Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Additional Storage options

S

spud159

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 9, 2015
8
1
Hello
I'm running a 2006 Mac Pro which is now operating with Yosemite and is still running strong.
I'm now at the stage of buying bigger hard drives again as I do a lot of photography and video and constantly filling up the 4 internal that I have, but would like another option.
I haven't upgrade the Mac to USB 3, so should I?
And would something like this work as quick to access external storage ICY DOCK http://icydockuk.com/goods.php?id=222 using the eSATA option?
The USB 2 external drives I have are painfully slow..
Thoughts,ideas alway appreciated
Thanks
Steve
 
spud159 said:
Hello
I haven't upgrade the Mac to USB 3, so should I?
And would something like this work as quick to access external storage ICY DOCK http://icydockuk.com/goods.php?id=222 using the eSATA option?
Click to expand...

USB3 and eSATA are both inexpensive and sufficiently fast for hard drive storage.

It looks like that multi-drive enclosure uses JBOD. Just be aware that if you lose a single drive, all data on all drives is at risk.

Whatever you do, if the data is important, make sure it is duplicated somewhere else as a backup.
 
ActionableMango said:
USB3 and eSATA are both inexpensive and sufficiently fast for hard drive storage.

It looks like that multi-drive enclosure uses JBOD. Just be aware that if you lose a single drive, all data on all drives is at risk.

Whatever you do, if the data is important, make sure it is duplicated somewhere else as a backup.
Click to expand...
With JBOD, the disks fail independently. Losing one disk doesn't affect the data on other disks.

With RAID-0, the failure of any disk is a failure of the entire volume - all data is lost.

With RAID-5, the failure of one disk is tolerated - all data remains accessible. The failure of two disks loses all data.

With RAID-6, the failure of two disks is tolerated - all data remains accessible. The failure of three disks loses all data.
 
AidenShaw said:
With JBOD, the disks fail independently. Losing one disk doesn't affect the data on other disks.
Click to expand...

Well, okay but data on all drives are at risk if they are spanned into one logical volume instead of used as a bunch of independent volumes. Spanning is common enough, hence my warning.
 
AidenShaw said:
"Spanned" is not JBOD. 'nuf said.
Click to expand...

I completely understand and agree, but nevertheless the terms are conflated so often that warning about spanning in relation to JBOD isn't unreasonable.

Look at any number of tech articles (I'm sure there are dozens), and even companies in the industry conflating the term. Here is one example (Wikipedia) that even gives the same warning I did:

JBOD
JBOD (abbreviated from "just a bunch of disks/drives") is an architecture using multiple hard drives exposed as individual devices. Hard drives may be treated independently or may be combined into a one or more logical volumes using a volume manager like LVM or mdadm; such volumes are usually called "spanned" or "linear | SPAN | BIG". A spanned volume provides no redundancy, so failure of a single hard drive amounts to failure of the whole logical volume. Redundancy for resilience and/or bandwidth improvement may be provided, in software, at a higher level.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back