2 external hard drives from a lap top

[philsmove]

My laptop a Dell 6400 to has a single eSATA outlet which is connected to a LaCie Rugged XL 1TB External Hard Disk
Adobe Lightroom automatically makes a second back up copy when importing files from a Compact flash card, as well as copying to the laptops internal drive
Needless to say the internal drive is getting filled up
I need to move my Lightroom photos folder from the internal drive to another external drive. I can do this using a usb connection but I imagine this will slower than the eSATA

Is there the equivalent to an eSATA hub

Yes I know I should have bought a desk top but can’t afford one at moment

[David Franklin]

Not an export on this, but I think you need an external eSata Port Multiplier. You also need for your laptops eSata controller to support port multipliers.

And a port multiplier won't be terribly cheap.

In your position, I'd get a 2TB external drive I think.

[geoff332]

Your best solution is likely to be NAS - Network Attached Storage. That gives you the most flexibility, without having to worry about port replication and so forth. It also means that you can attach other devices to the storage centre (for example, I keep all my music in uncompressed formats on an NAS and serve it a few difference devices around the house). A four bay NAS will let you put four physical drives in it, which is a lot of capacity.

A good NAS will have an eSATA port. Personally, I'd run the NAS in a raid mode to give you good reliability and, rather than back-up when you copy, have a nightly back-up to your current eSATA drive. This means the transfer speed for the second copy is largely irrelevant (Although, keeping them next to one another doesn't make for much of a back-up).

You can connect to NAS via either ethernet cable or WiFi over a router (some have built in WiFi as well). It's hard to predict network performance, because it's dependant on things like number of connections and the length of the wires. But if you use ethernet, the data connection should be faster than eSATA (in which case, your drives become the limiting factor, not the connection). If you use WiFI, it will be a little slower (but more convenient). USB is considerably slower than either option - about a third of the speed of WiFi or one fifth of the speed of eSATA.

[philsmove]

Thanks you guys
I want to keep the backup external hard drive seperate and secure I also want to created 2 copies of my photos immediately I down load them.
It looks like this might be a solution

Startech-CardBus-Laptop-Controller- (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Startech-CardBus-Laptop-Controller-Adapter/dp/B002I9SME2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1281444800&sr=1-1)

[Lynn]

OK - I haven't understood much of the posts above... except for word 'external hard drive'... I'm wanting to get one of these to back up my photos and files - suggestions on size?

[geoff332]

OK - I haven't understood much of the posts above... except for word 'external hard drive'... I'm wanting to get one of these to back up my photos and files - suggestions on size?It's not size, it's how you use it...

If you want a simple copy of certain files, then a USB hard drive is adequate - as long as it's at least as big as your computer's drive, you're fine. If you want a genuine back-up, then you will want something quite a bit bigger. If you want real-time replication or something a bit more reliable, then you want to go to NAS or eSATA (I'd still strongly recommend NAS in a raid configuration).

Drives are relatively cheap - a 1TB SATA drive isn't going to break your bank and would give you plenty of space.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that hard drives will fail. So at the very least, make sure you have anything valuable saved in more than one place.

[DavidY]

It's not size, it's how you use it...;)

If you want real-time replication or something a bit more reliable, then you want to go to NAS or eSATA (I'd still strongly recommend NAS in a raid configuration).I don't know much about RAID although I do understand the basic principles.

Do RAID drives have to be identical? Eg. if one fails, do you have to replace it with an identical model/size of drive (which I guess may be hard to obtain in 2/3/more years' time)?

[frodo]

OK - I haven't understood much of the posts above... except for word 'external hard drive'... I'm wanting to get one of these to back up my photos and files - suggestions on size?

Unless you're getting a NAS box, buying a 2.5 in USB drive (effectively you can get these up to 640 Gb in capacity) is often a good idea, despite costing around twice as much per Gigabyte as a 'Desktop' external drive because:-

They don't need a separate power supply

They're far more likely to survive being dropped

Far easier to carry with you if you need to

[geoff332]

Do RAID drives have to be identical? Eg. if one fails, do you have to replace it with an identical model/size of drive (which I guess may be hard to obtain in 2/3/more years' time)?I'm not that much of an expert, but I think they have to be the same size and speed; but not necessarily the same model. It's usually not too hard to find older disks, as long as you use a well known supplier - Seagate, Maxator or Toshiba are all good options.

[cederic]

Is there any reason an external powered USB or Firewire hard drive wont suffice? It's probably the cheapest option..

[Lynn]

Unless you're getting a NAS box, buying a 2.5 in USB drive (effectively you can get these up to 640 Gb in capacity) is often a good idea, despite costing around twice as much per Gigabyte as a 'Desktop' external drive because:-


They don't need a separate power supply



They're far more likely to survive being dropped



Far easier to carry with you if you need to

OK, I didn't even know the difference between a USB or 'desktop' external drive - except that the one I was looking at yesterday was a Seagate 640Gb drive that ran off USB power - which sounds like what you are talking about? It was about £75 in Currys/PC World. Would that be enough? I just want to have files and photos somewhere as well as my laptop, in case my laptop crashes.

[frodo]

except that the one I was looking at yesterday was a Seagate 640Gb drive that ran off USB power - which sounds like what you are talking about? It was about £75 in Currys/PC World.
Yes it sounds like what I was talking about. Apart from physical size, the key distinction is usually the external power supply as desktop hard drives tend take too much power to run from USB 2 (they might possibly run off USB 3).


Would that be enough? I just want to have files and photos somewhere as well as my laptop, in case my laptop crashes.

More capacity is always better, but for the purpose you've given I would think the size required would depend on the size of your laptop hard drive. (From 'run' on the start menu type 'diskmgmt.msc' to see the hard drive size).

A margin over the size of your laptop hard drive is probably a good idea.



I'm not that much of an expert, but I think they have to be the same size and speed; but not necessarily the same model. It's usually not too hard to find older disks, as long as you use a well known supplier - Seagate, Maxator or Toshiba are all good options.
While some RAID systems do seem to have such restrictions, I don't know of any good reason to generally justify it.

I wouldn't be buying any RAID system which wouldn't accept a bigger / faster drive as a replacement.


There would be no capacity benefit from doing so, as the drive blocks beyond the highest numbered on the original drive(s) would be ignored.

There may be some read speed benefit of the faster drive (as data can be read from the fastest location), but a write speed benefit would be unlikely.

[philsmove]

a Seagate 640Gb drive that ran off USB power - which sounds like what you are talking about? It was about £75 in Currys/PC World. Would that be enough? .


Having backup or copied your photos, do have a practice run at restoring them on to another computer
Take the attitude, it is not IF your hard drive crashes it's WHEN

For those irreplaceable photos, consider burning them on to DVDs and keeping the copies "off site"

[geoff332]

For those irreplaceable photos, consider burning them on to DVDs and keeping the copies "off site"DVD-R isn't a great back-up media: they degrade over time, so you can't rely on them being readable in 5-10 years. If you use cheap disks, they can degrade to the point of losing data within weeks.

If you do back-up to DVD: Buy high-quality disks, from a reputable retailer (don't get the cheap and nasties from the pound-shop)
Make multiple copies when you first back-up
Verify everything to make sure the original copy worked
Don't write on the disk surface
Periodically re-copy everything to refresh the disks
Store the DVDs properly (in cases, in a safe, dark and dry)

[philsmove]

DVD-R isn't a great back-up media: they degrade over time, so you can't rely on them being readable in 5-10 years. l

Death and taxes are the only certainties in life :flower:

This article (http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html) suggests under correct storage they can last 30- 200 years

[geoff332]

This article (http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html) suggests under correct storage they can last 30- 200 yearsThere are hundreds of articles out there on the life of DVDs - so I'll never trust one source. The estimates vary, but a reliable life of 5-10 years seems to show up frequently, if you take reasonable precautions, like the ones I listed above.

I'm very dubious of claims over 100 years - mostly because the companies that produce the dyes that are used in DVD-Rs only claim the dye will remain chemically stable for 100 years. To double that without very good reason seems very dubious and makes me doubt the credibility of the claims.

[David Franklin]

Death and taxes are the only certainties in life :flower:

This article (http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html) suggests under correct storage they can last 30- 200 yearsA realistic assessment of computer technology tells you that there's next to no chance DVD readers will be easily available in 100 years.

Because of the constant changes in technology, it makes sense to recopy your archives every few years. This both checks that the archives are still OK, gives you "fresh" copies that shouldn't be degraded, and allows you to make sure you don't have your only copy left in a format that becomes obsolete.