1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I want mega storage (wireless)????

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Rameses, 23 May 2006.

  1. Rameses

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,453

    Right

    I cannot get it right in my head.

    Basically, I want a NAS type box attached to my router, which my iMac or any other pc for that matter (passworded of course) can access.

    Primarily for the sharing of my itunes library (plus other stuff), I intend to copy many many cds to it, so of course it has to pack something like 320GB +

    BUT be fail safe?

    Does this mean raid? does it mean buy 2 NAS 320GB? does it mean build an old pc and smack x amount of hard drives in it?

    Help :cool:
     
  2. NightmareXX

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 12 Aug 2005

    Posts: 1,025

    Location: Team 10

    I'd recommend the Netgear SC101. You have to buy your own HDD's and I've no idea if mac's can use, but you can put what ever size HDD in it.

    E.g. 2*500GB and RAIDed :)
     
  3. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Jan 2004

    Posts: 16,316

    Location: Plymouth

    RAID1 is mirroring, where the data is copied onto two drives - that's what you want if you want a cheap method of protection against disk failure :)
     
  4. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 28,880

    Location: England

    Raid 1 is what your looking for, it also doubles read transfer rates but since your using wireless you wont have that advantage.
     
  5. pcoltrane

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Sep 2005

    Posts: 945

    if you have an old pc knocking around try freenas.org
     
  6. Dutch Guy

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,563

    Location: Amsterdam,The Netherlands

    RAID 1 doesn't double read transfers, does it?

    All it does is write the same files to two drives.


    @OP, does it have to be a NAS and not a external USB/Firewire drive?
     
  7. Jay_t

    Hitman

    Joined: 19 May 2005

    Posts: 714

    Location: The Lake District

    Write times are the same but read times are improved, although not doubled. The PC can get half the data from one drive and half from the other, in theory anyway.
     
  8. noxidjkram@hotm

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 Oct 2005

    Posts: 2,450

    Location: Newcastle upon Toon

    If you have a Wireless Router, you can hang one of the NAS solutions off it.

    A decent one will have a RAID1 option built in to protect your data if you need it.

    The one i'm buying has two USB ports to attach any USB storage you like - so that could be for example two external 500GB HDDs! :)

    M
     
  9. Dutch Guy

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,563

    Location: Amsterdam,The Netherlands

    I think that only applies to RAID 0 where the data is split across two drives :confused:
     
  10. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Jan 2004

    Posts: 16,316

    Location: Plymouth

    There's not much of a idifference between standard and RAID 1 :)
     
  11. utherpendragon

    Hitman

    Joined: 4 May 2006

    Posts: 508

    except you have a backup for when the disk fails, don't look at rad-1 for performance, I think RAID5 offers redundancy and improved speeds although needs three disks minimum.
     
  12. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 28,880

    Location: England

    Applies to both, the data is on both drives in raid 1 so the pc can get half the data from each drive thus reducing the read times just like raid 0.
     
  13. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 28,880

    Location: England

    Thats a benchmark using points though, not real world file transfer throughput.
     
  14. noxidjkram@hotm

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 Oct 2005

    Posts: 2,450

    Location: Newcastle upon Toon


    There must be a difference though - otherwise no-one would use RAID0. RAID0 must have better performance??

    M
     
  15. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 28,880

    Location: England

    Better write performance, but the main reason is that raid 1 only gives you half the storage space of raid 0 because the drives are copies.
     
  16. Lagmeister

    Hitman

    Joined: 17 Nov 2005

    Posts: 931

    Look at it this way, if you want out and out speed, use a RAID0 array, if you want data security use RAID1, you could of course use RAID5 for both but you need more disks and its overkill for just a home setup normally.
     
  17. Rameses

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,453

    Is it I'm being silly?

    Shouldn't I just buy a 250GB NAS, and then buy another one later if I want to make sure its backed up?

    Just the more I think about a 2nd computer, the more it seems to put me off.

    Just want to remotly access my pictures, video's and mp3's.

    I plan to either buy a MacBook, or the Sony TX2 laptop, so I want not to have my complete library on each system, but a central place for them.

    I think I will just get one, and add another later when the pennies are available.

    :/

    :confused:
     
  18. Burbleflop

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 May 2003

    Posts: 4,247

    Location: Away from here

    I wouldn't recommend an SC101 - they're complete and utter crap. I've got one and have posted my opinion a couple of times - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6510191&postcount=4 & http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6710635&postcount=3

    There is also the slight issue that you need to install software onto each machine to access the SC101 - that software is Windows only so not much use for the OP who wants to access the NAS from a Mac.

    They are also incredibly fussy about which hard discs they use (have a browse of the netgear forums) and performance is shockingly bad if you RAID the discs.

    Edit - Have a look at a Buffalo Terastation (or Pro) & Iomega StoreCentre. I've got a couple of Buffalo Terastation Pro's at work and they're great bits of kit.
     
    Last edited: 27 May 2006
  19. philhoole

    Gangster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 466

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    You might want to look at the Thecus N2100. It has gigabit ethernet and a built in iTunes server.

    I don't actually have one so I can't give you a personal recommendation but I've read a couple of good reviews and it's a box I'm considering for similar reasons as yourself
     
  20. WJA96

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Jul 2005

    Posts: 16,649

    Location: Norfolk, South Scotland

    RAID 1 is not a good data security solution as corrupted data on 1 drive is also written to the other one as well (the 2 drives are mirrors on one another). It's better than just 1 disk, but if you need FAILSAFE then you want the data striped across several disks and proper parity checking - hence RAID 5. Yes, it's more money, but you wanted good security.

    Another option is to have 2 HDD and use something like Acronis True Image to make an incremental clone image of the primary disk onto the secondary disk. That way you're only a few hours from your last true backup. I would think that for the purposes of an i-tunes server that should be more than adequate to fail-safe yourself.