I understand where your coming from though.
Best way to store large amount of data - Page 2
Forum Index > Tech Support |
jacosajh
2919 Posts
I understand where your coming from though. | ||
Nuttyguy
United Kingdom1526 Posts
| ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
| ||
Nuttyguy
United Kingdom1526 Posts
im now thinking about buying a SATA card and use my PCI slots and use external casing on the hard drives, and leave the hard drives outside my case. What exactly is a external casing, slightly confused. Isnt is just a piece of plastic/metal that protects it? and you still need to plug the sata cable and the power cable in to it. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
For example, like if you get one of these. | ||
Madoga
Netherlands471 Posts
| ||
AppLeCheesE
33 Posts
If you need help doing this toss me a pm. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On July 14 2011 05:44 AppLeCheesE wrote: Just set the drives up on a computer within a raid that will solve the issue if any drives fail (no raid0). Next allow other users within your network to access the files that you'd like them to within your computer, ie. public documents. Most of these people aren't telling you anything relevant to what you actually can do with your parts without having to spend money. If you need help doing this toss me a pm. And please tell me how your "solution" solves his problem. How is his 4 TB HDDs going to magically increase in capacity doing what you just told him? I'd love to know how to do this as well. Getting back to topic, Madoga's idea is also pretty nice. I didn't think about that. Even though you don't have enough SATA ports, you can get a PCI Sata port multiplier if you have enough space for extra 3.5" HDD's in your computer. The only issue with this is you'd have to leave your main computer on all the time, and if it's a power-hungry beast, that'll make it more expensive to run 24/7. | ||
SweetClyde
2 Posts
The problem with the question is that reliability is an unapproachable standard. The frequency and persistence of outlying cases and failures makes any measure of reliability kind of useless in the kind of scale in which any non-enterprise user would be dealing. Google's early strategy for confronting this reality was to buy the cheapest, largest drives possible and compensate with abstracted systems that ensured the integrity of their data in the inevitable case that one or all of their drives in a given area failed. If implementing a backup system is out of the question for you but your data remains irreplaceable to some extent, then buying enterprise HDDs at lower densities is probably the way to go. | ||
Nuttyguy
United Kingdom1526 Posts
That is pretty SICK imo. i could just get this http://www.scan.co.uk/products/coolermaster-full-alloy-4-in-3-devices-module-ideal-for-most-cases?utm_source=google shopping&utm_medium=google shopping then leave it outside the computer and buy a sata card THEN when i want to expand buy the rest of the computer. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
| ||
AppLeCheesE
33 Posts
On July 14 2011 05:56 jacosajh wrote: And please tell me how your "solution" solves his problem. How is his 4 TB HDDs going to magically increase in capacity doing what you just told him? I'd love to know how to do this as well. Well bro, I didn't say it was a solution, I said everyone in here is feeding you garbage rather than actually providing you with an actual solution. I answered the OP's main issue, "data storage without backups" [a raid], and allow for file sharing on his home network. Maybe you shouldn't be a sarcastic idiot while making yourself look like an asshat putting words into my mouth. For the other, he needs a minimal build, a dual core processor, a motherboard, a reliable power supply, a case (well ventilated), raid card and a linux operating system. He will also need a router capable of handling the streaming of uncompressed data (1Gbps). How is his 4 TB HDDs going to magically increase in capacity doing what you just told him? Only a wizard could increase the data of a 1tb drive anymore than 1 billion bytes. You can also turn the computer off when it isn't being used, unless you don't mind spending 5 bucks a month for it. User was warned for this post | ||
Madoga
Netherlands471 Posts
On July 14 2011 05:56 jacosajh wrote: And please tell me how your "solution" solves his problem. How is his 4 TB HDDs going to magically increase in capacity doing what you just told him? I'd love to know how to do this as well. Getting back to topic, Madoga's idea is also pretty nice. I didn't think about that. Even though you don't have enough SATA ports, you can get a PCI Sata port multiplier if you have enough space for extra 3.5" HDD's in your computer. The only issue with this is you'd have to leave your main computer on all the time, and if it's a power-hungry beast, that'll make it more expensive to run 24/7. Didn't really have time to type before, made that post while playing a game. Anyway, yea he could just buy HDD(s) + sataport multiplier for now. It'll give him the space he needs for (however long it takes). Further down it allso shows you how to build your own nas. That guy build a system with with roughly 10 hdd spots for 400 dollar ish. Dont really know how that translates to pound but its a lot cheaper than just buying a (pre-build)nas and 10ish hdd slots should be enough for a long time. [edit] Pretty useless post, since I think that everyone got that allread, but w/e. | ||
AppLeCheesE
33 Posts
I've used dozens of them setting up my home network, quite reliable, decent speeds an optimal for long periods of time where the drive isn't being used. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 14 2011 06:13 AppLeCheesE wrote: Well bro, I didn't say it was a solution, I said everyone in here is feeding you garbage rather than actually providing you with an actual solution. I answered the OP's main issue, "data storage without backups" [a raid], and allow for file sharing on his home network. Maybe you shouldn't be a sarcastic idiot while making yourself look like an asshat putting words into my mouth. For the other, he needs a minimal build, a dual core processor, a motherboard, a reliable power supply, a case (well ventilated), raid card and a linux operating system. He will also need a router capable of handling the streaming of uncompressed data (1Gbps). Only a wizard could increase the data of a 1tb drive anymore than 1 billion bytes. You can also turn the computer off when it isn't being used, unless you don't mind spending 5 bucks a month for it. "Bro". What's with all the "bro" crap lately? If you acknowledge it isn't a solution to his problem, why the hell did you post it? He needs more space. As in he doesn't have enough. RAID for backup purposes requires more physical drives, so your "no spending money" bit is stupid too. He's going to have to spend more money to get more space, that's just a fact. What he's wondering is the best way to go about it, when he's out of SATA ports and room inside his case. That's what people have been answering, and you come in here all hostile, talking out your ass about something completely irrelevant and offtopic, and attacking them for discussing his actual issue. Short version? Everything you popped off at jacosajh with applies much better to yourself. | ||
Nuttyguy
United Kingdom1526 Posts
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/130281 buts its about £73 not sure if its worth it. is 300Mbs fast for a sata card? or should i get something like this for 2 sata slots http://www.ebuyer.com/product/136154 EDIT sata 2 drives should be 3Gbps but the card does 300Mbs isn't that 1/10th of its speed, will it be 300Mbps for the whole card or for each drive? | ||
Release
United States4397 Posts
On July 14 2011 06:51 Nuttyguy wrote: i've found this card http://www.ebuyer.com/product/130281 buts its about £73 not sure if its worth it. is 300Mbs fast for a sata card? or should i get something like this for 2 sata slots http://www.ebuyer.com/product/136154 EDIT sata 2 drives should be 3Gbps but the card does 300Mbs isn't that 1/10th of its speed, will it be 300Mbps for the whole card or for each drive? 3 gigabits aka 375 megabytes. Sata II only does about 300 megabytes persecond though. | ||
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
Nuttyguy
United Kingdom1526 Posts
| ||
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
That's just in case somebody was confused where 8 = 10 in that conversion. There's the rate 4/5 line code--the 8b/10b--for physical signaling reasons. (It doesn't do error correction.) | ||
| ||