Jump to content



Photo

So I just got four WD Red 4TB drives...


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#31 goodbytes

goodbytes

    Just below average Joe

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-May 04
  • Location: England

Posted 08 May 2014 - 10:44

Drives are just going to be faster and cheaper next week, why buy space to sit empty.  The drive is not going to last forever as well, so buying a drive that sits empty just so it can fail with 10% of is space used is pointless waste of money.

 

Very good point, i didn't really think of that, the only reason i can think of is to avoid what i said.. constant consolidation as you fill up.




#32 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 100
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 08 May 2014 - 10:55

But with a normal person this will be years apart, and time to prob replace the drive anyway - its out of warranty and prone to fail, etc.

 

Yes you can move up to larger disks and replace your small ones.. I jut did this myself actually, I had 2 750GB - both quite old 4 years plus..  Was getting a bit tight on space - was going to replace with 2TB, but the 3TB was only $10 more, etc. The cost per GB was more effective to go with the 3TB.  I don't see me using this up for quiet a bit of time.  If I do I would prob replace my older 2TB drive with 3 or 4 or whatever size is bigger than 2 that is best bang for the buck in cost.  It might be 4 TB SSD by then might be cheap?

 

Also as you start to get to get tight on space, its a good idea to do some house cleaning.. I have stuff in my media library that I would remove for sure before I spend more money on disks.

 

My point is nice that you have X TB online and all, but if its sitting empty just money you spent not being used that you could of spent on something you would actually use ;)  Maybe faster cpu, maybe better graphics card - maybe beer! ;)



#33 DJGM

DJGM

    Mancunian

  • Joined: 05-June 02

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:00

16TB of HDD space ... shame there'll only be about 14.5TB of available space to use, as the operating system will report

each of those drives as having only approx. 3.6TB. My main storage drive is 2TB, but Windows says it only has 1.81TB.



#34 cork1958

cork1958

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 04-October 02

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:21

Maybe I'm the odd one out but I don't see the perpetual need to have the enormous amount of space some folks around here strive for

 

500GB is way more than I'd ever need. Just as an example.

 

Then again, I don't store a lot of music/pictures. Mostly just application coding.

 

Nope,

Not the odd one out! Even with 9 computers here, I couldn't even add them all up to 1TB! I don't think I could ever possibly come up with enough crap to store that would require that much space. In fact, I wouldn't even want to either! :wacko:

 

Biggest hard drives I own that are in a computer is 160GB in 3 of the computers. Still have 130GB's free space on those also. :)

 

I don't save squat and see no need to. Don't do backups either as I have nothing worth losing. Have never lost a hard drive either and never have to reinstall Windows! :)



#35 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 100
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:27

So you don't understand 10 base numbers vs base 2?  Makers report in base 10, while reality is base 2, and lets not forget the overhead of formatting vs the unformatted space they are reporting..  

 

1000 vs 1024 adds up when you start talking GB and TB ;)  This has been topic of debate from back when hdd first came out... 



#36 goodbytes

goodbytes

    Just below average Joe

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-May 04
  • Location: England

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:30

 maybe beer! ;)

ALWAYS beer!



#37 +InsaneNutter

InsaneNutter

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 15-March 03
  • Location: Yorkshire, England
  • OS: Windows 8.1 & OSX 10.9
  • Phone: OnePlus One

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:39

Enjoy your new drives, I have a similar setup too on my NAS VM. Between the 4 drives I have around 3.1TB free in total.

For anyone wondering why I don’t use raid, most of the files don’t change much, and I have everything important backup up to external drives. I feel for me that’s batter as if something ever got corrupted or deleted I can simply restore it with ease.
 
iqh1xx.jpg

I personally use the space for personal digital photos, hd video, then recorded tv shows and blu-rays ive ripped. One of the drives is used for backing up the other PC's.

#38 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 100
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:53

You don't have to explain your non use of raid - it makes literately no sense in a HOME setup, where your storing stuff that does need to be online 24/7/365 because of lost revenue if not online if disk fails, etc.  As you stated you could recover your stuff from your backup, or rerip, etc. So why should you spend money for space to keep parity that you do not require.

 

I am with ya 110%  In the home I just can not justify raid for parity sake - now if you want to do 0 for performance that I can see ;)  There is just nothing that justifies the cost of parity in drive space - The critical stuff I have is backed up in multiple locations both locally, remotely and in the cloud..  If it went offline for a few days, weeks its not going to matter so why spend money on parity that is of no use.

 

You might want to look into drive pooling though just for ease of use of your storage - this allows you to present your space as 1 storage pool, so combined space with whatever shares or lack of them you want.  The software can auto balance storage across the disks on multiple algorithms.  You can set files or folders to be duplicated/triplicated/etc across the disks in the pool for say stuff you might not want to have to recover from backup or rerip, etc.

 

I use stablebit, https://stablebit.com/ and can not say enough nice things about their support and the pricing is fantastic, etc.  But there are plenty of other options out there.. 



#39 J_R_G

J_R_G

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 19-June 04

Posted 08 May 2014 - 12:01

Gotta disagree on 'no use for parity in the home'; I have 4 2TB drives, with mirror'ed back ups, I'd have 4TBs to use, so I stuck them in a RAID5 parity, now I have 6TB and still am protected against a failed disk. My problem is lack of $ so I gotta maximize the storage potential while keeping in consideration that I don't want to lose the data if I can help it, and yes I realize RAID5 is not a real backup solution but it's good as I can get right now. Actually using Windows 2012's storage spaces in parity configuration in this setup for about a year now, it works well, had one disk fail about 2 weeks ago, popped a new one in, it rebuilt and I was good to go.



#40 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 100
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 08 May 2014 - 12:47

"I realize RAID5 is not a real backup solution but it's good as I can get right now"

 

No it is not, and you understand the larger your disks and array get, the more likely it is that you wont be able to restore from parity anyway..

 

What exactly is in your 6TB of data that can not be recovered?  Calculate the cost of your parity - you needed a raid card?, you for sure needed to buy a disk that gives you enough space to create the parity.  For what - you have clearly stated that you understand raid is not a backup.  So you have spent money to hope that if a drive fails you an recover the files from the parity - that may not even work.  What if 2 disks die?  What if your machine catches fire?  Your spending money for backup, that is not even a backup ;)  What is that not having to restore from backup buy you - a few hours of your time "maybe" down the road for non critical stuff..  Rather spend that money on beer ;)

 

And what is so critical in 6TB of data?  Unless you say home movies/pictures/something you created then I have to disagree on its critical nature in a home setup.  I have the complete Star Trek original series in my library - It would suck having to rerip it sure, would take some time.  When was the last time I watched one of those?  Would I loose anything if went away?  No not really other than some point in the future I would pop the disk back into my computer and rip it to my library again.. Because I like to have it there at my fingertips vs having to pull out the disk, etc.  Worse case scenario my house burns down.. Oh #### lost my "backup" media of ST-TOS -- what to do what to do.. Oh wait my home owners insurance, I am quite sure they have 100 if not 1000s to buy still.  Oh #### look at that new  HD version of ST-TOS on BR..  Well screw my old SD copy, now I have better copy and when I get around to it put back in my library, etc.  What was the point of spending money for parity again?  I just do not see it in the home sorry..  I would love to hear why you feel the money your short on is was best spent on parity for something that if not online 24/7 looses you what?

 

So should I spend money on parity to save me possible future time that I may or may not even spend?

 

Now you know what I can not loose - videos and pictures of my grand daughter..  Should I trust that to raid, F no as we clearly all understand raid is not a "backup"  So I have copies on multiple disks in my home, I have copies on optical media both local and my son's house that is 30 plus miles away..  You would hope that any sort of natural disaster would not take out both locations..  Now if they drop a nuke on Chicago - both places prob gone, etc..  Lets hope Amazon storage is online still in that worse case scenario ;)  The roughly 100GB of actual critical movies and pictures cost me a whole $1 a month on glacier to have my piece of mind and DR..  When it grows to the point that its more cost effective to back it up with some unlimited for price per year service - then will move it there.  Either way the money spent on actual backup of my "critical" files I assure you is way less than the cost of your disk for "parity"..

 

You mention lack of $, well your method I am fairly sure is $ not very well spent in overall safety of your critical files.  And that your storing them on RAID without a backup shows that they are not very critical in the first place - so your spending money that buys you nothing but possible loss of some future time in a rerip, redownload, etc.  For someone that has lack of $ this seems less than wise ;)



#41 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 08 May 2014 - 13:01

I realize that - just wondering why someone said to not do a RAID 0 with these drives in particular.
 

Because they're very densely packed. More dense = much more prone to errors, so it's very likely that within a year, a RAID0 using 4 of these drives would lead to an error and all data being irrecoverable.



#42 +patseguin

patseguin

    Neowin Addict

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 21-May 02
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 6

Posted 08 May 2014 - 13:12

Man such a shame, should be going into a Synology...

Yeah I have 10 of the 3TB versions in my Synology media server.



#43 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 08 May 2014 - 13:16

 

 

I use stablebit, https://stablebit.com/ and can not say enough nice things about their support and the pricing is fantastic, etc.  But there are plenty of other options out there.. 

Sorry to thread hack.

Besides the notifications features, what would be the difference between this and storage spaces? I ask because I've been searching for a solution for a non-cloud back up and have several HDDs (750, 320 and 250gb IRC) and this seems like a good solution.



#44 OP +chconline

chconline

    I review, not promote.

  • Joined: 20-August 04
  • Location: Calgary, AB, Canada

Posted 08 May 2014 - 14:47

lol well I had 2TB of space at home. I've had it since 2010 with 3x WD Black 1TB in RAID 5 on my QNAP NAS. It's been running low for quite a while, considering it's a central file server in the house.

 

I always run RAID at home. I've definitely had disks fail before, and it's really annoying to recover should anything go wrong. Redundancy does come at a price, and it's not really that high :D



#45 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 08 May 2014 - 15:12

I have 2 x 3TB RED drives and 2 x 2TB Green drives (upgrading all to RED soon hopefully). I only upgraded because my 4 x 2TB drives were full and the 4TB ones were crazy expensive at the time so I "settled" for 3TBs.

 

I was thinking to get another 2 x 4TB to replace my 2 x 2TB Greens but after thinking about Budman's advice on the previous page - might as well get 2 x 3TB REDs as I don't need another 3-4TB this year! Might as well save the money and then later when 6TB drives come out and I need it I can get 4TBs for "cheap" (Y) :yes: