Help
Post your comments for G-RAID with Thunderbolt an impressive performer here
Page 1 of 1
G-RAID with Thunderbolt an impressive performer
#2
JayNunnayobusiness 
- Newbie
-
- Group: New Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 18-April 12
Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:55 PM
I'd like to suggest that you give us time in seconds. MBps don't really give a lot of us an idea of speed.
#3
GrahamAJones
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 25-January 06
Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:48 PM
A RAID-0 array should never be used for a production. Period. All hard drives eventually fail. Some may last 7 years, but others (even from good brands) can fail within days.
A RAID-0 array with 2 drives is twice as likely to fail than a single drive. The last time I used RAID-0, about 5 years ago, it was with two brand new drives. I was lucky enough to lose only 1 week of man-hours when it went down, and nothing irreplaceable.
Like I said, that was the last time. Ever since then, I only use RAID-5 protection, and though individual drives have failed, I have not lost a single file.
Yes, this drive can do RAID-1, but it will be slow, and won't take full advantage of the Thunderbolt connection.
Buyer beware! Spend the money on better data protection. If you need performance and protection, get something that is RAID-5 compatible.
One note -- I know many people use these for render files. OK, you won't worry if the drive goes down. But do you want to spend days re-rendering?
The only viable use for something like this is for a scratch disk -- for caching in something like Photoshop or After Effects, where the data stored is not kept anyway.
A RAID-0 array with 2 drives is twice as likely to fail than a single drive. The last time I used RAID-0, about 5 years ago, it was with two brand new drives. I was lucky enough to lose only 1 week of man-hours when it went down, and nothing irreplaceable.
Like I said, that was the last time. Ever since then, I only use RAID-5 protection, and though individual drives have failed, I have not lost a single file.
Yes, this drive can do RAID-1, but it will be slow, and won't take full advantage of the Thunderbolt connection.
Buyer beware! Spend the money on better data protection. If you need performance and protection, get something that is RAID-5 compatible.
One note -- I know many people use these for render files. OK, you won't worry if the drive goes down. But do you want to spend days re-rendering?
The only viable use for something like this is for a scratch disk -- for caching in something like Photoshop or After Effects, where the data stored is not kept anyway.
#4
LelandHendrix
- Member
-
- Group: Macworld Insiders
- Posts: 281
- Joined: 06-February 10
Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:21 PM
I want this SO badly, as I can no longer use my FW 800 model with my MacBook Air...but this is still FAR TOO EXPENSIVE!
I ALREADY have two 2TB 7,200 rpm Hitachi drives... Why can't I get an enclosure--with thunderbolt--for a somewhat reasonable price!?
I ALREADY have two 2TB 7,200 rpm Hitachi drives... Why can't I get an enclosure--with thunderbolt--for a somewhat reasonable price!?
#5
chriscampbell
- Newbie
-
- Group: New Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 19-April 12
Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:45 AM
Not worth mentioning that the drives aren't user serviceable?
#6
bigcloits
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 31-December 07
Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:07 AM
I too would appreciate a little more information about the drive. This review is too thin to help me make a buying decision. RAID 1 speed and drive noise are particularly glaring omissions. On the admittedly more nitckpicky side, I always want to know about the drive light brightness! Overly bright lights are one of the most consistent minor annoyances I've had with peripherals over the years.
#7
leicaman
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,849
- Joined: 04-December 03
Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:19 AM
RAID 0 is great as long as the data is backed up. We recently lost a 14 month old 2TB G-Raid unit because the drives failed. The person using it was under the impression it was a RAID 1 device. Lost hundreds of hours of video. Now we get to pay for thousands of dollars of forensic work. To make it a RAID 1 device would require opening the case and manipulating DIP switches, thus voiding the warranty. G-Tech drives are expensive. They should have let you change thet without losing their warranty, like this new drive
Never EVER use Raid 0 for storage. It's kind of ludicrous to suggest using it for Time Machine. Shoot, anything short of RAID 5 with multiple redundancy is living dangerously. There's a big market out there for an affordable tape drive solution. But tape companies know the money is in Enterprise. So we're still waiting for some innovation to give us fast, affordable, reliable backups.
Never EVER use Raid 0 for storage. It's kind of ludicrous to suggest using it for Time Machine. Shoot, anything short of RAID 5 with multiple redundancy is living dangerously. There's a big market out there for an affordable tape drive solution. But tape companies know the money is in Enterprise. So we're still waiting for some innovation to give us fast, affordable, reliable backups.
This post has been edited by leicaman: 19 April 2012 - 05:20 AM
Eric
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
#8
demani
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 70
- Joined: 22-November 06
Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:48 AM
GrahamAJones, on 18 April 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:
A RAID-0 array should never be used for a production. Period. All hard drives eventually fail. Some may last 7 years, but others (even from good brands) can fail within days.
A RAID-0 array with 2 drives is twice as likely to fail than a single drive. The last time I used RAID-0, about 5 years ago, it was with two brand new drives. I was lucky enough to lose only 1 week of man-hours when it went down, and nothing irreplaceable.
Like I said, that was the last time. Ever since then, I only use RAID-5 protection, and though individual drives have failed, I have not lost a single file.
Yes, this drive can do RAID-1, but it will be slow, and won't take full advantage of the Thunderbolt connection.
Buyer beware! Spend the money on better data protection. If you need performance and protection, get something that is RAID-5 compatible.
One note -- I know many people use these for render files. OK, you won't worry if the drive goes down. But do you want to spend days re-rendering?
The only viable use for something like this is for a scratch disk -- for caching in something like Photoshop or After Effects, where the data stored is not kept anyway.
A RAID-0 array with 2 drives is twice as likely to fail than a single drive. The last time I used RAID-0, about 5 years ago, it was with two brand new drives. I was lucky enough to lose only 1 week of man-hours when it went down, and nothing irreplaceable.
Like I said, that was the last time. Ever since then, I only use RAID-5 protection, and though individual drives have failed, I have not lost a single file.
Yes, this drive can do RAID-1, but it will be slow, and won't take full advantage of the Thunderbolt connection.
Buyer beware! Spend the money on better data protection. If you need performance and protection, get something that is RAID-5 compatible.
One note -- I know many people use these for render files. OK, you won't worry if the drive goes down. But do you want to spend days re-rendering?
The only viable use for something like this is for a scratch disk -- for caching in something like Photoshop or After Effects, where the data stored is not kept anyway.
This is a simplistic view. RAID-0 should never be used where data integrity is of more importance than speed. But for capture volumes, or scratch space, or render targets, RAID 0 is fine. Render targets? Also fine- as long as you make adequate backups. But the key is backups. If you lost all your work, then your backups weren't adequate for the setup (weekly backups of production work are not adequate in any environment I've ever worked in). Understanding that RAID-0 is strictly about speed and not about redundancy is a major point, but most people dropping this much money on a drive likely have some understanding of that. RAID5 is not a backup, and only protects against drive failure (i.e. if someone writes over your saved file with garbage or your directory corrupts, you are just as out of luck). Backups are more important than ever now that drive capacities have gotten so huge.
This post has been edited by demani: 19 April 2012 - 08:49 AM
#10
integr8djw42
- Newbie
-
- Group: New Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 31-March 12
Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:10 AM
For $1200 you can build a 16TB storage server with an additional 4TB parity drive that will fully saturate an eSATA port at 300MBs. That's good enough for uncompressed dual-stream HD-SDI or single link 3G HD-SDI. All of the codecs mentioned (including the proxy ProRes) need much, much less... But you don't get to use the magic Thunderbolt cable.
It reminds me of Panasonic launching P2 cards. $500 for a 16GB card that could write at 400 or 500Mbs, while their cameras never needed more than 100Mbs. It's no wonder that within 12 months P2 adapters came online that housed fully capable SD Cards for a fraction of the price.
I'd save the money and build a Gigabit NAS (if working with the aforementioned codecs). Then I have a little, Unity-lite machine capable of feeding multiple clients.
It reminds me of Panasonic launching P2 cards. $500 for a 16GB card that could write at 400 or 500Mbs, while their cameras never needed more than 100Mbs. It's no wonder that within 12 months P2 adapters came online that housed fully capable SD Cards for a fraction of the price.
I'd save the money and build a Gigabit NAS (if working with the aforementioned codecs). Then I have a little, Unity-lite machine capable of feeding multiple clients.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1