External drive full

[MDB2]

I have an iMac with 1tb memory. My external drive is WD 1tb my book essentials. My primary worries are my photos. The WD is showing full. I am ok with this! However what to do next is the problem? Do I just go out and get another external drive and attach this as well, therefore effectively haveing two external drives? or should I now disconnect the external drive and leave in storage? And attach the new drive? Also how will the iMac know which is which please help.

Kind regards mike

 

[Gr8Shot]

Firstly I would back that drive up, you need a minimum of two copies in case one breaks.
Then start a new external drive to continue your saving.

 

[neil_g]

do whichever you want just do as steve says and have a backup in place.

the mac will show you 2 separate drives mounted, you can rename the volumes to help you figure out which is which.

 

[MDB2]

Thankyou, so the way forward is to get 2 new drives. One for the imac. And one for the backup of the full drive? Do i still leave the full drive connected? And how will I back up the external drive please? Sorry to be a technophobe.

Mike

 

[PJ S]

I'm confused, why are you talking about buying a new drive for the iMac?
Have you failed to mention that it is full as well?

If you're happy with WD, then I would be looking at this - http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=210

Depending on which version of iMac you have, you may be able to use the FW800 connection for quicker access and transfer.

As for backing up the current external drive - drag the main folder onto the new drive, and drop. It'll be copied onto it.
You could also use their own backup software provided, but since the current one is full, you'll not be writing to it in order to need incremental updates to the new one.
If the iMac's drive is full, then you'll want to copy the folder with all your photos in it across too.

Regarding the Mac knowing which is which - you decide on what the name of the drive(s) are when you format them, with Journaling enabled.

Lastly, I'd enable the RAID 1 mode on the drive linked, so that when you copy the data over, it writes the same data on the second drive in the enclosure.
You could then wipe the data on the current external (and internal) and using the software provided, set it up for incremental updating.

Having the drives plugged in via their USB/FW cable but not powered on, means they won't be mounted on the desktop, so you could keep the new one off until you need to permit an update scheduled to perform, using the internal or single WD external as your primary storage for new photos taken and edited.


One final consideration is that you could use the Studio II as your backup for the photos, and once verified the photos are all 100% (no corrupt ones), then the current WD could be adopted as your backup drive for Apple's Time Machine, which would take care of the OS, emails, etc, etc, and the internal then being the primary storage for your new photos.

 

[MDB2]

thankyou again, please correct me if i am wrong. so I buy a new WD and copy to this the wd that is full? so now I have two full WD drives? mike

 

[neil_g]

thankyou again, please correct me if i am wrong. so I buy a new WD and copy to this the wd that is full? so now I have two full WD drives? mike

correct (unless you buy a 2/3/4TB as a backup drive to back that and the new disk up), but you have a copy of your photos if the 1TB dies. thats a LOT of data to lose.

 

[TopBanana]

You could buy a new 3Tb drive, then you can copy your existing 1Tb external drive onto the new drive. The old drive becomes the back-up copy of what's already on it. The new drive has space for you to add a load of new stuff (which will need backing up somewhere else in due course too).

 

[andrewc]

There are two issues here which you need to address.

Firstly, your external drive is full. So buy another one - they're cheap enough.

Secondly - do you have a backup in case your existing hard drives fails? Hard drives have two states - failed and about to fail. Failures are not uncommon and specialist data recovery is very expensive, so having a backup of your most important data is important. Ideally you need to keep a backup in a different building, so in the event of floor or fire, you've not lost much data.

There are online services which offer small amounts of space for free, but this requires a quick, unmetered internet connection as uploading a Terabyte of data will take ages, as will downloading it again, so again the options are to have an external hard drive which acts as a backup, or to archive to optical discs. Care has to be taken over the storage of both devices.

 

[MDB2]

correct (unless you buy a 2/3/4TB as a backup drive to back that and the new disk up), but you have a copy of your photos if the 1TB dies. thats a LOT of data to lose.

That sounds like a plan. mike

 

[MDB2]

You could buy a new 3Tb drive, then you can copy your existing 1Tb external drive onto the new drive. The old drive becomes the back-up copy of what's already on it. The new drive has space for you to add a load of new stuff (which will need backing up somewhere else in due course too).

Thanks that sounds like a plan. mike

 

[simonkit]

Have a look at Cloud storage, costs have reduced recently..this together with an external drive should keep everything nice and safe

Simon

 

[neil_g]

Have a look at Cloud storage, costs have reduced recently..this together with an external drive should keep everything nice and safe

Simon

for more than a terabyte? ouch, hope you have a phat upload speed

 

[Chappers]

You need to have a back up plan. Just had a HD die on me. Fortunately it was the enclosure electronics not the drive, so that now lives in a new enclosure

I operate a simple plan. two external drives. One is the main the other is a backup.
All data is stored on drive "A" and then backed up onto drive "B"
I use Integeo Back Up Manager for this.

As for drives, I use Firewire as they are much quicker than USB (2). However if you have a more modern Mac opt for USB 3 or even Thunderbolt. However unless you are shifting loads of data stay with the cheaper USB 3 option.

Cloud storage is fine, but the phrase watching paint dry comes to mind. I distribute a lot of images via DropBox and trust me sending large images via the web, even with a decent internet connection is slow. Remember upload can be much slower than download.

In your shoes I'd opt for a couple of 2Tb or 3TB drives. Use one for the primary and the other for backup.. When you have the cash opt for a second 1TB drive and archive the images off the iMac's HD onto a second 1TB drive. Or opt for the 2 x 3TB drives copy all the images to both drives and use the WD drive for Time Machine

 

[neil_g]

I use Firewire as they are much quicker than USB (2).

important to say firewire 800. 400 is roughly the same as USB2 although for sustained transfer go FW, USB will be better for burst.

or even Thunderbolt. However unless you are shifting loads of data..

wouldnt even bother then, unless youre a professional video editor running a disk array its not worth the cost. remember its still a sata disk at the end of the day, youll come nowhere near using TB to its full potential.

 

[MDB2]

WOW it will take a While for me to digest all this info,me thinks am the wrong generation,
( over 60s) will investigate further
Thanks for your advice one and all.
Kind regards. Mike

 

[simonkit]

for more than a terabyte? ouch, hope you have a phat upload speed

Initial upload takes a few days for sure but once you have your existing data backed up it's easy...I guess it depends on how safe you want your data too, worse case scenario and your disks get damaged etc then everything is gone, not so if you have off-site storage too.

Simon

 

[arad85]

If you're going to be backing up lots online, you definitely need a decent upload speed (not only your max upload through your ISP, but to the backup server too which can be slow if based in USA).

Unless you're on fibre with an uncapped 10+Mbit upload link, I wouldn't bother and would invest in multiple redundant backup disks.

 

[Neil B]

This is purely a personal thing but over the winter i decided to have a good clear out of my hard drives.
Unless it's family stuff i only ever keep images that i would print, i still take loads of shots when i'm out but have got a lot more fussy on what i keep.

 

[neil_g]

Initial upload takes a few days for sure but once you have your existing data backed up it's easy...I guess it depends on how safe you want your data too, worse case scenario and your disks get damaged etc then everything is gone, not so if you have off-site storage too.

Simon

Did a rough calculation (well, used the first online calculator on google ), 1tb with 2mb upload worked out at 40 days..

Extra hard drives rotated off site

 

[simonkit]

Did a rough calculation (well, used the first online calculator on google ), 1tb with 2mb upload worked out at 40 days..

Extra hard drives rotated off site

Yes that's pretty slow..obviously your ISP package is important when using cloud storage, with BT Infinity upload is much quicker

Simon

 

[PJ S]

WOW it will take a While for me to digest all this info,me thinks am the wrong generation,
(over 60s) will investigate further
Thanks for your advice one and all.

Mike, can you fill in some blanks please:

Is your internal drive on the iMac full as well, or just the WD external one?
Which model of iMac do you have (go to the Apple symbol on the upper left, and click on About this Mac)?
Does yours have the SD card reader underneath the optical drive slot?

 

[PJ S]

Mike, I’m going to paint you a picture which hopefully lets you see what is proposed.

In my original reply, I linked to a twin drive setup, which has a RAID option - RAID 1 is mirroring.
Let’s convert drives to garden sheds, and throw in a touch of magic to them.

At present, you have a house, with a shed in the garden - this is your iMac, the desktop, and the WD Essential.
Your shed is full of stuff, with no more room for new stuff, so you’re looking at buying a new shed.

The new shed I’ve linked to, is a double shed in the same structure, with one door (RAID mode enabled).
This shed, like your current one, has electricity connected to it, which when turned on, makes it appear in the garden.
What I’ve suggested, is that this new double shed, of which each section inside is bigger than your current shed, is now going to be where you store all the stuff inside the old shed, and the house, (if it’s full too).

So, you’ll move everything stored in the old shed, into the new one, which will magically replicate the same stuff in its other section.
Once you’ve moved everything out (and the same for the stuff in the house), and checked to make sure it’s all accounted for, then the old shed can be emptied, and used as storage for your house furniture and possessions. (Apple Time Machine which is in your Applications folder, if you’re using OS X.6 or higher)

Any new stuff you acquire, can be stored in the house, and each week/month, you can move it into the new double shed manually, or schedule it to be done automatically.

If you would prefer not to clutter up the garden with sheds, you can simply drag the new shed into the bin first, then turn off the power switch.
When you need to access the shed, simply turn on the power, and it’ll re-appear in the garden.
If you leave the power on, then the shed will appear again the next time you wake the house up or turn it on.


I hope that helps you envisage the concept proposed previously.
If anything is unclear still, just ask.

 

[arad85]

In my original reply, I linked to a twin drive setup, which has a RAID option - RAID 1 is mirroring.

I'll do my impression of Neil now...

RAID isn't a backup. I.e. don't rely on one shed with two mini-sheds within to house all your data. If the enclosing shed goes up in flames, you can lose both mini-sheds in one go.

 

[neil_g]

I'll do my impression of Neil now...

RAID isn't a backup. I.e. don't rely on one shed with two mini-sheds within to house all your data. If the enclosing shed goes up in flames, you can lose both mini-sheds in one go.

I prefer - two sheds with a big door will still be as flammable to a yob with a Molotov cocktail.

 

[PJ S]

I'll do my impression of Neil now...

RAID isn't a backup. I.e. don't rely on one shed with two mini-sheds within to house all your data. If the enclosing shed goes up in flames, you can lose both mini-sheds in one go.

If being the key word.
Do you have any stats to warrant the advising against RAID usage in a SOHO setting?
I'm not interested in Enterprise level where they are getting hammered practically 24/7, as that's not applicable to the general domestic user.

In an ideal world, we'd have fireproof safes and all the other gubbins to ensure our data is intact for the next 20 years, but the cold hard reality is not everyone views their data as worth that sort of expenditure and bother - and that's for those who even give backing up their data a second's thought.
There are many (without a backup solution) who manage to not have any issues, so above quoted remark needs to be put into proper context, not some wishful desire of the ideal.

In that context, the suggested process is more than adequate.

 

[neil_g]

If being the key word.
Do you have any stats to warrant the advising against RAID usage in a SOHO setting?
I'm not interested in Enterprise level where they are getting hammered practically 24/7, as that's not applicable to the general domestic user.

Who cares, its still a single drive. You're still left wide open to hardware failure, deletion and corruption. Blah blah blah.

 

[arad85]

Do you have any stats to warrant the advising against RAID usage in a SOHO setting?

No more than you do to say that it is perfectly OK....

Common sense tells you not to put your eggs in one basket though.

 

[arad85]

err... sorry, I mean shed

 

[PJ S]

So I'll take the failure to provide evidence of RAID setups in a SOHO environment being more problematic than single drives attached to a non-RAID bridgeboard as overselling the concern then.
If these RAID setups are so risky, I wonder why manufacturers bother to even design and sell them.

The Synology 5-bay RAID you're flogging in the Sales section, you used as both primary and backup. (Yes I read the whole of your post!)
Aside from failing to check the 5th bay was working until you were about to make use of it, did it ever give you any grief?
On the presumption it didn't, nor did the Samsung drives used, then why are you so anti-RAID for a domestic user?
I'd bet good money yours got hammered more than what Mike will be doing with his, so the likelihood of breaking down is probably statistically not much different from two separate drive enclosures, not to mention double power supply requirements.

As I said above, you need to stop thinking purely from an ideal perspective, but the reality of domestic home computer users, where some backup is better than none at all, and money is an object!

 

[arad85]

So I'll take the failure to provide evidence of RAID setups in a SOHO environment being more problematic than single drives attached to a non-RAID bridgeboard as overselling the concern then.

OK If that's what you want to believe, be my guest The fact is that RAID - in whatever format it is - is a single point of failure. Generally 1 PSU, generally 1 controller. One point of failure.... A good backup strategy generally implies the ability to survive more than a single point of failure - hence the "RAID isn't a backup" statement (OK - you could argue the original data + backup is two but...)

If these RAID setups are so risky, I wonder why manufacturers bother to even design and sell them.

Manufacturers manufacture things that people buy. Simple as.

 

[PJ S]

Manufacturers manufacture things that people buy. Simple as.

Yes, but if there were a high failure rate of boards or psus, they would be out of business, and there'd be a lot of "discussions" about how atrociously poor they were.
As it is, I've seen nothing more than general disgruntlements, which given we're talking about the nature of the beast that is electronics, is par for the course.
But unless you or Neil can put up some statistics of failure rates from the home user environment, then I'd appreciate it if you'd both stop spoiling for a fight over something you claim to be knowledgable of, but can't back up with any substantiated evidence!

As I've pointed out - something is better than nothing at all, which many get away with, so it's hard to even explain why they should spend some money at all, let alone £2-300 (or more), on multiple redundancies.

We can argue 'til the cows come home about whether it's the best strategy to employ or not - that wasn't where the OP was focusing his query on, in fact I imagine the bulk of the discussion has gone completely over his head.
Hopefully the shed analogy will have given him a clearer understanding of what's been suggested.

We still don't even know what budget the OP has to work with, nor full details of what data exists where (aside from the external's), so even a 4GB WD Studio II might not be financially on the cards.

 

[neil_g]

So I'll take the failure to provide evidence of RAID setups in a SOHO environment being more problematic than single drives attached to a non-RAID bridgeboard as overselling the concern then.
If these RAID setups are so risky, I wonder why manufacturers bother to even design and sell them.

good lord.

The Synology 5-bay RAID you're flogging in the Sales section, you used as both primary and backup. (Yes I read the whole of your post!)
Aside from failing to check the 5th bay was working until you were about to make use of it, did it ever give you any grief?
On the presumption it didn't, nor did the Samsung drives used, then why are you so anti-RAID for a domestic user?

no, im not anti-raid. im anti-allofyourdataononeraiddevice. hence why i ran TWO separate raid devices on site (TWO complete copies of the data, TWO power supplies, TWO raid controllers).

where some backup is better than none at all, and money is an object!

RAID IS NOT A BACKUP ITS A REDUNDANCY. IT IS NO DIFFERENT TO HAVING YOUR DATA ON A SINGLE USB/FW/(E)SATA DRIVE AS IT IS VULNERABLE TO THE SAME RISKS. if money is an issue buying two separate USB/FW/(s)SATA drives would be better than RAID.

 

[arad85]

As I've pointed out - something is better than nothing at all, which many get away with, so it's hard to even explain why they should spend some money at all, let alone £2-300 (or more), on multiple redundancies.

My point is simply this.

If I were spending the amount it would take to buy the WD, I would much prefer to spend it on a pair of individual drives/enclosures with separate PSUs and separate controllers and have replicated backups managed by the computer.

 

[Russ77]

About this time last year I was weighing up my backup option for around 450GB of images.

I was going to get a RAID unit but a similar discussion on here disuaded me on the basis that one RAID device, no matter how many drives are in it is only one back up of your data. It may be spread across 2, 3 or 4+ drives but the device is at risk of physical destruction/loss (flood/fire/theft) or probably more likely that the data could get corrupted during the write process meaning you then have 2, 3, 4+ drives of duplicated corrupt data.

If I could have afforded 2 RAID devices then I may have gone that route but I couldn't afford it, or really justify it for my usage.

I now back up to two 2TB HDDs that I hook up to my machine using a docking device. Both discs contain a full backup of all of my images, one is kept in my house, one in my parents' safe (yes, I'm paranoid)

In addition to this my most recent (2-3 years) images are on my laptop and then backed up to a 1TB portable drive, once I've checked the integrity of the data copied to that drive, it is then transfered to the other 2 drives.