Need help with deciding on a new external desktop drive

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Not A Speck Of Cereal said:
This is true. I don't have huge regrets, but if I had it to over again, I would probably just do a DAS, since I edit on one machine.

But with a NAS, you can access your volume from anywhere in the world, even if you only edit on one machine when you're home. I don't do that, but some folk find it valuable.



While it's true you can have a source drive(s) plus backups without RAID, there are several advantages to RAID, especially for those running a business and need more rapid recovery and/or restore.

When a simple, non-RAID system fails, you can restore from back up, but large volumes will take a very long time. This is downtime for the working photographer (well, you can go shoot some more, but you can't work on them.)

With RAID, you have these abilities:
  1. Hot swap a drive immediately with no downtime.
  2. Rebuilding of the new drive starts immediately and you continue working while that happens.
  3. Increase your volume size by simply adding a drive. Add a 16TB drive to an existing 32TB volume turns it into a 48TB volume
  4. You're getting higher speed performance with spinning drives in a RAID configuration than you would with the same drives in non-RAID use.
Regarding point #3 above, I'm not aware of a way of making a single extended volume from multiple drives at todays typical volume sizes (20TB and beyond). Unless someone can correct me on that, what you're looking at, when you add another drive to increase storage, is just another drive letter. That starts complicating file/folder management, not to mention backup schemes.

And you're still not getting the performance advantage from point #4.

A NAS downside: I will once again mention the caveat that the best NAS performance comes from one on a 10GbE network (even if editing from one machine). That means the additional cost of two 10G network cards, one for the NAS and one in your editing machine. It's not that much though, if you're already investing in a new NAS system.

Chris
Click to expand...
I agree with the above comments. I use a RAID myself for backup.

Choosing and managing a RAID can be challenging for someone who is not comfortable with the technology. If you do not have technical skills I would recommend a "plug and play" system rather than attempt to build it yourself by buying parts and doing your own assembly. There are plug and play systems pre-set up for MAC.

There are a number of choices available and finding the right choice can be daunting to those like me who do not consider themselves expert in RAID management. OWC which uses software RAID controllers often has best prices, while Synology, which I think uses hardware to manage the RAID, is highly recommended by experts.

My only experience is with an OWC four bay pre-assembled system that I originally used with PC. I was able on my own with some fits and starts to get the PC to recognize the system and I got it running. However, when I tried to move the drive to MAC I had all sorts of problems. OWC uses Softraid for disk management and it can be tricky and complicated. I worked with a consultant and we eventually got the drives reformatted to MAC and it is now up and running.
 
Member's gallery
So I edit on 2 machines. I have a 4TB Samsung Shield SSD. I keep all my photos and LR catalogs on it so I can move from computer to computer. I have some time yet but eventually I’m going to run out of storage. Open to suggestions for storage options.
 
Member's gallery
RecalcitrantRon said:
So I edit on 2 machines. I have a 4TB Samsung Shield SSD. I keep all my photos and LR catalogs on it so I can move from computer to computer. I have some time yet but eventually I’m going to run out of storage. Open to suggestions for storage options.
Click to expand...
The issue with you is working with different computers and in different locations. That lends itself to NAS as a solution and the Hudson Henry video has advice on how to set one of those up. That may be the best long range solution for you.

I have not seen these small high speed USB C ssd drives bigger than 4 TB maybe someone else has. The 7.68 GB G Drive enterprise model that sells for 900 something is bigger but it resides in a box and needs an external power supply which makes it more problematic to move around.

There are other people who know more than I do and they may have other suggestions.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I went around and around about NAS and other options when I was setting up my system. What I am reporting is a summary of what I learned:

1. A NAS drive is not necessary unless you are editing from multiple locations or need remote access. NAS is also more expensive to build and maintain. DAS or direct attached storage is more efficient and simpler when you do your editing from a single computer.
2. NAS is normally slower than DAS because access is governed by network speed. What Hudson Henry did was speed up network access by adding higher speed network equipment. That adds complexity and expense to the network system. None of that complexity is necessary with a DAS connection.
3. Thunderbolt connections found in later model MAC computers are plenty fast enough when used with the proper cables for a DAS connection. This becomes a much simpler and less expensive process than modifying network speed. As indicated elsewhere, a high speed SSD drive directly attached to the computer by Thunderbolt is for practical purposes as effective as an internal drive.
4. All drives can eventually fail. You need an effective backup system which includes both on site and remote backup. That way if you have a catastrophic failure you can replace the defective drive and restore the data from a backup. Backup drives don't have to be as fast as drives used for active photo importing and processing so they can be less expensive.

NOW ABOUT RAID DRIVES:

RAID means redundant array of independent drives. A RAID drive groups individual drives together and has a system for managing access to the drives. RAID drives handle the management either through software or hardware. Generally hardware RAID systems are more expensive.

How you configure a RAID drive depends on the need you are trying to serve. You can speed up access by using multiple slower drives to serve as a single combined drive (striping). Or you can use drives to mirror content to adjacent drives so if one drive fails it can be replaced without loss of data. Or you can increase storage capacity by simply adding individual drives to the RAID.

With a proper backup system a RAID may not be necessary. A simple backup management system is effective to protect your images and will work with individual drives. Here is how it works:

a. You import your images to the main processing drive as usual. Do not reformat your cards until your newly imported images have been backed up.
b. Set your backup systems up so the backup is done at least daily. Back up both to a local backup drive and to cloud storage.
c. Verify the backup has been completed. Backup systems verify the backups have been made.
d. Now you can safely reformat your data card.

With this system you know your images have been captured in three places, one of which is off site. Should a drive fail you can replace it and restore your images to that drive simply and easily.
Click to expand...
Thanks for demystifying all of this for me!
 
Member's gallery
Big Synology fan here. See post #14
I’ve had Synology for over a decade, and followed Hudson and my home network is super fast - all at 10Gbps vs the more normal 1Gbps. Files these days are so big…my Hasselblad files are 212 megs and Z8 are 45megs . My disk station is 14 Tb - DS923+ with 4 bays each with a 4Tb HDD…SDD are obviously possible. Support is magnificent.
 
Member's gallery
You can access either a NAS or direct attached storage from anywhere in the world…it's pretty easy to setup. I wouldn't want to try editing much over an internet connection but accessing it to get a file or edit the one image you need is pretty easy.

A NAS isn't really different from a direct attached RAID…it's simply a RAID directly attached to the computer that runs the NAS…and functionally it operates identically to any direct attached storage be it RAID or not.

Wotan1's explanation that it provides no real advantages to users like us over direct attached is exactly what I've been saying all along. Henry chose to do it the expensive way rather than the less expensive way and while his video does discuss the speed differences…for the most part they're minimal at best and of no practical value at worst.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
wrt nas, one advantage of nas over a das raid is the easy availability of software to diy
Click to expand...
Like what? There is plenty of availability of software that allows direct attached to do anything a NAS can do…I can't think of anything that isn't easily accomplished at least on the macOS side…I don't do Windows any more since I retired. As I said before…there's nothing wrong with doing it via a NAS…you'll just pay more money and spend more time managing another computer than if you use direct attached storage and you don't really get anything for all of that extra cost and management effort. Unless one upgrades your entire network to 10GB Ethernet, don't use wifi, and have computers that support 10GB (no current Apple laptops have ethernet ports at all and I didn't check to see if there were TB to 10GB adapters) at a considerable extra cost…and you're getting no actual improvement for all of that extra cost.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
As I said before…there's nothing wrong with doing it via a NAS…you'll just pay more money and spend more time managing another computer than if you use direct attached storage
Click to expand...

You don't need another computer. I just put a 10GbE card in my photo editing machine (which otherwise has a normal WIFI network for normal computer use) and connect it directly to my NAS. No server, no 10GbE network switch required, just a cable.

Anjin San said:
and you don't really get anything for all of that extra cost and management effort.
Click to expand...

The extra cost isn't that much, just the 10GbE cards.

As I said earlier, a DAS in the same situation would probably be faster. But at any time, I can start sharing this on my network to other computers, or configure it to access from anywhere in the world over broadband. <shrug>

Chris
 
Member's gallery
Not A Speck Of Cereal said:
You don't need another computer. I just put a 10GbE card in my photo editing machine (which otherwise has a normal WIFI network for normal computer use) and connect it directly to my NAS. No server, no 10GbE network switch required, just a cable.


The extra cost isn't that much, just the 10GbE cards.

As I said earlier, a DAS in the same situation would probably be faster. But at any time, I can start sharing this on my network to other computers, or configure it to access from anywhere in the world over broadband. <shrug>

Chris
Click to expand...
The NAS itself is another computer you need to manage…tha5 was my point there. And the NAS and 10GB adapters cost more than DAS almost always…and my other point was that any sharing to the LAN at home or across the internet is easily accomplished with DAS. While either will do exactly the same things…why pay more in both cost and maintenance/OS upkeep than you need to. Unless you have many, many clients…the DAS easily maxes out the network just like the NAS does…but when you get a lot of clients doing different things the threading on the NAS CPU and high speed to the backbone while clients apparent as high speed can make the NAS more efficient…but none of us talking here have nearly enough clients for the advantages that a NAS brings to actually matter..so why pay for those advantages? It’s like buying a car that can go 250 mph…what’s the point? The NAS *is* a server…which is the obvious point many people ignore. It’s not wrong to use one…it is just overkill and over spending…and the less over spending I do on computers and storage the more spending I can do on gear or trips.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
truenas, which leverages zfs is a lot more sophisticated than most raid software packages. ymmv
Click to expand...
True…ZFS is nice…but it’s way, way overkill for any photo or video editing people here are doing for the vast majority of people here. And…it is still another computer to manage…because a NAS is a computer with drives shared to the network…which is exactly what a DAS attached to your LR computer and then shared is…to *any* client they are functionally exactly identical. As I’ve said several times…a NAS over shared DAS is not wrong…it is just expensive overkill that provides…for anybody here…capabilities that you simply cannot take advantage of. Ypu could also get a SAN which is an NAS on steroids…but gain they’re designed to serve thousands of clients. NAS is designed for hundreds. Shared DAS is designed for low single digits of clients which is way more than sufficient for any of us here…so why spend more in dollars, setup, and maintenance hassle than you need to for something in capability that you can’t use.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
True…ZFS is nice…but it’s way, way overkill for any photo or video editing people here are doing for the vast majority of people here. And…it is still another computer to manage…because a NAS is a computer with drives shared to the network…which is exactly what a DAS attached to your LR computer and then shared is…to *any* client they are functionally exactly identical. As I’ve said several times…a NAS over shared DAS is not wrong…it is just expensive overkill that provides…for anybody here…capabilities that you simply cannot take advantage of. Ypu could also get a SAN which is an NAS on steroids…but gain they’re designed to serve thousands of clients. NAS is designed for hundreds. Shared DAS is designed for low single digits of clients which is way more than sufficient for any of us here…so why spend more in dollars, setup, and maintenance hassle than you need to for something in capability that you can’t use.
Click to expand...
right, which is why truenas is so nice. they really package it into an appliance and makes it super easy to set up maint tasks, monitoring, etc
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
right, which is why truenas is so nice. they really package it into an appliance and makes it super easy to set up maint tasks, monitoring, etc
Click to expand...
And…as I said…it provides zero that any of 7s actually need. It is also clearly aimed at enterprise installs according to the IXSystems website which is what truenas is designed for. A 24 TB RAID 5 config is $2250 with 5x6TB drives. An OWC TB array with 4x8TB drives is 1800…and that’s before you buy the 10GB cards assuming the IX supports one and the associated 10GB network gear…and notice it is aimed at enterprise users according to the web site. Despite all the ‘it is an appliance you don’t have to worry about’…it is still a computer with an OS and attached drives along with some software to manage the storage…and the computer part you will need to patch as vulnerabilities are discovered. And yes…it does ZFS apparently but *none* to few of us actually know what ZFS is or why it is good or whether it’s advantages actually apply to home or small business use…which it doesn’t. And every capability that a NAS has is easily replicated with cheaper DAS…and unless you do your entire home network with 10GB Ethernet and don’t use wifi…it does nothing that DAS doesn’t do, still needs to be managed, and costs more. So…what is the point? Sure…I could easily afford to replicate Hudson’s setup…and I’m computer savvy enough to know what capabilities it provides…but they do nothing for users like us that DAS can’t do cheaper. I don’t believe in wasting money for things I can’t use…or for being able to import 1500 images in 30 seconds instead of 40…that is a correct but meaningless improvement.

As I keep saying…there is zero wrong with using a NAS instead of DAS, particularly if the DAS host is always running as mine is…and there is zero wrong with providing the exact same capabilities at less cost in dollars and management of OS update time. Most NAS vendors probably tell you they will auto update your NAS as needed…but giving them the capability to enter your network and update/potentially break your storage at their discretion is…just plain dumb from an old sysadmin perspective. My…or your…computers, and that’s what a NAS is…should be managed by me or you and updated or not on our schedule. Do you really think they’re going to make sure all of your data is adequately backed up before updating the truenas OS…and are they going to help when it isn’t and they break your storage at the most inconvenient time? They’re not…but go ahead and spend more for the same capabilities if you like…it’s your money and time.

Yes…NAS and its better big brother SAN…have a place in IT…but then so does fiber channel networking and 10GB Ethernet everywhere and no wifi…but that place is enterprise and not a bunch of amateur or even pro photographers with a half dozen clients and an unknown level of computer expertise. Sharing drives and setting permissions and remote access ar pretty trivial to achieve. And that’s the scenario we are talking about.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
The NAS itself is another computer you need to manage…tha5 was my point there.
Click to expand...

Yes, okay, technically correct.

For the readers out there fretting on that point, my NAS has always been basically like an appliance, FAR more trouble free than any computer I've never had.

It gets the occasional operating update and rather than compare that to a computer, I would suggest it's more like the occasional firmware update to your camera. Do it or not, just takes a couple of minutes, and is TOTALLY unlike any Apple or Microsoft operating system. Feel free to disagree, but I personally would not count "computer like maintenance" on any list of cons for a NAS.

On other other points, agreed. For anyone looking for a nice, concise and easy to read guide of differences, I suggest this article:


Chris
 
Member's gallery
sidebar: i’m using the free version of truenas and so they are not updating my system and the way it’s set up is it says there is an update available and you have to approve it’s application
 
Member's gallery
Not A Speck Of Cereal said:
Yes, okay, technically correct.

For the readers out there fretting on that point, my NAS has always been basically like an appliance, FAR more trouble free than any computer I've never had.

It gets the occasional operating update and rather than compare that to a computer, I would suggest it's more like the occasional firmware update to your camera. Do it or not, just takes a couple of minutes, and is TOTALLY unlike any Apple or Microsoft operating system. Feel free to disagree, but I personally would not count "computer like maintenance" on any list of cons for a NAS.

On other other points, agreed. For anyone looking for a nice, concise and easy to read guide of differences, I suggest this article:


Chris
Click to expand...
Whatever…I’m done trying to explain why a NAS isn’t an optimum solution for most home users. Your money to spend so spend how you like it…as I said there is nothing wrong with a NAS but overkill and added cost…but if people want to buy one…I’m not going to say they’re wrong.

And the page you link…gee whiz, why am I not surprised that a company in the business of selling NAS and SAN says they’re better than DAS. Who woulda thunk that😀😀.

The trouble is that the vendors claim it’s a foolproof appliance like a toaster…and people who don’t know better buy into that. Ut the reality is a little more than that…and we could debate it until the cows come home but we won’t agree.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
sidebar: i’m using the free version of truenas and so they are not updating my system and the way it’s set up is it says there is an update available and you have to approve it’s application
Click to expand...
So you actually are managing an additional computer…which I already said was the case. What’s the point in having to manage 2 instead of 1 and paying more for that and getting no actual benefit from it? Seems nuts to me…but then I’m a firm believer in ‘better is the enemy of good enough’…and I have to admit the NAS industry has convinced a whole bunch of people that their device is as simple, reliable, and foolproof as a toaster. Me…I don’t spend money that does me no good…
 
Member's gallery
R_Warshaw said:
I have a pair of Lacie 20 TB drives similar to what you're considering (10Tb when set up for mirroring) and a G Drive with the same specs. All three have been reliable. That said all spinning drives eventually fail so even if I didn't need more storage (i do) I will need to replace them soon. I edit from the G drive and while it's slower than the SSD in my Mac it's fast enough for me. If I were a vidiographer I'd use SSDs for sure. I rotate the Lacie drives off-site for backup so each one is used only half the time. I admit to being a bit OCD about backup.
Click to expand...
Great input, thank you.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
i’m not sure what kind of thread i wandered into, i’m just a systems engineer who set up a nas with stuff i had lying around other than the main drives which you can’t avoid regardless of the system, and thought i’d mention i thought it was pretty impressive 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
And I'm wondering what kind of thread I started, it gets way out there fast! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top