TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Mr. Nadelewitz, just because you have had one or two experiences when you couldn’t read a mirrored drive doesn’t mean it’s some sort of universal truth - It all depends on the file system, the way the mirror was implemented (block size) and how the volume was created. An NTFS file system is an NTFS file system. If the file allocation table and the file conforms to the NTFS standard and the data is not stripped (just a plain contiguous file) AND the block size is the same, there is no reason another machine running NTFS that can mount the drive may not read it. It may or it may not (I thought I was clear about that) - but with mirroring (only), you cannot correctly state that as a universal rule.

Many file systems allow you to choose the block size, and the manufacturer, or in some cases the user, may choose a block size that optimizes performance vs utilization. If for example the controller that wrote the data writes 1K blocks, and the controller that reads the data expects 4K blocks, then obviously that can be an an issue.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I also use Synology for my RAID storage, mostly RAID 1. Believe it or not, I have well over 100 TB of raw storage in 3 Synology NAS systems, a 2-bay, 4-bay and 8-bay. When I Import images (always using Lightroom) I store on a local LaCie RAID drive system in RAID 1 PLUS I also, at the same time store an additional copy of each image on a Synology device. I shoot 80-100k images a year (slowing down recently) so I use a LOT of storage. I also have backups in another location. Yes, I AM anal! Best of luck.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Please read what I said.

I am not basing what I said on just MY experience.

I didn't say it is a UNIVERSAL truth. I said that I have seen people saying that they COULD read RAID drives outside the RAID array.

If you do a modicum of research on the Web, you will see MANY references to the fact that IN GENERAL, RAID drives SHOULD NOT be thought of as readable away from the controller that created them, with possibly some exceptions. This is because RAID controllers, IN GENERAL, create drives with proprietary formats that are not readable other than by the controller that created them.

You do not have to take MY word for it. And you don't have to "tell" me what NTFS is, thank you. And anyone who thinks their RAID drives are supposed to be and will be readable separately from the RAID array should TEST that premise themselves before assuming their individual RAID drives are usable backups.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Mr. Nadelewitz, I don’t need to research it on the web - I have spent 25 years in data storage for the largest storage companies in existence, thank you (EMC, NetAPP, IBM, DDN...). I am pleased that you have changed your statement to reflect that a mirrored drive MAY be readable rather than your last post which was:

“Wrong. A drive out of a RAID 1 mirror array WILL ALSO BE UNREADABLE, as would a drive from any other RAID array type created by the same controller”.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

But you had better test this first before relying upon thinking that it will work and saving your bacon.
And this is the downfall of backup systems, Raid systems and UPS's. The users never bother to test whether the recovery they hope will work actually does work.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And all of those are keepers?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Couldn’t agree more! Amazing how few users ever test their backup system AND a restore, and I have seen lots of restores fail using enterprise BU SW such as Veritas NetBackup.

It is painful to watch. All the engineers and users have left because they can’t access their data, the IT staff is looking panic stricken, the CIO is on the phone calling in the SEs from both the storage company and the BU SW company, and the salespeople that sold the storage and SW are on-site trying to calm everyone. Been there, done that (more than once).

Beenthere

I do a lot of audio production and the drives of choice among my colleagues are Glyph Drives. They are especially designed for media work, Audio, Video & Photgraphy. They come in many different versions including "RAID". They are a little more expensive than others available, but are worth it. Their warrantees are also excellent. Here's the link to the Glyph site where you can read for yourself.

I have several and haven't had a failure yet.

https://www.glyphtech.com

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

So you think you are the only one here with computer experience? I have at 15 years on you.
I stand by everything I've said. No more need to argue with you.
Bye.

Vladimir200 Loc: Beaumont, Ca.

I have the WD MyCloudEX2Ultra with two 8tb red drives and have them set up as RAID 1. In this manner, the down side is that I only have a "total" of 8tb (not 8 x 2 = 16) but the good news is that each drive in the NAS case is a mirror image of the other so if one drive goes bad, the other is still good. No, I don't take the drives out. Every picture I do gets immediately sent to this NAS unit while I import to LightRoom. If I were really smart, I'd make another copy on external HD (which I do) and take with me occasionally and swap out when I travel to my daughter's house (this, I do not do) 50 miles away. In this manner, if there were, let's say a fire at my house and my NAS drives were destroyed, I'd have the backup drive at my daughter's house. Some people backup to the cloud for this reason but I find uploading to the cloud too slow. Whatever you decide, remember that if you do go the NAS route, as others on this forum have mentioned, you'll be happy.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I certainly don’t think I am the only one with computer experience - we have many IT professionals here, but let me clarify, you DON’T have 15 years on me (as if just years were the only thing that mattered). What I said was that I had 25 years specializing in data storage, BUT, I started with IBM in 1965 on the shiny new IBM 360 system, and that would be 55 years computer experience. During that time. I have been an SE, a computer repair instructor in the military, a design engineer, and sold and installed RAIDs (at Ciprico, we built the first RAID 3 FibreChannel machine used on SGI’s workstations and supercomputers), NAS (at NetAPP, we pioneered NAS), SANs (if you don’t know who EMC is, you don’t know much about enterprise computing), clustered NAS (Isilon, bought by EMC/Dell), HPC storage (at DDN we built the fastest storage in existence, used on almost every major Supercomputer in the US). I could go on, but the point is that you can’t tell me sh*t about computing or storage, so lighten up, try to be civil, and stop trying. Now, let’s stop the personal attacks and chest-thumping and get back to discussing the technical aspects of RAID arrays.

lschiz Loc: Elgin, IL

With many options out there I ended up with CRU.
I use the CRU ToughTech Duo a RAID1 config as working drive. I sync this to my main RAID1 storage. This link is to the one I use.
I use RAID1 and both drive are identical redundant.
I back this up, ie sync to a single external drive and store that off site in a safe place like my desk at work.
Just another option, one of many good ones here.
So far so good.

lschiz Loc: Elgin, IL

Oops forgot the link
https://www.cru-inc.com/products/rtx/rtx220-3qr/

smussler Loc: Land O Lakes, FL - Formerly Miller Place, NY

I think that's only doable with RAID-1 (mirroring)
Something like a RAID-5 array strips the data and parity across multiple drives, storing a copy of one drive off site would be worthless.
I myself, like Cloud storage - like Microsoft's OneDrive. $1.99 a month for 50gb
RAID is certainly faster, but more costly for my taste.

smussler Loc: Land O Lakes, FL - Formerly Miller Place, NY

That's RAID-1, basically mirroring.
RAID-0, increases capacity by stripping the data across two drives, but if either drive fails, you've lost your data.
RAID-5 increases capacity
Capacity = (Size of smallest drive) x (Number of drives - 1)
For practical purposes all the drives should be the same size.
So five 4gb drives in RAID-5 array provide 16gb of storage.

You lose one drive for parity, which is stripped with the data in RAID-5.
Been 9 years since I worked with RAID, before retiring.
That's the low down on RAID-5 as I remember it.