|
I swear to god this has to be trolling.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW posted:They are all Western Digital USB drives. You are correct that they are just SATA drives inside. I've already shucked two of them, but I can't do that to the rest because there's no more physical room in my case. Well you could always extend your case and build an external drive stand. That's what I did a decade ago when I was in your situation. A small wood plank, four aluminum L-bars standing upright with holes for HDD screws. Bunch of harddrives screwed in with the SATA and IDE cables running in to the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I swear to god this has to be trolling. The 500 GB dedicated to That 70s Show put the nail in it for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Splendid, just splendid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW posted:I looked into that but apparently you need one to one for hard drive data recovery with it. I'd have to buy a duplicate of every single hard drive I already have No, you can specify any folder you want duplicated. It will then duplicate that on whatever drives are available. It can be close to RAID 1 in terms of wasited space or not so much since you can only duplicate important things. LIKE THAT 70s SHOW!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
What are the specs of your desktop? Is that your only desktop? What do you use it for (gaming/Plex/porn)? Also can you list each drive (internal and external) with their sizes? Moey fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW posted:
Some posters, I'd question whether they could handle such a well designed, robust solution leveraging usb so well, but not you. You might even think about going commercial! Sell this to unsuspecting people on kickstarter or something - call it frankenraid. I can hardly wait for what absurd poo poo you'll post next dude 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Variable 5 posted:for %%i in (C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z) DO @if exist %%i: dir %%i:\ /a /s > c:\file-lists\%%i-%date:~6,4%-%date:~3,2%-%date:~0,2%-%time:~0,2%-%time:~3,2%-%time:~6,2%.txt Thank you! Moey posted:What are the specs of your desktop? Is that your only desktop? What do you use it for (gaming/Plex/porn)? Internal: 1tb SSD 1tb HDD 2tb 3tb 4tb 4tb 4tb 4tb 4tb 4tb 4tb 4tb 4tb 8tb External: 8tb 8tb 8tb 8tb 8tb 8tb 10tb It's an i7 with 12gb of RAM. Yes, it is my only desktop as I am a poor but not poor enough that I can't buy 2 hard drives a year when they go on sale. I use it for Plex 80% of the time, gaming 19% of the time, and porn 30 seconds every day at around 11 PM ChiralCondensate posted:The 500 GB dedicated to That 70s Show put the nail in it for me. 
frh fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Even if you have to lie to me, please just do it but...you’ve never watched a single episode of That 70’s Show, have you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Even if you have to lie to me, please just do it but...you’ve never watched a single episode of That 70’s Show, have you? I'm up to season 4 right now and I absolutely love it. I never saw it when it originally aired. Red is the best. I can see it being a great "background show" when I've seen them all kind of like what I do with Seinfeld now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
What the heck? Wikipedia says that show had 200 eps, so that's over 3gigs per ep of a 30 minute show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
phosdex posted:What the heck? Wikipedia says that show had 200 eps, so that's over 3gigs per ep of a 30 minute show. Looking at the internet it's easy to hit that if you get the big 1080p bluray remuxes which top out at 742.3 GB. If you got all 1080p scene rips instead it'd just be 398.17 GB though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
MagusDraco posted:Looking at the internet it's easy to hit that if you get the big 1080p bluray remuxes which top out at 742.3 GB. If you got all 1080p scene rips instead it'd just be 398.17 GB though. I wish to question then his earlier posts about living in the internet arse end of nowhere. If he's pulling down maximum size TV rips I'm going to guess he's not taking many hours per episode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:How many drives do you have again if all 13 internal bays are full but the majority are still external USBs? I think at this point a therapist is the cheapest option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
That 70s Show BluRay Remuxes? Sheesh, re-encode it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Serious Hardware / Software Crap > NAS/Storage thread: It's just not right unless Kelso's helmet is pixel-perfect
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW posted:Thank you! Two questions: First, where do you live/where are you from? You've made multiple references to living somewhere apparently in the turd-world and I'm curious as to where that is. Second, why don't you start replacing those lower-capacity HDDs within the PC itself with higher-capacity ones? You're on to the fact that the best deals currently are the 8/10 TB externals, but you have all that wasted space (in terms of drive slots) in your case with relatively incapacious drives. Normally I'd say even 2-4 TB drives are still plenty usable for things like games, and a decent selection of media*, but you clearly have the need for tens of TB of storage and would benefit from consolidating everything into a smaller number of higher-capacity drives. Plus, you'd eliminate the clutter of an excessive number of external drives and their power adapters. You have about 50 TB each internal and external, with around 20 TB free; you could replace the 7 lowest-capacity HDDs (22 TB, which would make you short ~2 TB,) and then you'd only have to replace one more of the 4 TBs with another 8 or 10 TB to be "in the black" on capacity again, plus you'd have 4 more bays to eventually upgrade with higher-capacity replacements. *Let me point out that, because nearly all of my content hosted on Plex is only SD/ED, despite having well over 2k movies and several dozen TV series (>4k episodes,) I'm only using ~5 TB of space. It's fine to want certain titles in HD (e.g. action movies, especially recent ones) but you certainly don't need a lot of other stuff in the highest-possible resolution, especially something like That '70s Show. You could compress and/or downscale perhaps most of your content and not really miss anything - try it some time, I bet once you start watching a lower-fidelity episode you're not really going to care about the loss of detail. Also, if you have the original discs then you don't really need backups on separate HDDs (given that, again, the discs are the backups and you probably don't need 3+ copies of easy-to-find media) but if you did have content that you need to backup and you go through with the consolidation process listed above, you can hang on to most of the old drives (i.e. the 4 TB ones, with the others for games or whatever,) to use as archives. It'd be especially helpful if you had the original full-resolution files on them in storage and had the lower-resolution transcodes as the active files on your PMS. This would at least begin to address a lot of the issues you've brought up: backups, multi-drive management, what to do with the "surplus" drives, etc. Beyond all that, in the distant future it would make more sense to put any additional drives needed in a second case, i.e. a cheap case holding a low-powered PC to solely act as a file server. Also, I 100% agree with you on the criticism of streaming media (which has now become far more ridiculous in general since I started my PMS but that's another story) and that's the reason I started using PMS in the first place a few years ago, because I couldn't reliably get content from the available streaming services. The fact that "what's leaving Netflix this month" is a routine nowadays says it all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
You have 20TB free. You have 7 external drives. Move the data off the 7 smallest drives, totalling 19TB, and put it on the 20TB free. Remove the 7 smallest drives. Install the 7 external drives into the case. Stop using external USB storage for your lovely digital hoarding obsession. Also, you have an i7 that mostly sits idle. Reencode some of that uncompressed bluray poo poo into x264 and drop the size by a factor of 10. Your problem is not a problem, you just seem obsessed with making it one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 10:16
|
|
|
Heners_UK posted:I wish to question then his earlier posts about living in the internet arse end of nowhere. If he's pulling down maximum size TV rips I'm going to guess he's not taking many hours per episode. Atomizer posted:Two questions: First, where do you live/where are you from? You've made multiple references to living somewhere apparently in the turd-world and I'm curious as to where that is. I'm not really pulling down max size TV rips. A lot of these are from my cousin in New York who will load up my externals whenever I visit. Sometimes it can be a year or two without me visiting so we'll actually do it through the mail. I still do downloading from my home, but the internet is so goddamn slow where I live that sometimes I tether my cell phone because it's faster. I had to root my Android phone because otherwise my tethering is capped at 512kbps. I had to learn how to edit build.prop system files just to download a movie. I live in Mustamäe, which is a poor-ish part of Estonia. There's parts of Estonia that have some of the best internet in the world, but not in my specific section. It's DSL speeds at best in my house. It's my fault for living in the middle of nowhere in a place where your odds of getting stabbed at night by a drunken teenager are 80% but that's a different story. So that's why it's not so easy for me to re-download 8TB when a drive dies. Atomizer posted:Second, why don't you start replacing those lower-capacity HDDs within the PC itself with higher-capacity ones? You're on to the fact that the best deals currently are the 8/10 TB externals, but you have all that wasted space (in terms of drive slots) in your case with relatively incapacious drives. Normally I'd say even 2-4 TB drives are still plenty usable for things like games, and a decent selection of media*, but you clearly have the need for tens of TB of storage and would benefit from consolidating everything into a smaller number of higher-capacity drives. Plus, you'd eliminate the clutter of an excessive number of external drives and their power adapters. I absolutely could take out some of those 4TB internal drives and replace them with 8TB drives. But I am not sure why that is necessary? Is it just to keep everything nice inside a case? I mean hells yeah I'd rather have that then a bunch of stupid USB drives plugged into the back of my PC. I do enjoy things looking neat and tidy. But the only computer case ever that I saw holds more than 13 drives was the Lian Li PC-D8000 which will hold 20 internal hard drives but it hasn't been available for years and the last time it was on eBay I got outbid and it ended up ending at $600 USD! For a case that used to retail for $250! I am in fact intrigued by your idea of the low-powered 2nd PC as a file server, though. Is there some sort of box that will take 8 or so hard drives that I would run Linux on or something? I know of NAS devices of course, but the reason I went with a Windows PC was because it's what I already had, I use it to run games, and I have it set up with all sorts of stuff like Handbrake and automated tasks and Steam games, so while yeah it is taking up more electricity than a NAS box, it's doing a lot more and I don't have a gaming PC on that most people do, so I feel like it evens out. What would this 2nd low-powered PC with all my external drives shucked and installed into it accomplish anyway? I am not trying to be snarky; I am genuinely asking. Is there a benefit beyond it looking nicer? Thank you for the kind and helpful reply, by the way. I know it's easy to make fun of me (which honestly is kind of surprising considering this is the packrat thread) but I really don't see the problem with buying something the size of a large sandwich that can store such an insane amount of "stuff" for around the same price as a single night out at a restaurant. It's not expensive (especially when you don't buy them all at once), it takes up very little room, and I can put an absolutely absurd amount of entertainment, memories, and past data from every computer I've ever owned with little to no downsides. I don't need to watch That 70's Show or Seinfeld in 1080p RAW Blu-ray quality, no. But TV is what little entertainment I have and my only way to unwind at the end of a hard day of work, and I get a kick out of seeing TV shows filmed in the 1990s look like they were filmed yesterday. It doesn't make those shows any less funny if they were compressed or even in 480p but I love seeing little details in the background that normally wasn't noticeable. And I'm not "hurting" for storage space, so that's why I don't bother compressing anything (unless it's something like my Simpsons DVDs since animation compresses so well, not to mention they are SD sources anyway). I am glad we see eye-to-eye on the "ownership" thing because I hate the idea of buying something digitally and it being removed from a service. In fact just yesterday, my cousin in New York (who is also a goon) told me that he bought the movie Edge of Tomorrow on Amazon's digital service. As in he paid the full price to "own" it (not rent it) and he found out they removed it from his purchase history when he went to watch it yesterday! He actually had to call Amazon to get his money back. They weren't just going to automatically refund him! So on top of it sometimes being impossible to watch stuff that's not on my Plex, they sometimes flat-out rob you of your money which pisses me off to no end. Nam Taf posted:You have 20TB free. I am still not certain as to why the USB drives have to go. Is it because I'd then be able to buy a RAID controller and do everything I want via RAID hardware? If so, I am reading now about something called SnapRAID which while confusing as hell, it seems like it will do just that with my USB/SATA mix? I don't care about having so many drives, it seems like you're mad about it for some reason? I don't care if I have 75 drives. All I wanted to know is how to use a spare drive or two to save my data if one of my drives died. I have no issues with USB 3.0 speed and I have no idea what your issues with me are. I never said I have a problem, you did in your last sentence. I don't see data hoarding as a problem. Hoarding newspapers or empty Chinese food containers is a problem. All I asked was advice on a software RAID-like solution to help me from single disk failure and you're making me out to be like I'm an rear end in a top hat or something for some reason. edit: I think I am going to go with Drivepool ($30 is cheap) and SnapRAID, though SnapRAID is confusing as all hell. I see a lot of people online saying that this combination works great for what I want. The only piece I am missing is as to how Drivepool adds to the helpfulness? It seems like all Drivepool does is take all my drives and make them one gargantuan D: drive. How does that "help" SnapRAID in any way? Does anyone here use either/both of those pieces of software? frh fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 11:32
|
|
|
Because USB is prone to a whole raft of issues that internal SATA is not, and when you want to do a parity drive that means an error on any drive essentially means that you don't have parity on the 'slice' of that data that spans across all drives. So say you have 14 internal drives + 7 externals. Then, for whatever reason USB decides to dredge up, over time you develop 100 different errors on each of your 7 USB drives. Then you lose a single drive (it doesn't matter which) and you go 'ok well at least the parity spare will rebuild all my data'. But it won't, because it relies on there being no errors on any other drives. So you'll have 700 chunks of data on EACH drive where you can't recover that data. And if that's affecting different files on each drive, thats 14000 potential issues in files. In a compressed movie, that'll be some pixellation and weird artifacts. In an image, that might mean half the image doesn't load becuase the jpeg is corrupt. In a zip file, the whole file is gone. In an ISO, it may not mount. USB is a terrible idea for reliable storage. It's designed to be a jack-of-all-trades protocol with hot-swapping capabilities, not a dedicated mass storage protocol like SATA. I can't speak off the top of my head whether there's the same level of error detection and correction for USB as there is for SATA, however I know that it's not even guaranteed that your external enclosure supports SMART diagnostics, so you don't even get info on if a drive is about to fail. I'm not mad because if you come back going "guys please help my entire array has died and I need to know what files I lost, can you please help me somehow read this index database I need to know!!!" I'll get a good hearty laugh out of it. Instead, your idea is just foolish, risky, and violates a whole lot of good principles for reliable data storage, but you refuse to listen to the chorus of people telling you this. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
There is no help in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:Because USB is prone to a whole raft of issues that internal SATA is not, and when you want to do a parity drive that means an error on any drive essentially means that you don't have parity on the 'slice' of that data that spans across all drives. So say you have 14 internal drives + 7 externals. Then, for whatever reason USB decides to dredge up, over time you develop 100 different errors on each of your 7 USB drives. Then you lose a single drive (it doesn't matter which) and you go 'ok well at least the parity spare will rebuild all my data'. But it won't, because it relies on there being no errors on any other drives. So you'll have 700 chunks of data on EACH drive where you can't recover that data. And if that's affecting different files on each drive, thats 14000 potential issues in files. OK well this is my first time finding out that USB is more likely to get data corruption than SATA. So, now I understand. I assumed everyone was telling me USB was bad because it's slower. For what it's worth, my USB drives do in fact pass off SMART data. I know this because I always run CrystalDiskInfo to check on my drives and my USB ones were showing 65-70 degrees, so separated them a bit more and CrystalDiskInfo showed the temps go down to 55 degrees almost instantly. I guess I'll probably just install Stablebit Scanner which will send me an e-mail once any of my drives start reporting any errors. That should be good enough I guess. frh fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
redeyes posted:There is no help in this situation. We've given all the help we can. I personally suggest gently migrating to Unraid but only because that's what I've been doing recently, all of it learned from here, unraid's wiki and forums. W...W has all the options now. This thread has tried to be vociferous help to him despite it almost falling out of a moving car in doing so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW posted:OK well this is my first time finding out that USB is more likely to get data corruption than SATA. So, now I understand. I assumed everyone was telling me USB was bad because it's slower. Also, given the failure modes of spinning disk drives, you're probably better off simply keeping the drives unplugged 99% of the time than setting up some sort of complicated raid thing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
In offsite backup news, Amazon has announced a new S3 storage tier "Glacier Deep Archive". Price is $0.00099 per GB/month. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-amazon-s3-storage-class-glacier-deep-archive/
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
borkencode posted:In offsite backup news, Amazon has announced a new S3 storage tier "Glacier Deep Archive". Price is $0.00099 per GB/month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW posted:OK well this is my first time finding out that USB is more likely to get data corruption than SATA. So, now I understand. I assumed everyone was telling me USB was bad because it's slower. Getting those externals shucked and into your case will also allow them to run cooler, which will help with lifespan. What kind of controller are you connecting those drives to? I think you could do some shuffling of files and shucking, then build yourself a low powered NAS with a little bit of drive redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
borkencode posted:In offsite backup news, Amazon has announced a new S3 storage tier "Glacier Deep Archive". Price is $0.00099 per GB/month. Now that's pricing I can get behind! I have 3.5TB of data I wish to backup and could store it* for about $3.5/mo *storage is not the only cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
/dev/null is pretty cheap per gb, too. Probably backblaze will cut their prices and it still won't be worth trying to deal with glacier. I like the concept in theory, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
I have a disk in my Synology 1815+ that is vibrating loudly. I can feel it in the unit when I touch it, and if I press firmly on slot 4 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, not 0 indexed) it stops. I have reseated disks 3 and 4 in their caddy and everything seems firmly in place. These are my original caddy's from before I RMA'd the chassis for the Intel CPU fault though I doubt Synology does any kind of testing for "fit". I am thinking of using some 3M foam tape to try and dampen this vibration/snug up the fit but I'm not entirely certain where to put it. I was wondering if anyone has dealt with this previously? Tips? I'm also considering rotating the caddy's to see if it's just one bad caddy or if it fits better in another slot. It "should" work but again has anyone tried this? The disks themselves should know where in the md they live but I have never shuffled the sata ports on a Linux md, and certainly not one where I know so little about the secret sauce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
*sees 50 new posts in this thread, thinks, well this is gonna go one of two ways...* *click* 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:I can't speak off the top of my head whether there's the same level of error detection and correction for USB as there is for SATA They are both packetized protocols, and both detect errors by computing and checking CRC values. When a receiver gets a packet with a bad CRC, it sends a negative acknowledgement packet back, which causes the transmitter to retry. USB uses a CRC16 code on packets of up to 1023 bytes payload, and retries up to 3 times before giving up. SATA uses CRC32 on up to 8192 bytes payload, and the level of googling I’m doing for a non effortpost isn’t showing how many retries. Neither one has anything like ECC DRAM levels of error detection, where you are guaranteed to detect all 1- and 2-bit errors. CRC checksum schemes can and will fail to detect some errors, particularly as packet sizes grow. Based on simple pigeonhole principle number theory, USB might actually be better at detecting errors than SATA, assuming each is transmitting max length packets. This is because USB packets are short, so even though there’s only 2^16=65536 CRC codes, there are way fewer possible source data patterns which have to map onto each individual code than if you do the same calculations for SATA. On the other hand you can probably expect USB to need to deal with errors much more frequently than SATA. Worse cabling, and it’s external. Also, when you’re talking about SATA drives in a usb enclosure, guess what now you have two chances to corrupt data on a high speed serial bus rather than one, and if you’re using the cheapest usb3 enclosure you found on amazon, the chip inside doing usb to sata can be highly variable in quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
mystes posted:You're making this way too complicated for a bunch of tv shows/movies. Either you care about them enough to back them up, or you don't mind losing some of the data. 1000x this. Parity RAID already doesn't make sense in 99% of home use cases and requires all disks to be spun up for access (exception: Unraid). For this use case that's a complete waste of effort and power. Just run JBOD or get a docking station and insert the drives containing the files you need when you want to access them. Even something like this filled with drives would be a step up from running separate external drives. Really though, W...W is probably better off posting in the data hoarders subreddit. H110Hawk posted:I have a disk in my Synology 1815+ that is vibrating loudly. I can feel it in the unit when I touch it, and if I press firmly on slot 4 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, not 0 indexed) it stops. I have reseated disks 3 and 4 in their caddy and everything seems firmly in place. These are my original caddy's from before I RMA'd the chassis for the Intel CPU fault though I doubt Synology does any kind of testing for "fit". Synology SHR is able to handle drives moving to different bays as long as it's done while the DS is powered down. I still wouldn't try without a backup though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Clearly WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW is Ashton loving Kutcher cause nobody else on the planet should care this much about loving Bluray rips of that 70's show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Heners_UK posted:*storage is not the only cost. Something something butt, something something flared?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
eames posted:Even something like this filled with drives would be a step up from running separate external drives. MediaSonic also have been in the multibay external game for some time. I've not used it but was considering them at one point. Can even get an 8 bay eSata one. eames posted:Really though, W...W is probably better off posting in the data hoarders subreddit. Agreed. We've done what we can. BobHoward posted:[excellent, cerebal description of USB in the external storage context] Was just wondering if eSata would be a safer bet in this regard?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW posted:I am in fact intrigued by your idea of the low-powered 2nd PC as a file server, though. Is there some sort of box that will take 8 or so hard drives that I would run Linux on or something? IDK what prices look like in Estonia but here you can get a used Socket 1156 Xeon and Supermicro board with 2x4GB ECC DDR3 for under $100. Add a Fractal Design Node 804, a SATA/SAS card and a power supply and you're looking at 10 internal 3.5" bays connected to live SATA ports for under $250; it's not nothing, but it's not much if you're buying 8TB drives to put in it. Excepting the case and the SATA card because I don't need more than the 6 on the motherboard yet, this is basically my setup. I run mdadm (software) RAID 5 on CentOS with 3x8TB and a single 3TB for bulk storage plus a 250GB SSD as the system disk. It's not the most resilient setup in the world by far, but it's way better than 10+ drives with a single dedicated parity disk. The one caveat IMO is that Linux really doesn't like being powered off ungracefully, so if you're doing this get a UPS and set up its driver so that your NAS will shut itself down in the event of a power failure. Otherwise it's been trouble free and relatively low effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
eames posted:Synology SHR is able to handle drives moving to different bays as long as it's done while the DS is powered down. I still wouldn't try without a backup though. Thanks. That's what I figured. Backups claim they are up to date so I will power it down and swap them around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
I was briefly stoked to hear about Glacier Deep Archive, since I could just about afford that storage fee for all my Blu-Ray rips. Then I started thinking about restore costs. I'm not going to be downloading tens of terabytes on my Comcast line, so I'd need a Snowball. Snowball has size options I can live with and only costs $200-$250 for a ten day usage period. OK, I would definitely pay than rather than manually re-rip several hundred disks, especially since one likely failure scenario (house fire) might also mean I have to re-buy all those disks. But then I have to fill up the Snowball before they send it to me. If I am reading this right, I have to pay to retrieve it into S3, and then I pay to pay 3 cents per gig to copy it from S3 to the Snowball, and for tens of terabytes, that's a thousand bucks or more. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I was briefly stoked to hear about Glacier Deep Archive, since I could just about afford that storage fee for all my Blu-Ray rips. Then I started thinking about restore costs. I'm not going to be downloading tens of terabytes on my Comcast line, so I'd need a Snowball. Snowball has size options I can live with and only costs $200-$250 for a ten day usage period. OK, I would definitely pay than rather than manually re-rip several hundred disks, especially since one likely failure scenario (house fire) might also mean I have to re-buy all those disks. But then I have to fill up the Snowball before they send it to me. If I am reading this right, I have to pay to retrieve it into S3, and then I pay to pay 3 cents per gig to copy it from S3 to the Snowball, and for tens of terabytes, that's a thousand bucks or more. Yikes. This is basically AWS 101. The moment you cross the boundary of AWS services out into the public it costs you an arm and a leg. Within AWS itself things are much cheaper, but it's not like that helps you in this case. Their bandwidth numbers are highway robbery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 21:24
|
|