[Freeflyer]

I'm about to expand the storage and backup options for my system, which currently consists of a laptop with 160Gb hard drive, external 320Gb drive (160 for weekly cloning of laptop drive, 160 for storage) and a spare 60Gb portable drive for moving stuff around. The new dSLR and Aperture are causing a need for new storage & backup options. I'd like to have more storage and an option for off-site backup.

My thoughts so far have been to have the 320Gb drive dedicated to time machine which allows for plenty of backup options should I accidentally delete files or need a version from some time ago. This gives good local protection but it's not really a backup solution. I'm thinking two options for extended storage and backup.

1.
An external firewire/usb2/e-sata enclosure with 2 drives running hardware raid 1. Probably 500Gb each. This gives local redundancy in case of drive failure and 500Gb storage. This can be upgraded as larger drives become cheaper.

A single 500Gb disk in an external enclosure and run a weekly backup of the 500Gb external storage which is then taken offsite for storage.


2. 2 external single drive enclosures with 1Tb drives. One for storage, one for cloning of the storage drive, cloning done weekly and second drive kept offsite.


The advantage of 1 is more redundancy at the expense of storage size (for a given expenditure). The advantage of 2 is more storage for the money but you're only backing up the storage drive once a week. Given that the storage wouldn't change as often as the day to day stuff on the laptop, which would be time machine backed up hourly, and disks are reasonably reliable if you get good ones (seagate with a 5 year guarantee seem popular for backups), I'm leaning towards the second option.

Any comments or alternative suggestions.

Thanks.

[mduell]

Use the 320GB for data, a 1TB for Time Machine, and another 1TB for an off-site clone (or even better, versioned backup if you're handy with rsync) of the TM volume. It doesn't sound like you need high availability, so I'd avoid consumer-grade RAID1.

Pre-built for $210 or $140 drive + $50 enclosure.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It doesn't sound like you need high availability, so I'd avoid consumer-grade RAID1.

Why is that ?

What's the difference between consumer grade RAID1 and non-consumer grade RAID1 ?

-t

[Freeflyer]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Use the 320GB for data, a 1TB for Time Machine, and another 1TB for an off-site clone (or even better, versioned backup if you're handy with rsync) of the TM volume. It doesn't sound like you need high availability, so I'd avoid consumer-grade RAID1.

That's a good solution but only adds 120Gb to my current storage availability. Most of the offboard storage doesn't need to be time machined if it has a regular weekly backup, as that would mainly be for storage of music, photos (aperture vaults and masters) and video, which doesn't change a huge amount each week.

Nice enclosures, I'll have to see what I can find over here in the UK that's similar.

Thanks for the advice,

J.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why is that ?

What's the difference between consumer grade RAID1 and non-consumer grade RAID1 ?

-t

Originally Posted by Freeflyer 

That's a good solution but only adds 120Gb to my current storage availability. Most of the offboard storage doesn't need to be time machined if it has a regular weekly backup, as that would mainly be for storage of music, photos (aperture vaults and masters) and video, which doesn't change a huge amount each week.

I can't parse "doesn't need to be time machined if it has a regular weekly backup." Time Machine is just a regular backup; if a file doesn't change, Time Machine won't make another copy of it.
Perhaps buy another 750GB/1TB disk to replace the 320GB for data.