Mobo with most PCI slots? (5 or more)

[dave87]

AM* that is effectively RAID1 - you only get half the storage space of the formatted drives because everything is stored twice.

RAID5 (and 6) give you more storage space as a result of how the data is replicated across the drives

[kalniel]

I can't see a point in running RAID just for some redundancy, there are far too many drawbacks that come with it (high power consumption, volatile and expensive controllers etc). I just use daily scheduled backups that clone each entire drive to another -- completely hassle free, as it is scheduled at 3:00 in the morning.

Isn't that going to use more power and take up more storage than using RAID?

But, yes, if you have no need for the computer to carry on when a hard drive breaks, you figure out the issue, and replace it/restore, then backup is more suitable that RAID.

[Funkstar]

I can't see a point in running RAID just for some redundancy, there are far too many drawbacks that come with it (high power consumption, volatile and expensive controllers etc). I just use daily scheduled backups that clone each entire drive to another -- completely hassle free, as it is scheduled at 3:00 in the morning.

Controllers don't need to be volatile, but low end software or "firmware" based controllers usually are (unless they have improved in recent years). A good hardware controller is very stable and comes with very powerful management software.

Unless you are removing the drives between backups, RAID shouldn't draw significantly more power than your proposed set up.

Are you cloning a drive at a time or all together? How reliable is the software you are using for that and how long will it take to clone your full set of disks?

Not saying it won't work as you want it, but it wouldn't be the way I would do it. But then that's the great thing about all this, there are loads of ways to achieve the same result

[IronWarrior]

Have to agree with Am* as I also don't see the point of using RAID other then RAID 1 for home usage, if you have something really of real value then have that save on one backup HDD or two if you really worried, even upload it to a offsite web host that does backups.

I have like 8-10TB's of Anime, Media and music stored on my HDD's, if one ever fails, I can easy download everything I lost in less then a handful of days with my 50mb internet connection (soon to be 100mb). Saying that, I never in 10 years, ever lost a HDD yet and there is 10 currently running in the machine am typing from, these range from few years old to 5+

I really do like that xcase and racks like that, but for £450, it's far too expensive for what all purposes is an metal box that someone has stuck a butch of hotswaps inside. It annoys me since it's a big fat example of rip off Britain. I do not believe the cost of that reflects the cost to design it, produce it, market it and everything for it to be sold, jesus, my 46" Smart 1080P HD TV doesn't cost that much. :/

Buying two Fractal Design Define XL cases which can hold 10 HDD's with room for a other 5/6 would be better value, to save even more money you could easy get some long power and sata cables to connect the other HDD's up. But even buying each case, it's own PSU, Motherboard and RAM, it would work out cheaper then that xcase.

The xcase and others like it are convenient through, but don't see the any value of money in them.

But if you have the money for it, no problem there, I spend and waste enough money on small 1/8 scale Anime girl figures made of PVC that look cute, but don't do anything.

[Am*]

AM* that is effectively RAID1 - you only get half the storage space of the formatted drives because everything is stored twice.

RAID5 (and 6) give you more storage space as a result of how the data is replicated across the drives

That sounds great but I'm willing to bet the controllers capable of doing this will cost an arm and a leg to buy.

Isn't that going to use more power and take up more storage than using RAID?

But, yes, if you have no need for the computer to carry on when a hard drive breaks, you figure out the issue, and replace it/restore, then backup is more suitable that RAID.

It uses a LOT less power because

1. The server runs 24/7
2. The drives are low powered and will spin down when not needed -- they ONLY spin up during backup & when accessed. RAID 1 needs ALL drives in the array to be spinning non-stop and any drive that spins down will be the end of all the data on that array.

Controllers don't need to be volatile, but low end software or "firmware" based controllers usually are (unless they have improved in recent years). A good hardware controller is very stable and comes with very powerful management software.

Unless you are removing the drives between backups, RAID shouldn't draw significantly more power than your proposed set up.

Are you cloning a drive at a time or all together? How reliable is the software you are using for that and how long will it take to clone your full set of disks?

Not saying it won't work as you want it, but it wouldn't be the way I would do it. But then that's the great thing about all this, there are loads of ways to achieve the same result

The software I'm using is not ideal -- and is REALLY basic. During the weekend when I don't use my server, I run automated software to simply copy & paste everything from each drive to another allocated backup hard disk drive. Before I do this, I always check the health status of the primary drives. I used to do it from my laptop but now I do it all from my tablet remotely. While I understand the big advantages of RAID or any FULLY automated backup systems, I prefer having full control and actively doing health checks on each drive in my server, because I see it as the only fool-proof way of backing up data, as all of my full up drives are only backed up ONCE (so no electricity is wasted spinning them up to copy the same data over and over again) -- only the rest run the scheduled backup. This has worked for me for the past 4 years without fail so I'll be using it for a long time to come or until another better method comes up that's just as efficient.