lost a functional raid 5 array due to a failing motherboard.
So I decided to no longer use these cards unless I'm a client so big that they can't simply tell me that data loss is not covered blablablah and cut the phone.

petopeto said:
If the purpose is reliability--not losing data from hardware failure--then I don't care how fast it is, if the hardware failing means I lose all of my data.
...
Note that RAID is not a backup.

As you stated, hardware or software RAID should not be used as a replacement for proper backups. With that said, why would you lose all your data? Unless you are implying that you are one of the people who doesn't make backups, you wouldn't lose anything except your array which isn't a big deal. Your argument becomes a non-issue for people who make backups like they should. If you like being extra risky and not make any backups or can't afford any downtime then software RAID does have a clear advantage though.

In any case, the only time I have lost my RAID 5 array with my 3ware card was when I had the unlucky pleasure of two hard drives in a 4 drive array failing at the exact same time because of massive reallocated sectors. Note to self: Avoid Western Digital 500GB RE2 (5000YS) drives like the plague.

Linux software raid sounds like a nice solution if you creating something like a Linux based fileserver. If you are running Windows, I don't believe there is any such option comparable to what Linux offers.

The most unreliable way to run RAID in Windows is from motherboard RAID (other then RAID-0 which has no redundancy to begin with). Aside from onboard RAID usually being buggy and unreliable, anybody who does so is just asking for their data to be lost. kiowa proves this from firsthand experience.

For this reason, if you have a desire to run any redundant RAID type (like 1,3,5,6, or 10) from Windows you really should buy a hardware RAID card. These cards don't fail very often and aren't dependent on any of your other hardware or OS, which makes it simple to transfer the array from one system to another in case of something like a motherboard failure.

Windows has a software RAID solution - they call them "Dynamic Disks", and they let you arrange your drives in a myriad of RAID-type configurations. However, I believe you're required to have XP Pro or a server edition to use this. My understanding is Vista doesn't support software mirroring, for some reason (maybe to avoid competing with Windows Home Server?).

I have an old Windows 2000 server I use as my primary file server at home. It's got two 100GB drives mirrored (RAID 1) via software. I have essentially left the system untouched for years. It happily sits in a corner, backing up my files, serving media, etc, etc...

From my sampling of one, it seems pretty reliable and fast enough for my purposes.

dutchago said:
Windows has a software RAID solution - they call them "Dynamic Disks"...

I was aware of Windows Dynamic Disks capability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that running something like RAID-5 though Dynamic Disks is comparable feature and functionality wise to what Linux offers.

I have never used a Linux software RAID solution myself, but everything I hear makes it sound very robust. If reliability is more important than performance, there are also Linux only solutions like unRAID which I've heard good things about.

Cyberbeing said:
I don't believe that running something like RAID-5 though Dynamic Disks is comparable feature and functionality wise to what Linux offers.

I had read what you wrote as meaning "Windows doesn't have any software RAID solution." I believe Linux does have more features available for RAID configuration in software. Windows can do RAID 0, 1, and 5, if I recall correctly, and not much more than that. And, it can't be done by many of the consumer-level OS's.