External hard drive for expanding iTunes library?

Edesilva,

I used to think that a NAS was equivalent to a fileserver until I actually got one (Thecus N4100). I have a couple friends with other manufacturer's products, and we compared notes. They're all slow (the best gets around 12 Mbps, nowhere near the 150 Mbps that you're quoting). Despite having a gigabit ethernet interface and 4 decent drives running RAID 5, it lags substantially compared to my 9 year old fileserver (Dell PowerEdge running an ancient version of Linux).

I put all my audio data on it because the data outgrew my fileserver. Unfortunately, the whole process of ripping CD's, organizing the data, and extracting select pieces to transfer to a portable device is now much more time consuming. Don't underestimate the desire for better speed with audio data, as well.

You can construct a fileserver fairly inexpensively. Just skimp on the processor, memory, and video card while getting decent drives and network card. It won't need a monitor or keyboard once you get it up and running; you can administer it remotely from there on. One such example is https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=3894685&WishListTitle=Cost%2Deffective+fileserver.

Just get your favorite distribution of Linux (you can download many for free, or pay a few dollars for a DVD). I would run this in RAID 0 because you'll have an external backup unit. This example system would have 800 GB, and would be flexible enough to allow other types of services (ie, you could also use it as a webserver and print server). This is my current recommendation for people needing substantial storage, and use the NAS devices (or just an external hard drive) as backups.

To answer Howell's original question, I think the G-Drive will probably work great for you. Just make sure you have a separate backup unit and you're fine. Many good drives are available in the $100ish range that have 5 year warranties, so I don't think you need to go overboard. As long as you have a good backup, you can fix even a catastrophic drive failure easily and inexpensively. That's just the point that I've been trying to get across.

Michael

Edsilva my post on The g drive is in regards to reliability not speed. Some drives after awhile can develope problems with recognition and corrupting data. I perfer the best drives for archiving and that seems to be the G drives.Image processing has more to do with cpu speed and ram ram ram, " if its not backed up 3 times ,its not stable"

Michael, I'm still confused about what you are calling a file server. As far as I'm concerned, a box on the network that serves up files is a file server, and a NAS qualifies. No, its not as fast as my Dell PowerVault either, but it didn't cost $3K and it isn't loud as a 747 on take-off.

I've backed up 600GB off my terastation overnight. 600GB/(8 hrs x 3600 sec/hr) = 0.02GB/s = 160 mbps... Would it be faster configured in RAID0? Yeah, probably (and I can configure it that way). It also works as a printserver, BTW. And, I gather it will run slimserver on a standalone basis.

So, you get slower performance ripping CDs, organizing tunes, and d/ling to your portable. Ripping CDs is not a process that is storage drive limited--99% of the time there is (if, like me, you use EAC) CD reader dependent and processor dependent for the compression. D/ling to a portable? Yeah, maybe a bit slower, but I usually do that overnight and, frankly, the speed of that is probably more dependent on the interface to the portable. Organizing tunes is a big topic, but I find that as long as the XML library file is on my local fast drive, searching isn't an issue. If I want to retag 10,000 files, well, yeah, it takes a while. I don't do that very often.

So, I still don't understand why you advocate RAID 0. Especially as a low cost option. The speed--for audio--is overkill. And, now you seem to be saying $500 for the RAID 0 server *and* you still need a NAS to back it all up. Why not something simple like the terastation or similar boxes?

Michael, you seem to know a bit about this, and I also considered the route you advocate with a cheap computer controlling the drives, but why not go with a board that supports SATA drives and has a RAID 5 controller built in? They also have IDE ports so you can have backup drives in the same box. I know a bit more $$ up front but SATA drives are cheaper and this is much more powerful so it seems like a better route in the long term.

I know just enough about that to be dangerous so any input would be appreciated.