Good eSATA hardware RAID

[Elliott Balsley]

I've been researching storage devices, and have decided to go with an eSATA unit with hardware RAID-5 built-in, mainly because the Mac Pro doesn't have enough PCIe slots to add a RAID card. I already need an eSATA card for a Red Station, so I might as well use one of those ports. I know that this greatly limits the choices, because most large RAIDs use an external controller, but I've found a few options:
Glyph ForteRAID $1000
OWC Mercury Rack Pro $1720
Sans Digital EliteRAID ER104UT+ $1820
Sans Digital EliteRAID ER208UT+ $2720

EDIT: new contender G-TECH G-Speed Q $1600

These prices include buying bare enterprise drives (4x3TB Ultrastars). The large Sans Digital would give me 4 empty bays to upgrade later...not sure if I need that. Other than that, I'm stumped as to why the Glyph unit is so cheap! I keep thinking it must have some major drawback, but what is it? It could be the drives; it does not specify whether they are enterprise drives, but I would almost assume that they are on a product like this. Or could it be a lousy controller? It's Oxford 936. One obvious downside is the Glyph isn't rackable, but that's a minor thing. Also, the Glyph Manager software doesn't work over eSATA (wtf?!) so you have to plug in USB to check system health or change RAID modes. OWC claims 300MB/s max (in RAID-0). Sans Digital claims only 200MB/s. Glyph claims 230MB/s. It seems like the only thing going for Sans Digital is its really nice monitoring interfaces. I'm leaning toward the OWC Mercury...Can anyone offer tips from experience with any of these units?Thanks.

[joe hedge]

OWC claims 300MB/s max (in RAID-0). Sans Digital claims only 200MB/s. Glyph claims 230MB/s. It seems like the only thing going for Sans Digital is its really nice monitoring interfaces. I'm leaning toward the OWC Mercury...
Can anyone offer tips from experience with any of these units?

Thanks.

You get 220MB's a sec/12 GB's a minute with GRaids and an Atto H680, only reason to go with RAID 5 is if you can get to 400MB's a sec or faster

[Elliott Balsley]

Not sure I understand your post, Joe. The main reason I want RAID-5 is for better data protection, as compared to RAID-0. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think G-RAIDs are locked in RAID-0. The G-RAID Mini can be switched to RAID-1, but it's only 1.5TB.
I suppose one could buy two 8TB G-RAIDs, and put them in a software RAID-1 array, but I don't want the OS to have to do all that work.

Aha! Digging a little more I just found the G-Speed Q. Maybe that's what you meant? I had thought those required RAID controller cards, but I see now that's just the "eS" version. So now this is a viable option to consider.

[Martin Beek]

Good, but for those on a budget... RaidOn and IcyBox by RaidSonic. http://www.raidsonic.de/en/products/...id.php?pid=2_7

Cheers!


Martin

[joe hedge]

RAID is for speed, not security. If data security is your only priority, then you simply keep everything on separate, single drives (or separate GRaids) in different locations. RAID is never going to be the most secure option, it's for situations where you have to have higher than 250 MB/sec drive speed. And you should never trust it as your only backup.

You're perhaps misinterpreting the purpose of RAID configurations - they're not worth the hassle unless you need 400-600 MB's a second or higher, and I'm betting you don't.

[Elliott Balsley]

And what if one needs 200MB/s? You're not going to get that with a single drive.
To me, RAID-5 is a compromise between speed and security, without losing so much space (50% with complete backups). Of course I realize that at the end of the day, it's wise to back up to a separate drive.

[Greg Huson]

I'm not knowledgeable about those two specific products, but I've had two other Sans Digital products that failed dramatically, way before they should have. I won't buy their gear again. what's the saying? IMHO

[joe hedge]

And what if one needs 200MB/s? You're not going to get that with a single drive.
To me, RAID-5 is a compromise between speed and security, without losing so much space (50% with complete backups). Of course I realize that at the end of the day, it's wise to back up to a separate drive.

GRaids basically are, for all intents and purposes, "single drives", and they will get you to 220 MB/sec, with either Thunderbolt or an HBA card. Faster than that, you're getting into workflows beyond just editing with transcodes, like on-set downloading/transcoding, color correcting raw 5k/DPX files...also you need be getting into 8, 12 or 16-bay configs before RAID 5 becomes logical to use, as enterprise-class drives currently only go to 2 TB. 8 TB in RAID 5 is only 6 TB's effective storage, might as well just go with (2) 4 TB GRaids.

[Elliott Balsley]

Joe, I think maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. But I feel the need to correct your misinformation on the forum.
A G-Raid is 2 hard drives in one box, in RAID-0. Very fast, that's great. But it's 50% less reliable than a single drive, because if either of the 2 fails, your data is gone.
Hitachi makes Ultrastar enterprise drives up to 3 and 4TB now.

[joe hedge]

Joe, I think maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. But I feel the need to correct your misinformation on the forum.
A G-Raid is 2 hard drives in one box, in RAID-0. Very fast, that's great. But it's 50% less reliable than a single drive, because if either of the 2 fails, your data is gone.
Hitachi makes Ultrastar enterprise drives up to 3 and 4TB now.

That's why you back up to (2) GRaids - the probability of both of them failing at the same time is pretty low...and as far as enterprise class drives are concerned, I'll go with the oracle of this site...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...t=#post1027532

"Most of your bigger / better RAID manufacturers are not offering 3TB drives. The performance suffers in light of the additional platters and heads to get the capacity up. 4TB drives are even worse in that way and no one is shipping a "RAID" or "enterprise" class 4TB yet. Initial reliability reports for the 4TB units, regardless of manufacturer, have been pretty dismal... I wouldn't want them right now myself..."

Like I said, I don't see the point in RAID 5 unless you need 400 to 600 MB's/sec, and it doesn't become practical vs. GRaids until you get to 12 GB's of storage and above, for which current consensus dictates 8/12/16 bay enclosures