[brainout]

I didn't find this topic in the forum, so thought it would be useful to ask the question. I never thought much about these issues, just accepted what I've gotten. But in reading all this past week (supposedly on vacation, yeah) -- it now dawns on me there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to each configuration. For example, I read somewhere that you can take a SATA drive out of your machine, give it an enclosure, and run it externally from your computer. Which implies a greater modularity versus an IDE drive?

Next item: RAID will in essence 'couple' drives to act as one. But why would anyone seek to do that?

Any feedback you care to give, is most appreciated! Thank you for your time!

[waldojim]

brainout, on 31 August 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I didn't find this topic in the forum, so thought it would be useful to ask the question. I never thought much about these issues, just accepted what I've gotten. But in reading all this past week (supposedly on vacation, yeah) -- it now dawns on me there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to each configuration. For example, I read somewhere that you can take a SATA drive out of your machine, give it an enclosure, and run it externally from your computer. Which implies a greater modularity versus an IDE drive?

Next item: RAID will in essence 'couple' drives to act as one. But why would anyone seek to do that?

Any feedback you care to give, is most appreciated! Thank you for your time!

I have an IDE drive sitting in a Firewire/USB box right now as well. For many years, IDE was the standard in externals as well as internal. The real difference, is that more expensive enclosures offer Sata pass-through - meaning you get about 90% of the drives full speed available.

Raid is used for many reasons. First and foremost, comes with the name itself - Redundant Array of Independent disks. Redundant being the key word. You can pair up 2 or 3 drives, and mirror across them all. That allows any drive to fail, and as long as you have one working drive, your data remains in tact, and your business continues to function.

Then there are other raid options. Striping for example, allows you to stripe data across multiple drives. This way, you have the combined performance. For example, if you have 3 drives striped, and they can read at 100MB/sec each, then you have a combined 300MB/sec read performance (roughly). The only downside - lose one drive, and your data is GONE.

The last common option is a combination of the two. Striping with parity. You use 3 or more drives, and gain the performance of all the drives while maintaining a bit of redundancy. Should any ONE drive fail, you can still recover your data. This is MUCH harder on the controller though, and often does not perform quite as well as expected. Namely because parity data must be calculated on the fly.

I personally use the last raid on my media center. This allows me to have partial redundancy, and maintain the throughput needed for multiple HD stream recording. I currently maintain about 200MB/sec read speeds. I never use striped raid, as I consider all of my data valuable.

That said, in some cases, you find that speed is far more necessary than redundancy. For example, high speed video rendering. The working space isn't maintained for long, you just need to maintain a high throughput, thus striping can work out well.

It all depends on the exact scenario.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 01 September 2012 - 01:29 AM

[brainout]

waldojim, on 01 September 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

brainout, on 31 August 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I didn't find this topic in the forum, so thought it would be useful to ask the question. I never thought much about these issues, just accepted what I've gotten. But in reading all this past week (supposedly on vacation, yeah) -- it now dawns on me there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to each configuration. For example, I read somewhere that you can take a SATA drive out of your machine, give it an enclosure, and run it externally from your computer. Which implies a greater modularity versus an IDE drive?

Next item: RAID will in essence 'couple' drives to act as one. But why would anyone seek to do that?

Any feedback you care to give, is most appreciated! Thank you for your time!

I have an IDE drive sitting in a Firewire/USB box right now as well. For many years, IDE was the standard in externals as well as internal. The real difference, is that more expensive enclosures offer Sata pass-through - meaning you get about 90% of the drives full speed available.

Raid is used for many reasons. First and foremost, comes with the name itself - Redundant Array of Independent disks. Redundant being the key word. You can pair up 2 or 3 drives, and mirror across them all. That allows any drive to fail, and as long as you have one working drive, your data remains in tact, and your business continues to function.

Then there are other raid options. Striping for example, allows you to stripe data across multiple drives. This way, you have the combined performance. For example, if you have 3 drives striped, and they can read at 100MB/sec each, then you have a combined 300MB/sec read performance (roughly). The only downside - lose one drive, and your data is GONE.

The last common option is a combination of the two. Striping with parity. You use 3 or more drives, and gain the performance of all the drives while maintaining a bit of redundancy. Should any ONE drive fail, you can still recover your data. This is MUCH harder on the controller though, and often does not perform quite as well as expected. Namely because parity data must be calculated on the fly.

I personally use the last raid on my media center. This allows me to have partial redundancy, and maintain the throughput needed for multiple HD stream recording. I currently maintain about 200MB/sec read speeds. I never use striped raid, as I consider all of my data valuable.

That said, in some cases, you find that speed is far more necessary than redundancy. For example, high speed video rendering. The working space isn't maintained for long, you just need to maintain a high throughput, thus striping can work out well.

It all depends on the exact scenario.

Thank you. Speed is only important for video rendering, but not so important that I want to go to striping. RAID is what my computer guys suggest, but I opted for cloning the root instead, via Macrium Reflect 5 Pro. I see its utility though now, thanks to you. For a server RAID might be more viable than cloning, but I won't network the computers.

I'm still confused about the SATA advantage, though. If it runs slower, why use it? Is it more reliable?

[waldojim]

Sata is much quicker, what I was getting at was that external interfaces have existed for quite some time. While older drives all use IDE/ATA in the enclosure, most were limited by the external interface itself. For many years, only SCSI could provide 100% performance in an external enclosure. Firewire being the standard that was used for years due to the massive performance (40MB/sec Version A, and 80MB/sec Version . Even now, External Sata isn't as quick as it could be. Most of them peaking at roughly 90% of the internal interface. For full bandwidth, Thunderbolt is the best option for full speed external interface. Though realistically, most people won't notice a 10% performance hit when using ESata.

[LincolnSpector]

Hi, Brainout.

IDE is an old, outdated connection standard for drives. SATA replaced IDE years ago, and AFAIK, is superior in every way. The reason to buy an IDE drive that I could imagine is that you have a very old motherboard that doesn't support SATA.

You can buy enclosures that can turn IDE or SATA drives into external USB ones.

RAID systems allow two or more drives to work together. You can configure a RAID to make it one bigger and faster driver. You can also configure a RAID for data protection. If one drive fails, the other is still there.

Lincoln

[brainout]

LincolnSpector, on 02 September 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Hi, Brainout.

IDE is an old, outdated connection standard for drives. SATA replaced IDE years ago, and AFAIK, is superior in every way. The reason to buy an IDE drive that I could imagine is that you have a very old motherboard that doesn't support SATA.

You can buy enclosures that can turn IDE or SATA drives into external USB ones.

RAID systems allow two or more drives to work together. You can configure a RAID to make it one bigger and faster driver. You can also configure a RAID for data protection. If one drive fails, the other is still there.

Lincoln

Thank you, Mr. Spector. That's exactly what I was worried about. I have SATA and IDE. I don't plan on removing the drives to make them external.

I understand what you mean about RAID, but if I clone the drive regularly, it seems a superior solution. If I could, I'd want to operate with no internal drive. So just enough for whatever I must run, because Windows demands an internal drive. Linux doesn't, but it would be convenient and faster.

My head is spinning over the Linux thingy (might make a thread about it), but as it stands I'll probably go to dual boot on a partitioned drive as your article suggested, after all. The programs would be internal, the data external, and I'd clone the whole drive, so could preserve the dual partitioning in case the drive died. Programs don't update as often as I back up. Macrium Reflect 5 Pro will work on the Windows, but I didn't ask them if it will work on Linux. Then again, backing up on Linux isn't the problem it is on Windows. With Linux, you just boot and go.

But oh my, Linux is a pistol on any drive configuration. Over 400 flavors, and most of them are either outdated or kitschy. I gotta find one whose interface will be around, which won't change much from upgrade to upgrade. Else, it's almost as bad as being on Windows, now.

MS is nuts. If I'm going through all this angst, I can't imagine what IT departments are going through!

This post has been edited by brainout: 02 September 2012 - 07:42 PM

[smax013]

brainout, on 02 September 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Thank you, Mr. Spector. That's exactly what I was worried about. I have SATA and IDE. I don't plan on removing the drives to make them external.

I understand what you mean about RAID, but if I clone the drive regularly, it seems a superior solution. If I could, I'd want to operate with no internal drive. So just enough for whatever I must run, because Windows demands an internal drive. Linux doesn't, but it would be convenient and faster.

My head is spinning over the Linux thingy (might make a thread about it), but as it stands I'll probably go to dual boot on a partitioned drive as your article suggested, after all. The programs would be internal, the data external, and I'd clone the whole drive, so could preserve the dual partitioning in case the drive died. Programs don't update as often as I back up. Macrium Reflect 5 Pro will work on the Windows, but I didn't ask them if it will work on Linux. Then again, backing up on Linux isn't the problem it is on Windows. With Linux, you just boot and go.

But oh my, Linux is a pistol on any drive configuration. Over 400 flavors, and most of them are either outdated or kitschy. I gotta find one whose interface will be around, which won't change much from upgrade to upgrade. Else, it's almost as bad as being on Windows, now.

MS is nuts. If I'm going through all this angst, I can't imagine what IT departments are going through!

Cloning a drive kind of gives you the same benefit as running a RAID 1 array, but not exactly the same benefit. If you run a RAID 1 array (or RAID 5, etc...anything but RAID 0 basically), you get the cloning benefit ON THE FLY. So, the idea is that if one of your drives in the RAID 1 array dies for some reason, then you can still keep working away as the second drive is still working. And then you just get a new drive to replace the dead one and let the RAID array rebuild (i.e. basically "clone" again). All this can be done with zero down time for your computer (other than the time it takes to physically stick in the new drive). Cloning is more of a "passive" backup method. And frankly, even if you are using a RAID 1 array, you should still be backing up your computer (whether by cloning, imaging, or some other method).

FWIW, I have several RAID arrays. My Windows desktop has a local RAID 1 setup that I use for local storage. I also have a NAS that uses a form of RAID 5 that I use as a backup server for my two laptops as well as a primary network storage device. I have an older RAID 1 NAS drive that is in the process of being retired.

[brainout]

smax013, on 03 September 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Cloning a drive kind of gives you the same benefit as running a RAID 1 array, but not exactly the same benefit. If you run a RAID 1 array (or RAID 5, etc...anything but RAID 0 basically), you get the cloning benefit ON THE FLY. So, the idea is that if one of your drives in the RAID 1 array dies for some reason, then you can still keep working away as the second drive is still working. And then you just get a new drive to replace the dead one and let the RAID array rebuild (i.e. basically "clone" again). All this can be done with zero down time for your computer (other than the time it takes to physically stick in the new drive). Cloning is more of a "passive" backup method. And frankly, even if you are using a RAID 1 array, you should still be backing up your computer (whether by cloning, imaging, or some other method).

FWIW, I have several RAID arrays. My Windows desktop has a local RAID 1 setup that I use for local storage. I also have a NAS that uses a form of RAID 5 that I use as a backup server for my two laptops as well as a primary network storage device. I have an older RAID 1 NAS drive that is in the process of being retired.

Okay, I see your point. Since I backup files on the fly, it would be less important for me; but I can see how it would be VASTLY important in other situations. Thank you!

[brainout]

smax013, on 03 September 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

brainout, on 02 September 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Thank you, Mr. Spector. That's exactly what I was worried about. I have SATA and IDE. I don't plan on removing the drives to make them external.

I understand what you mean about RAID, but if I clone the drive regularly, it seems a superior solution. If I could, I'd want to operate with no internal drive. So just enough for whatever I must run, because Windows demands an internal drive. Linux doesn't, but it would be convenient and faster.

My head is spinning over the Linux thingy (might make a thread about it), but as it stands I'll probably go to dual boot on a partitioned drive as your article suggested, after all. The programs would be internal, the data external, and I'd clone the whole drive, so could preserve the dual partitioning in case the drive died. Programs don't update as often as I back up. Macrium Reflect 5 Pro will work on the Windows, but I didn't ask them if it will work on Linux. Then again, backing up on Linux isn't the problem it is on Windows. With Linux, you just boot and go.

But oh my, Linux is a pistol on any drive configuration. Over 400 flavors, and most of them are either outdated or kitschy. I gotta find one whose interface will be around, which won't change much from upgrade to upgrade. Else, it's almost as bad as being on Windows, now.

MS is nuts. If I'm going through all this angst, I can't imagine what IT departments are going through!

Cloning a drive kind of gives you the same benefit as running a RAID 1 array, but not exactly the same benefit. If you run a RAID 1 array (or RAID 5, etc...anything but RAID 0 basically), you get the cloning benefit ON THE FLY. So, the idea is that if one of your drives in the RAID 1 array dies for some reason, then you can still keep working away as the second drive is still working. And then you just get a new drive to replace the dead one and let the RAID array rebuild (i.e. basically "clone" again). All this can be done with zero down time for your computer (other than the time it takes to physically stick in the new drive). Cloning is more of a "passive" backup method. And frankly, even if you are using a RAID 1 array, you should still be backing up your computer (whether by cloning, imaging, or some other method).

FWIW, I have several RAID arrays. My Windows desktop has a local RAID 1 setup that I use for local storage. I also have a NAS that uses a form of RAID 5 that I use as a backup server for my two laptops as well as a primary network storage device. I have an older RAID 1 NAS drive that is in the process of being retired.

Okay, am rethinking what you said in this post. The Optiplex 760 with Win7 Pro has what appears to be a RAID 1 array. I didn't know that, it wasn't in the Dell Auction specs, so it would make a good test machine for what you're saying. So here's the question: when I take it to my computer guys to add in the other drive (and swap out the root drive for a clone), do you think I should specify RAID 1.. ?

Or do you need me to give you more specs? It's Core 2 Duo, only 2 GB RAM (which I'll upgrade as high as I can go -- 8 GB or 16 GB, I forget), 3.0 GHz. Small Form Factor. It's got a dedicated video card, I forget the separate RAM, and I don't remember the sound card, though that shouldn't matter.

The idea is, this machine is 64-bit architecture; so eventually I'm going to convert to a flavor of Linux plus some other OS (total of three OS for booting); one of the OS versions, being 64-bit.

Thank you for your time!

[smax013]

brainout, on 12 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Okay, am rethinking what you said in this post. The Optiplex 760 with Win7 Pro has what appears to be a RAID 1 array. I didn't know that, it wasn't in the Dell Auction specs, so it would make a good test machine for what you're saying. So here's the question: when I take it to my computer guys to add in the other drive (and swap out the root drive for a clone), do you think I should specify RAID 1.. ?

Or do you need me to give you more specs? It's Core 2 Duo, only 2 GB RAM (which I'll upgrade as high as I can go -- 8 GB or 16 GB, I forget), 3.0 GHz. Small Form Factor. It's got a dedicated video card, I forget the separate RAM, and I don't remember the sound card, though that shouldn't matter.

The idea is, this machine is 64-bit architecture; so eventually I'm going to convert to a flavor of Linux plus some other OS (total of three OS for booting); one of the OS versions, being 64-bit.

Thank you for your time!

First I will mention that I generally keep my data on a separate drive than my OS and programs. Thus, my setup is actually such that I have a boot drive and then two drives in RAID 1 for data. I have never actually setup a boot drive in RAID 1. Thus, I am not sure how setting up multiple partitions work with hardware RAID. I assume there should be no issue (i.e. that you can do it), but I just have never done it myself. I assume that Windows (or any other OS that supports the RAID 1 setup) would just think of the RAID 1 array as a "single" drive when you start dealing with partitions.

The second thing to consider is that I am pretty sure that hardware RAID setups on motherboards need drivers in the OS (it has been a while since I setup/built my Windows desktop and I am not at home to double check). If my memory is correct, then you would need to make sure that any Linux distro you planned on using had drivers for the RAID chipset/hardware in your Dell Optiplex before you even thought about setting up RAID 1 on it.

Personally, I think that RAID 1 is a waste for the OS and programs. This is why I have a separate SINGLE boot drive for my OS and programs. I then clone that drive on occasion. I then use the RAID 1 array for my data "drive", which provides a first level of redundancy for my data (I still back it up to something else...typically an external drive).

Thus, what you might want to do is just use a single drive for a boot drive that will house your OSs and each OS' associated programs. Then you could use an external drive that supports RAID 1 as a data drive that can be accessed by all your various OSs...or if you do in fact have drivers for all your OSs, use two additional internal drives (assuming you have room in your case) in RAID 1 array for data.

[waldojim]

Smax, for what little it is worth, Linux actually doesn't like most motherboard Soft-raid setups. Apart from certain models of NVidia chips, there aren't any consumer grade boards with hardware raid included. Windows on the other hand, will install easily to Intel Raid controllers. AMD and Nvidia both need drivers during the install.

EDIT: I am not saying you cannot get soft-raid to work in Linux, only that it is not as easy, and last time I tried, required building a new kernel. Admittedly, that was about 3 years ago though. I haven't allowed Linux near my media center since.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 12 November 2012 - 11:53 AM

[smax013]

waldojim, on 12 November 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Smax, for what little it is worth, Linux actually doesn't like most motherboard Soft-raid setups. Apart from certain models of NVidia chips, there aren't any consumer grade boards with hardware raid included. Windows on the other hand, will install easily to Intel Raid controllers. AMD and Nvidia both need drivers during the install.

EDIT: I am not saying you cannot get soft-raid to work in Linux, only that it is not as easy, and last time I tried, required building a new kernel. Admittedly, that was about 3 years ago though. I haven't allowed Linux near my media center since.

I was not sure if the Intel RAID driver (I believe it is the Intel AHCI RAID driver) or the Gigabyte RAID system for my motherboard (a Gigabyte) was truly a hardware RAID or if it was actually a software RAID.

I do know that I can do the RAID configuration/etc for the Gigabyte RAID without booting into Windows...don't know about the Intel RAID as I have never tried setting it up (never installed the Windows drivers when I first installed Windows XP and you cannot install it later without major hoop jumping and even then maybe not). I don't really if I had to actually install a Gigabyte RAID driver...but there is definitely some software that got installed that allows me some control over the RAID array in Windows.

Ultimately, my point was that he was likely going to face challenges getting motherboard RAID to work with Linux, which based upon your response seems to be true...even if I might have been off a bit on the details.

[brainout]

smax013, on 12 November 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

brainout, on 12 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Okay, am rethinking what you said in this post. The Optiplex 760 with Win7 Pro has what appears to be a RAID 1 array. I didn't know that, it wasn't in the Dell Auction specs, so it would make a good test machine for what you're saying. So here's the question: when I take it to my computer guys to add in the other drive (and swap out the root drive for a clone), do you think I should specify RAID 1.. ?

Or do you need me to give you more specs? It's Core 2 Duo, only 2 GB RAM (which I'll upgrade as high as I can go -- 8 GB or 16 GB, I forget), 3.0 GHz. Small Form Factor. It's got a dedicated video card, I forget the separate RAM, and I don't remember the sound card, though that shouldn't matter.

The idea is, this machine is 64-bit architecture; so eventually I'm going to convert to a flavor of Linux plus some other OS (total of three OS for booting); one of the OS versions, being 64-bit.

Thank you for your time!

First I will mention that I generally keep my data on a separate drive than my OS and programs. Thus, my setup is actually such that I have a boot drive and then two drives in RAID 1 for data. I have never actually setup a boot drive in RAID 1. Thus, I am not sure how setting up multiple partitions work with hardware RAID. I assume there should be no issue (i.e. that you can do it), but I just have never done it myself. I assume that Windows (or any other OS that supports the RAID 1 setup) would just think of the RAID 1 array as a "single" drive when you start dealing with partitions.

The second thing to consider is that I am pretty sure that hardware RAID setups on motherboards need drivers in the OS (it has been a while since I setup/built my Windows desktop and I am not at home to double check). If my memory is correct, then you would need to make sure that any Linux distro you planned on using had drivers for the RAID chipset/hardware in your Dell Optiplex before you even thought about setting up RAID 1 on it.

Personally, I think that RAID 1 is a waste for the OS and programs. This is why I have a separate SINGLE boot drive for my OS and programs. I then clone that drive on occasion. I then use the RAID 1 array for my data "drive", which provides a first level of redundancy for my data (I still back it up to something else...typically an external drive).

Thus, what you might want to do is just use a single drive for a boot drive that will house your OSs and each OS' associated programs. Then you could use an external drive that supports RAID 1 as a data drive that can be accessed by all your various OSs...or if you do in fact have drivers for all your OSs, use two additional internal drives (assuming you have room in your case) in RAID 1 array for data.

Thank you, smax. What you said, makes sense. For Windows I must have the proper drivers, etc. because when I disabled fast boot, that's when I learned of the RAID. So Windows bypasses it: since the second drive is not connected, and boots just fine.

I'd rather keep my data on an external drive, and clone the internal. Easier for me to switch between machines. So I guess what I should do is get a bigger internal drive swapped in, so I can have multiple OS on the internal drive. Macrium has no problem with Linux partition backup/clone, so I'll just do that.

Thank you again, you saved me a lot of time!

[waldojim]

smax013, on 12 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

I was not sure if the Intel RAID driver (I believe it is the Intel AHCI RAID driver) or the Gigabyte RAID system for my motherboard (a Gigabyte) was truly a hardware RAID or if it was actually a software RAID.

I do know that I can do the RAID configuration/etc for the Gigabyte RAID without booting into Windows...don't know about the Intel RAID as I have never tried setting it up (never installed the Windows drivers when I first installed Windows XP and you cannot install it later without major hoop jumping and even then maybe not). I don't really if I had to actually install a Gigabyte RAID driver...but there is definitely some software that got installed that allows me some control over the RAID array in Windows.

Ultimately, my point was that he was likely going to face challenges getting motherboard RAID to work with Linux, which based upon your response seems to be true...even if I might have been off a bit on the details.

They fall somewhere in between. A more correct answer would be "fake-raid". Your CPU still does a considerable chunk of the work, but the controller does handle some of the functions on its own.

The easiest raid setup I have ever used, was with a real SCSI raid controller. It was seamless with any OS.

For Linux, however, the best bet is to use Linux's native drive pooling. With LVM you can customize the layout, give each drive a role, and still maintain 100% raid-like functionality. The only difference being that it is all handled by the kernel - which most soft-raid or fake raid systems end up under Linux any how. I would actually trust this FAR more than a hack-job making Linux take the fake-raid.

[smax013]

brainout, on 12 November 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

I'd rather keep my data on an external drive, and clone the internal.

As I mentioned, there are external drives that use two drives in a RAID 1 array. Thus, you get a "first level" of backup/redundancy. So, you could still get the benefit of a RAID 1 setup for you data...but just using an external USB (or Firewire or eSATA) drive.

[smax013]

waldojim, on 12 November 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

They fall somewhere in between. A more correct answer would be "fake-raid". Your CPU still does a considerable chunk of the work, but the controller does handle some of the functions on its own.

Makes sense...I know it could not be a "pure" software based RAID system.

[brainout]

smax013, on 13 November 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

brainout, on 12 November 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

I'd rather keep my data on an external drive, and clone the internal.

As I mentioned, there are external drives that use two drives in a RAID 1 array. Thus, you get a "first level" of backup/redundancy. So, you could still get the benefit of a RAID 1 setup for you data...but just using an external USB (or Firewire or eSATA) drive.

Right, you did say that, and it's a good idea. It's just that I switch between machines often, so carrying a small external drive from machine to machine, works for my needs right now. But the RAID thingy would be vital, if I ever decide to network and turn one of the computers into a server or make it Remote Desktop. That I might do, if I can convince one of my colleagues who doesn't even want to SPELL 'computer', to buy a Surface Pro for himself.

[smax013]

brainout, on 13 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Right, you did say that, and it's a good idea. It's just that I switch between machines often, so carrying a small external drive from machine to machine, works for my needs right now. But the RAID thingy would be vital, if I ever decide to network and turn one of the computers into a server or make it Remote Desktop. That I might do, if I can convince one of my colleagues who doesn't even want to SPELL 'computer', to buy a Surface Pro for himself.

You can get "small" external drives that have two drives in RAID 1. I actually have such an enclosure that I put in my own two drives (I am not actually using it in RAID 1...just as one enclosure to house two drives). The issue you likely would run into is that I believe these drives typically require supplemental power when using USB (i.e. a small external power adapter), but can be purely bus powered when using Firewire (I use Firewire). Firewire supplies more power on the bus. I am not sure if USB 3.0 changes this or not, but since you seem to be dealing with older computers, they likely won't have USB 3.0. I suspect your issue likely would be having to mess with the external power adapter when moving the drive from computer to computer.

Here is what I have (I bought just the "bare" enclosure...not one that included drives):

http://eshop.macsale...FW800_FW400_USB

There are certainly other options.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 14 November 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

You can get "small" external drives that have two drives in RAID 1. I actually have such an enclosure that I put in my own two drives (I am not actually using it in RAID 1...just as one enclosure to house two drives). The issue you likely would run into is that I believe these drives typically require supplemental power when using USB (i.e. a small external power adapter), but can be purely bus powered when using Firewire (I use Firewire). Firewire supplies more power on the bus. I am not sure if USB 3.0 changes this or not, but since you seem to be dealing with older computers, they likely won't have USB 3.0. I suspect your issue likely would be having to mess with the external power adapter when moving the drive from computer to computer.

Here is what I have (I bought just the "bare" enclosure...not one that included drives):

http://eshop.macsale...FW800_FW400_USB

There are certainly other options.

That is a sharp little box!

[smax013]

waldojim, on 14 November 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

smax013, on 14 November 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

You can get "small" external drives that have two drives in RAID 1. I actually have such an enclosure that I put in my own two drives (I am not actually using it in RAID 1...just as one enclosure to house two drives). The issue you likely would run into is that I believe these drives typically require supplemental power when using USB (i.e. a small external power adapter), but can be purely bus powered when using Firewire (I use Firewire). Firewire supplies more power on the bus. I am not sure if USB 3.0 changes this or not, but since you seem to be dealing with older computers, they likely won't have USB 3.0. I suspect your issue likely would be having to mess with the external power adapter when moving the drive from computer to computer.

Here is what I have (I bought just the "bare" enclosure...not one that included drives):

http://eshop.macsale...FW800_FW400_USB

There are certainly other options.

That is a sharp little box!

Yes, it is.

I had been using the single drive version for quite a while, but got the dual drive version so that I could have two drives that I use to clone the two drives in my MBP (I replaced the optical drive with an SSD drive that I boot from). Thus, both drives are kept together for me. I mainly use it with Firewire, but can also use eSATA (I have an eSATA ExpressCard for my MBP, which was one of the last that still had an ExpressCard slot).

Personally, I have long since gone to "building" external drives of my own (it is really just putting internal drives that I buy myself in an enclosure of my choice). I mainly did this because finding decent Firewire drives was a pain...even online...and I get to choose the internal drive that goes in the enclosure. And it allows me to easily "upgrade" to a large drive when I want...rather than having to go buy a whole new external drive. And, of course, I don't get the "bloatware" that the likes of WD or Seagate, etc put on their external drives (which I invariably erase).