K.Murx wrote:First, let me press a very important point: RAID is not a backup. And multiple HDD's in the same case are not a proper backup, either. Make sure some of your backups are off-site, and off-line (electricity wise).
Otherwise you might lose your images - again.
+1. RAID is for maintaining
up-time in the face of isolated drive failures, backups are for ... backups!
My most recent 100-pack purchase of DVD+R's cost $17USD. It's hard to argue with the cost/portability/durability of backing up to DVD. Especially for small files like photos. Archive those originals and store them off-site! If this is your business (or just critically important to you), consider a safe deposit box at a bank - their fire sensing & protection equipment is worlds better than the average home owner or small office is able to afford.
Otherwise, can you locate a 2nd NAS somewhere in your building that is separated from your primary office by a fire wall (or similar)?
Re: throughput - does it matter? How many images are you accessing from multiple drives at the same time? If you're concerned about the time it will take to batch copy to your backup drives, if your batch size exceeds your system's available cache and RAM, I'd bet you'll be limited by the physical throughput of your slowest drive. For an interesting benchmark, check out
IOZone (
how-to). Make sure to test file sizes in excess of your system's RAM - this will show you just how "fast" your drives are. Once those buffers and RAM are full, it's all about how fast the read/write mech can lay it down on the platters. Prepare for sadness
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)