Looking for server admin expertise...

[jsmetona]

I'm here to consult the expertise of you server admins out there...

I have a number of windows pc's in my home on a wired network.
After suffering many toast IDE hard drives from mechanical failure, i have decided its time to implement some type of backup. I plan to use a spare pc as a dedicated backup. What i need is a bulletproof hard drive array (under 300 bucks). I am considering SCSI and IDE drives in a RAID 1 array. It doesn't need to be extremely fast, but it needs to be extremely reliable. I am looking at SCSI as i am frustrated with IDE failure. Primary array size would need to be between 50-100 GB. Any suggestions?

 

[pctechmike1]

I don't do a lot of work on servers, but the way we setup ours is in a RAID 1+5 conguration. 2 hard drives in RAID 1 mirrored, and a RAID 5 striped for data storage. We use 2 80GB hard drives for the OS, and 5 160GB hard drivers for the data. This may be overkill for you, as you stated you wanted to stay under $300.00. We use SATA drives, and this type of config for redundency. Not saying this is the best way, but it has proven effective for the company I work for. I would go with SATA drives, if possible. And at least a RAID 1.

 

[DJ-CHRIS1]

I don't do a lot of work on servers, but the way we setup ours is in a RAID 1+5 conguration. 2 hard drives in RAID 1 mirrored, and a RAID 5 striped for data storage. We use 2 80GB hard drives for the OS, and 5 160GB hard drivers for the data. This may be overkill for you, as you stated you wanted to stay under $300.00. We use SATA drives, and this type of config for redundency. Not saying this is the best way, but it has proven effective for the company I work for. I would go with SATA drives, if possible. And at least a RAID 1.

This is nice, but waay overkill for a home.

Two method's that will give you great reliability are RAID 1 and Raid 5. Raid 1 implements two hard drives, with each having an exact copy (Two 80 gig drives in RAID 1, you get 80 gig storage). Raid 5 is 3 hard drive based and two hard drives contain data, another contains a mathematical calculation of the other drives (Three 80 gig hard drives gives you 160 gig storage).

For drives, SCSI are too expensive for you. The reason your drives are failing is not at all because their IDE. You're probolly using cheap drives. Some good drives are the seagate 7200.10 Baracuda line, as well as the western digital RAID line.

For $300 assuming you have the SATA host, you could build a 640 gig RAID 5 array with seagate drives.

 

[jsmetona]

For drives, SCSI are too expensive for you. The reason your drives are failing is not at all because their IDE. You're probolly using cheap drives. Some good drives are the seagate 7200.10 Baracuda line, as well as the western digital RAID line.

Thats the thing, I never use cheap drives. All the ones that have failed have been WD's. I brought up SCSI drives because i heard they are designed to run 24/7, and an IDE drive can't handle that.

 

[root]

IDE's can be run 24/7..
SCSI disks have faster access times...

all in all branding isn't really a big thing when talking about drives realistically...

if you want a real solution then raid 1 is the best bet...

basically, yuo'll buy 2 disks, (say 500GB).
and you'll format that as a raid array ino a single 500GB disk. anything written to noe disk will be written exactly the same way to teh second disk... the bonus of course is that if one disk goes belly up you have a back up that is always workni...

the downside is that your baclup solution is only as good as the controller or person using the machine...

ideally, you could go for a raid 1 setup, (with either IDE, SCSI or SATA disks, it's not really important), and then you should look at a realistic backup solution...
whether that be remote online storage, CD's DVD's backup tapes etc...

9/10 times, data can be recovered frmo a broken hard drive...
you should search out some local data recovery places if the info is *really* important.. but these places arn't cheap...

 

[bilbus]

scsi is disigned to be run 24/7 at high loads, ide is not. it can but it wil lfail faster.

a single SCSI 36GB HD is around 200-300$ new.

so i would say SATA would get you the most bang for your buck.

RAID protects data, it does not help you recover from a failure that caues data loss. RAID 1 would be your best bet

raid 1 is not a backup plan, DVD, Tape, External HD + nt backup is a backup plan

 

[NISSAN_Tech]

Honestly for a home setup I would just get a Network shared hard drive. Like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144413 Wouldn't cost that much and would always be up.

 

[priteshvarsani]

If you are goin to build a windows 2003 server for a tiny network, then you might as well use SATA drives, and then RAID them.

SATA is very fast, and considerably cheaper and just as reliable as SCSI drives, and SATA drives have much higher capacities!

id recomend buying two 500GIG SATAs and mirroring them for redundancy and a easy backup solution, and a 80GIG SATA for system to use.