Personally I would make my own with freebsd + zfs
or you can use s3 to backup...
http://blog.eberly.org/2008/10/27/how-i-automated-my-backups-to-amazon-s3-using-rsync/
or you can use s3 to backup...
http://blog.eberly.org/2008/10/27/how-i-automated-my-backups-to-amazon-s3-using-rsync/
Nice idea, but I'm locking at local backup for my image collection. My ISP would kill me if I rsync'd that amount of data over their pipes. I know I could schedule it for off-peak hours, but it would take forever to backup.
I would prefer a local backup on a dedicated personal NAS, rather then building something from scratch.
I would prefer a local backup on a dedicated personal NAS, rather then building something from scratch.
It's far cheaper to do build yourself one than to buy.
You could use something like http://www.freenas.org/ or one of the alternatives, only one that comes to mind is http://www.openfiler.com/
I'm sure there are others. Heck I think you could even use Windows Home Server or whatever it's called.
You could use something like http://www.freenas.org/ or one of the alternatives, only one that comes to mind is http://www.openfiler.com/
I'm sure there are others. Heck I think you could even use Windows Home Server or whatever it's called.
Even if it is a pre-configured box which I can stick some drives in...
Obviously RAID would be nice.
Obviously RAID would be nice.
esata external > nas
good and fast nas are way too expensive, i bought a new pc for like 100 euro (+30 euro case lol) that only needs 45w idle power. i use it as dl slave...
the stuff it dled gets transfered to other drives via esata...
of course if you want all in all this wont help much, but i´d rather have a server than a shitty slow nas-external...
good and fast nas are way too expensive, i bought a new pc for like 100 euro (+30 euro case lol) that only needs 45w idle power. i use it as dl slave...
the stuff it dled gets transfered to other drives via esata...
of course if you want all in all this wont help much, but i´d rather have a server than a shitty slow nas-external...
NAS (IMHO) is more flexible. The only device which I have which uses esata is my PC.
My Maxtor 500GB External was quick to mess up on me. At the moment, it sometimes has error trying to detect the device. Which I cannot be sure if it's either my External HDD or the USB slots.
It would also depend on your usage of it. Like how much you would normally transfer each month, they compare the price to an External HDD. Most External that are 500GB goes for around 100$ or so.
It would also depend on your usage of it. Like how much you would normally transfer each month, they compare the price to an External HDD. Most External that are 500GB goes for around 100$ or so.
My Maxtor external disk is getting a bit old, and short on space. I also want better throughput, as USB2 is slow.
Probably a 750Gb NAS will do at the moment. Not sure I can afford to RAID 1 it.
Probably a 750Gb NAS will do at the moment. Not sure I can afford to RAID 1 it.
From what I've heard of most consumer NAS, I wouldn't be surprised if USB2 was much faster. USB2 is 60 megs/sec, in theory, which is a bit more than half the speed of a current drive--which isn't very good, but I don't think you'll get near that with a cheap NAS...
I personally perfer a low power cost PC, it is the most flexible and you know you are never stuck with a stupid bug in its OS...
For the link I prefer Gb ethernet, it's faster than USB2 for large files (I haven't tested small files yet). Also you can put it anywhere convenient since ethernet can transfer over tens of meters. Also it gives you the convenience of accessing it on terminals other than your main computer.
For the link I prefer Gb ethernet, it's faster than USB2 for large files (I haven't tested small files yet). Also you can put it anywhere convenient since ethernet can transfer over tens of meters. Also it gives you the convenience of accessing it on terminals other than your main computer.
That's what my cousin does. Throws 2 computer together, and the secondary one is just backup and storage.kiowa said:
I personally perfer a low power cost PC, it is the most flexible and you know you are never stuck with a stupid bug in its OS...
For the link I prefer Gb ethernet, it's faster than USB2 for large files (I haven't tested small files yet). Also you can put it anywhere convenient since ethernet can transfer over tens of meters. Also it gives you the convenience of accessing it on terminals other than your main computer.
60MB/s is not more then most drives nowdays no, most drives does up to 70MB/s in terms of reading, even larger discs are able to produce even higher read speed then that. if your planing to run raid 0 on example sata-2 discs you can get up as much as ~450MB/s.petopeto said:
From what I've heard of most consumer NAS, I wouldn't be surprised if USB2 was much faster. USB2 is 60 megs/sec, in theory, which is a bit more than half the speed of a current drive--which isn't very good, but I don't think you'll get near that with a cheap NAS...
Same even with Raid 5, granted you won't get 450MB/s with this but the speed will easely surpass what an USB connection is capable off.
Of the six external (maxtor, seagate, & western digital) USB2 drives I own, not one can seem to do more then ~30MB/s, which is less then half what an internal version of the same drive could normally do.
Be careful with NAS in-a-box enclosures. Many seem to have trouble going over 100Mbps (12.5MB/s) when sending data to them, even when they support gigabit.
If you want a fast NAS, it's best to build yourself a small server for that purpose.
Be careful with NAS in-a-box enclosures. Many seem to have trouble going over 100Mbps (12.5MB/s) when sending data to them, even when they support gigabit.
If you want a fast NAS, it's best to build yourself a small server for that purpose.
I didn't say 60MB/s is more than most drives, I said it was more than half the speed of most drives.
Just as Cyberbeing said, in practice it usually yield no higher than 30MB/s even in continous data transfer.petopeto said:
I didn't say 60MB/s is more than most drives, I said it was more than half the speed of most drives.
But should be enough for daily backup anyway.
Also I'd like to remind about the possibility of data loss caused by motherboard or NAS system failures if you decide to raid it in BIOS or so on.
Sometimes it can be difficult or simply impossible to recover a RAID if the mothboard which knows how these disks are RAIDed dies... So check it out before using BIOS built-in RAIDs.
Sometimes it can be difficult or simply impossible to recover a RAID if the mothboard which knows how these disks are RAIDed dies... So check it out before using BIOS built-in RAIDs.
Any recommendations on which do?Cyberbeing said:
Be careful with NAS in-a-box enclosures. Many seem to have trouble going over 100Mbps (12.5MB/s) when sending data to them, even when they support gigabit.
your budget ?
Unfortunately, no I don't. All I know is what I've read in reviews, and the slow write speeds they usually mention have scared me off. I haven't been brave enough to go out and buy a few to test for myself.Radioactive said:
Any recommendations on which do?
As MDGeist said, what is the max allowed budget you're looking for?
£100-£150
~162 euros ... hmmm i´d say get a better external and forget the NAS thing...
1tb NAS with good speed (for me beyond 60mb/s) for 162 euro is afaik not possible...
or make a small amd server with wd greens :D
1tb NAS with good speed (for me beyond 60mb/s) for 162 euro is afaik not possible...
or make a small amd server with wd greens :D
My USB external drive is currently doing 17MB/s.Cyberbeing said:
Of the six external (maxtor, seagate, & western digital) USB2 drives I own, not one can seem to do more then ~30MB/s, which is less then half what an internal version of the same drive could normally do.
This may be due to me using Vista...
Your getting 60MBps (480Mbps) write speeds with your NAS? Which model is it? Are you using Jumbo Frames?MDGeist said:
1tb NAS with good speed (for me beyond 60mb/s)
dont have any nas
but if i had it would need to do more than 60
these should start at 450 euro or so (reason why i still prefer my server for ~100)
right now im using esata and getting 50-80 (hdd from server a 6400aacs is mayor bottleneck here lol)
but if i had it would need to do more than 60
these should start at 450 euro or so (reason why i still prefer my server for ~100)
right now im using esata and getting 50-80 (hdd from server a 6400aacs is mayor bottleneck here lol)
Oops, I misread. I was thinking when you mentioned 162 euros, that was how much it would cost, not that you were converting the pounds to euros >_<. Oh well, so much for hoping that someone had finally found a cheap, fast nas enclosure... I think the main reason these don't exist is because companies gimp them for consumers so they can charge enterprises excessive prices.MDGeist said:
dont have any nas
JUST did this exercise. external sata with 2 x 1.5TB (RAID 1) drives was about $500US. That's a 4-disc enclosure with 2 expansion slots empty, using the Seagate 1.5's. Controller included, so it's direct sata to the M/B. That vs. 2 x 2TB WD My Mirror USB (RAID 1) at the same $500US. So same price for 2 TB USB or 1.5 TB sata, RAID 1.
sata is nice because of internal controller/ext discs, faster than USB/NAS, though I have 4 TB of media now and no RAIDs (all ext USBs) and still not much hassle copying for backups. Just takes awhile.
sata caveats: Reliance on proprietary sata RAID controller is some risk. Seagate drives did have some issues on release, and recent problem with shipments from one Asian factory.
That vs. 2 x 1TB USBs (one for backup) again for about $200US... but it's getting kind of crowded now around my desk.
sata is nice because of internal controller/ext discs, faster than USB/NAS, though I have 4 TB of media now and no RAIDs (all ext USBs) and still not much hassle copying for backups. Just takes awhile.
sata caveats: Reliance on proprietary sata RAID controller is some risk. Seagate drives did have some issues on release, and recent problem with shipments from one Asian factory.
That vs. 2 x 1TB USBs (one for backup) again for about $200US... but it's getting kind of crowded now around my desk.
I don't like the sound of that lolpparker said:
Seagate
Well, now you can buy the WD Green 2 TB, but for $299 (£211) each. The 1.5 is $130. Have to buy 2 and RAID 1 them, since you'll have to replace one, but I always buy 2 anyway ;>Shuugo said:
I don't like the sound of that lol
Just resurrecting this as I've now totally maxed out my USB storage.
If I go up to £250 what will that give me on the current market? I'm not interested in a home-brew NAS solution, just a box that I can back up to which is network enabled. Must be O/S agnostic as well.
I hear http://www.buffalo-technology.com/ build good NAS solutions?
If I go up to £250 what will that give me on the current market? I'm not interested in a home-brew NAS solution, just a box that I can back up to which is network enabled. Must be O/S agnostic as well.
I hear http://www.buffalo-technology.com/ build good NAS solutions?
Radioactive
Image Backups
Prefer something which is O/S agnostic.