Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

File Server Full


  • Please log in to reply

#1
royuix

royuix

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
I have a file server in my house that a lot of computers are connected with and I knew this would happen one day, it's full.
So I was wondering what is the best way to expand? The drive currently is 500gb and I don't know what to do...
Should I go for RAID? Or should I just get a 1.5tb drive and transfer the files? What would be the best/smartest thing to do, also I do have a lot of old computers in my house with some hard drives which maybe could be useful?
NOTE- The PC I'm using as the File Server is rather old and probably doesn't have a lot of hard drive slots.
Thanks!

Edited by royuix, 03 August 2010 - 04:37 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#2
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
Easiest way to add more space would be to add another drive. The best way to add more space making it as easy as possible for network users would be to clone the current drive onto another drive.

If this data is important then I would get 2x 2TB drives and run them in RAID 1. (Then have daily backups of that to a 2TB backup drive).
  • 0

#3
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Administrator
  • 26,019 posts
  • MVP

If this data is important then I would get 2x 2TB drives and run them in RAID 1. (Then have daily backups of that to a 2TB backup drive).

or if it's really important get 3 500 gb drives and put it in a raid 5 array, if you're going to go through the trouble of setting up a raid array, you might as well add real redundancy.


another good option (if you're wanting to spend a little money) would be to get a nicely configured NAS (Network Attached Storage) device. you can get some really nice devices now adays for relatively cheap that have nice features. you can get them with RAID already configured however you like, it offloads the file sharing duties to a dedicated machine, you can usually set up file permissions easily through a web interface (to keep some things private while sharing other things). you can easily connect new computers to the device without having to go through all of the hoops needed to join a workgroup, etc.. etc.. etc..
  • 0

#4
royuix

royuix

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
Thanks for all the quick replys!
The information is quite important but we weekly make a server back-up (and after important big files) on to a different computer so it's ok. I went and bought a 2tb HDD and am going to install it later today!

geekstogo FTW
  • 0

#5
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts

or if it's really important get 3 500 gb drives and put it in a raid 5 array, if you're going to go through the trouble of setting up a raid array, you might as well add real redundancy.

Or get 3x 2TB drives in RAID 1 with the third as a hot spare... or...

Haha just couldn't resist that one.
  • 0

#6
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Administrator
  • 26,019 posts
  • MVP
except that RAID 1 only barely gives you redundancy
  • 0

#7
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
How so? Need more description for a comment like that. It gives you exact 100% redundancy from what I understand... One drive fails... the other one has everything exactly the same...
  • 0

#8
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
How so? Need more description for a comment like that. It gives you exact 100% redundancy from what I understand... One drive fails... the other one has everything exactly the same...
  • 0

#9
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
How so? Need more description for a comment like that. It gives you exact 100% redundancy from what I understand... One drive fails... the other one has everything exactly the same...
  • 0

#10
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Administrator
  • 26,019 posts
  • MVP
http://en.wikipedia....ard_RAID_levels

with RAID 1, the disks are used symetrically (i.e. they're used at the same rate for all transactions). every time you write to one of the drives in the array, you're writing to all of them. so they all get the EXACT same usage. which means the probability of all of the drives in the array failing at the same time is increased (of course this is only failure due to usage/wear and tear, not manufacturer errors or other failures) . also, in a RAID 1 array, the total size of the array is only as large as the smallest disk in the array (i.e. if you've got a RAID1 array with 3 x 1tb drives in it, your total usable size will be 1tb.)

something else to note about RAID 1

While RAID 1 can be an effective protection against physical disk failure, it does not provide protection against data corruption due to viruses, accidental file changes or deletions, or any other data-specific changes. By design, any such changes will be instantly mirrored to every drive in the array segment. A virus, for example, that damages data on one drive in a RAID 1 array will damage the same data on all other drives in the array at the same time. For this reason systems using RAID 1 to protect against physical drive failure should also have a traditional data backup process in place to allow data restoration to previous points in time. It would seem self-evident that any system critical enough to require disk redundancy also needs the protection of reliable data backups.


RAID 5 offers a bit more security against some of this stuff (granted, something like RAID 6, 10 or 50 could be better)
  • 0

#11
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
Yes well I never meant that a RAID array replaces a backup solution... that is still required regardless of course.

As for your theory on all the drives dying at the same time... well... perhaps you could make it policy to randomly replace a drive. So 3 months down the track you could create a "failure" by removing one of the drives and rebuilding it with a brand new one... done directly after full backups of course... um but that's really pushing it in my opinion. You're just so used to the fancy over-the-top stuff that big businesses require. :)
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP