Need a external enclosure solution

[bluestrobe]

I currently have a SCSI rack mount server I would like to replace my current file server with. I have almost 1 terabyte of information on my old server situated on four IDE drives. Obviously I can't place this information into the SCSI without great cost. So at this point I am looking for a cheaper way to move the four IDE drives into an external enclosure of some type. I am open to any interface from the enclosure to the server since the server only has USB 1.1 so I will be putting in some type of adapter card, probably USB 2 or Firewire.

Any suggestions?

 

[oynaz]

A Synology Cubestation maybe?

www.synology.com

 

[cmbehan]

maybe somthing like this:

http://www.cooldrives.com/quad...ternal-sata-case1.html

it'll take 4 SATA drives and connect to your server with esata so you'll get full speed.

 

[bluestrobe]

I thought about getting some stackable firewire enclosures and just daisy chaining them together. Also I was looking for IDE, not SATA.

 

[Zap]

Four EIDE drives in one USB 2.0 box $115

Is that what you envisioned?

Word of warning, multiple drive enclosures can be really picky about drive pairings, meaning sometimes some drives may not be "seen" by the device. When that happens, you'll need to make sure of your drive jumpers for master/slave, plus perhaps swap drive pairings until you find a setup that works.

Do expect to lose a bit of performance due to USB. eSATA is the fastest, followed by Firewire and with USB 2.0 trailing behind.

Another option would be to shop for an external 1TB drive and sell off your smaller drives. Sure, it would cost more, but you'll be starting with new drives and likely better performance (tempered by the interface). You can probably get an eSATA drive and then an eSATA interface card to get full performance. Currently there are cheap options ($250) which are really two 500GB drives in one box. With Seagate coming out with single 1TB drives "really soon now" expect to see single drive 1TB external boxes on the market besides the oddball Hitachi.

 

[bluestrobe]

I might rethink my strategy then. I might go with the same type of enclosure and start getting SATA drives then. USB2 is not an option and you are right about the external enclosures. Know of any good enclosures like the above but SATA?

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
I am open to any interface from the enclosure to the server since the server only has USB 1.1 so I will be putting in some type of adapter card, probably USB 2 or Firewire.

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
USB2 is not an option and you are right about the external enclosures.

Which is it, USB 2.0 or no USB 2.0? :roll:

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
So at this point I am looking for a cheaper way to move the four IDE drives into an external enclosure of some type.

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
I might go with the same type of enclosure and start getting SATA drives then.
Know of any good enclosures like the above but SATA?

Which is it, IDE or SATA? :roll:
You seem to be all over the map on exactly what you're looking for?
Will a four drive RAID enclosure be next?

 

[bluestrobe]

I've been transitioning my ideas from what people have been posting. Originally I wanted a USB2 or Firewire enclosure to put 4 current IDE hard drives in. I found USB2 too slow for my needs after some research and with the post made by Zap, I figured I might as well go with a SATA solution since I can't find a reliable IDE solution with firewire or a faster connection. If I could find an enclosure like the one Zap posted but with firewire, I would go that route for the time being but I checked around and can not find one for under $150.

 

[Old Hippie]

I figured I might as well go with a SATA solution since I can't find a reliable IDE solution with firewire or a faster connection.

So, you are going to swap all your IDE drives for SATA drives?

 

[bluestrobe]

I'm still looking but if I can't find a 4 drive IDE Firewire enclosure, I will resort to that measure.

 

[Old Hippie]

IDE with Firewire and USB, or Firewire only.
A little over your 150.00 budget, but not bad.

 

[Blain]

You'll need firewire 800 (1394B) to be much faster than USB 2.0.

 

[Old Hippie]

Originally posted by: Blain
You'll need firewire 800 (1394B) to be much faster than USB 2.0.

I wasn't gonna mention that. He seems bewildered as it is.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
I found USB2 too slow for my needs after some research and with the post made by Zap

Well, yes USB is slower. How much you'll notice depends on your usage patterns. If you're running larger apps from it or reading/writing large files (like video files) then you may notice a bit of a difference, otherwise not. I still use USB 2.0 (as well as Firewire) external enclosures because it is still very acceptable performance for the price. The real question is... how much is the extra performance worth to you in terms of real money?

 

[Old Hippie]

The real question is... how much is the extra performance worth to you in terms of real money?

There's the nitty-gritty.
Ya Know, There's a reason for Zap having three titles and that's why he makes the Big Bucks.

Bluestrobe, let's try a "Get Real" budget?

 

[bluestrobe]

I enjoy the subtle insults, thanks guys. Most of the posts were made in a rush so I didn't type as clearly as I wanted. I'm still open on the interface but prefer firewire due to the slight speed increase. However, if the price difference was over $50, then I would stick with USB2. I haven't bought the adapter card (PCI) yet so the interface is still in the air. This is for my current media/backup file server that we watch movies off of, stream music, ect.

 

[JackMDS]

As it looks, if your File server is Not storing or backing up Giga bytes of new files every day, USB2 would be good.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Old Hippie
There's a reason for Zap having three titles and that's why he makes the Big Bucks.

I have no idea for the former, and I'm unemployed for the latter.

Just ignore the fact that I'm driving around in a brand new Mazda Speed 6. *pic*

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
This is for my current media/backup file server that we watch movies off of, stream music, ect.

You will likely notice no difference for video and audio streaming as those are not too demanding.

 

[bluestrobe]

I might go with the one you suggested above then,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16817332008

 

[bamacre]

Why don't you just keep the old server, and network?

 

[bluestrobe]

It's on a dual 933mhz P3 box that has been going 24/7/365 since 2003 and I bought the board used even then. The processors have been going since I bought them in 2002, used. I moved most of my systems to a rack and the current server case is a Enermax CS-10182-BA. I looked for a rack mount case that could take up to six hard drives and a SuperATX board and could not find one for less than $150 stripped. I figured I could move the information to a dedicated server with the IDE drives in an external enclosure.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
I figured I could move the information to a dedicated server with the IDE drives in an external enclosure.

You COULD do just about anything. You should think through your options carefully.
Otherwise you'll be like a dog chasing his tail. :laugh:

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: Blain
You COULD do just about anything. You should think through your options carefully.
Otherwise you'll be like a dog chasing his tail. :laugh:

So, what would you do in my case? My budget is about $150.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe

Originally posted by: Blain
You COULD do just about anything. You should think through your options carefully.
Otherwise you'll be like a dog chasing his tail. :laugh:

So, what would you do in my case? My budget is about $150.

Delete all your pron and get a gf?

 

[ShawnD1]

Why not just keep the current server intact? If this thing is supposed to be a file server that runs over ethernet, how will having a fast USB connection make the network faster? If anything the USB would be slower because it's going from USB to ethernet as opposed to PATA to ethernet.