# External Hard Drive Setups



## nu2scene (Mar 12, 2011)

Hey there everyone. I'm a new LR user, a few weeks now. I'm in the process of reading Scott Kelby's book on LR and also watching the Kelby training videos. Both seem to be great by the way.

They seem to be favoring keeping your photos off your main internal computer hard drive, and on externals. Up to this point I've been using Photoshop Elements, and have been keeping my RAW's and final images in iPhoto, as I'm using a mac, on the main internal Hard Drive.

I got a new iMac, and decided to upgrade my software with LR3 and CS5, but haven't moved my images from my old computer yet. I want to do it right the first time, so I'm going back and forth about how to store things. I do like the idea of keeping my images on externals, but have really never done it this way before. So I have a few questions if you don't mind.

1. Are a lot of people keeping their images off their main internal HD's? Or keeping them on the internal main drive?

2. Does LR interact with the external drive much while you are editing and processing? Is it mainly communicating while saving? I'm asking mainly to see if when I'm editing will there be a big difference, if I'm using a USB2 or FW 800 drive, while using LR, but not saving. 

3. What brand drives are good currently for a mac. I have an old LaCie that has been great. But I'm currently hearing that Lacie is not so good anymore. I'm also hearing the Segates are a little off right now as well.

4. Are you using Drives that are powered by an external power source, or ones that are bus powered by the computer?

5. Do you think it's better to have two separate external HD's, one for the originals, and one as a back up? Or would you have one enclosure, with two drives mirroring each other?

I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting right now. But that's all that's coming to me right now. Thanks in advance for your help.


----------



## dj_paige (Mar 12, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with keeping your photos on an internal drive.

On my old computer, I had my photos on the external drive. I recently bought a new computer with two internal drives and moved all my photos to one of the internal drives. Some aspects of Lightroom will be sped up by putting photos on a faster drive.

It is mandatory, in my opinion, that backups go on a different physical drive than originals. If you put them on the same drive, and that drive crashes, now you have zero copies of your photos, and that is not good. Whether the different drives are two externals, or a RAID setup, or one internal and one external, simply doesn't matter.

External power source for EHD, or powered by the computer? Again, it simply doesn't matter to Lightroom. It may matter from a hardware perspective, but your question seems to be from a Lightroom perspective...



> 2. Does LR interact with the external drive much while you are editing  and processing? Is it mainly communicating while saving? I'm asking  mainly to see if when I'm editing will there be a big difference, if I'm  using a USB2 or FW 800 drive, while using LR, but not saving.


Perhaps you need to back up and read the basics of how Lightroom works. Take a look at the Lightroom Starter Kit. Lightroom doesn't do a save of your photos when editing in the traditional Photoshop or pixel editor sense. Information about your edits is indeed written to the Lightroom catalog file, but no Save to the disk of a new file happens when you are editing, or when you are done editing.

Side comment: I feel Kelby has a lot of bad advice about organizing and the Lightroom Library Module. My advice is to ignore whatever Kelby says about the Lightroom Library Module, and get better advice here in the forums. If you have been reading Kelby and haven't yet realized that Lightroom doesn't do a save when you edit (or when you are done editing), this is a perfect example of my criticism of Kelby, he simply doesn't make this point clear, and he obscures this point further by making a joke (I think its a joke, but some people are confused by it and take it seriously) about how the save command is now the export command.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Mar 12, 2011)

I use Western Digital Elements drives for my Mac. Solidly built, no crap software included and a good price. These are USB which I use for backups. I have 3 of them, one is for TimeMachine, one is for Video and one is for offsite backups.

I also have a Mac Power Pleiades FW800 drive for my Master Images which is much faster.


----------



## nu2scene (Mar 12, 2011)

Hi Paige, nice to see you here. I'm on the village as well. Thanks for your responses.

When you moved your photos from your external to the internal, did you notice any performance changes? Or is it pretty much the same?

Yes I want the original images to be on a separate drive from the back ups. On my old computer I basically used my main internal drive to hold the originals. But I kept the backups on an external Lacie.

I did notice that LR doesn't really save your finished images. At first, I really didn't like that idea. I didn't realize that's how it worked before I bought it. I didn't even think about saving. I had no idea it just didn't save each final edit. I'm getting used to the idea of how LR stores things in a catalog. You really are storing all your eggs in one basket this way aren't you? Makes your catalog backups even more important now, one file has all your final edits!

Thank you for that starter kit link. I'm going over there to check it out.


----------



## nu2scene (Mar 12, 2011)

Hi Sizzlingbadger. I have seen those WD Elements drives as well. I've been looking at some drives and noticed they were a good price. I was thinking of getting a 3TB  for my TimeMachine backups. But was concerned with how the USB would work with LR. Would you not recommend them for using them for the master images?


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Mar 12, 2011)

USB works fine for the masters, its just not as fast as FW800.


----------



## dj_paige (Mar 13, 2011)

nu2scene said:


> When you moved your photos from your external to the internal, did you notice any performance changes? Or is it pretty much the same?



Lightroom runs much faster now, but that is due to multiple reasons: faster hard drive, faster CPU and more memory. I can't really say how much of the performance change is due to using an internal vs external HD.


----------



## nu2scene (Mar 13, 2011)

Oh I see, many things going on there at the same time. I guess I'm fixated with the Hard Drives right now  LOL


----------



## drmaxx (Mar 13, 2011)

nu2scene said:


> 1. Are a lot of people keeping their images off their main internal HD's? Or keeping them on the internal main drive?



If you have different computers and users that need to access the pictures, then it makes a lot of sense to use an external storage solution for the main picture repository. Otherwise there is no reason why you can not keep them on your internal HD.
I have an internal Raid0 set-up that I work with and two external HDs for backups. 



nu2scene said:


> 3. What brand drives are good currently for a mac. I have an old LaCie that has been great. But I'm currently hearing that Lacie is not so good anymore. I'm also hearing the Segates are a little off right now as well.
> 
> 4. Are you using Drives that are powered by an external power source, or ones that are bus powered by the computer?



I am using Western Digital drives and have good experiences so far.  
I would suggest to use 3.5" drives. They are cheaper and are generally more robust. For e-sata and usb these only come with separate power sources and can not be powered over the bus. 



nu2scene said:


> 5. Do you think it's better to have two separate external HD's, one for the originals, and one as a back up? Or would you have one enclosure, with two drives mirroring each other?


This just doesn't matter. Both solutions are good. Two external HDs have the benefit that you can use fanless solutions, while one single enclosure usually needs a fan. This might be an issue for you or not.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Mar 13, 2011)

nu2scene said:


> 5. Do you think it's better to have two separate external HD's, one for the originals, and one as a back up? Or would you have one enclosure, with two drives mirroring each other?


 
This does make a difference and it has nothing to do with fans (I have no fans in any of my enclosures)

If you use mirroring you are only protecting against hardware failure and not user failure. If you accidentally delete or damage you images then the mirrored copy will also be deleted or damaged. If you have a separate backup drive this will only be updated when you want it to be updated, which will allow you to restore any deleted / damaged files in event of a user error.

Mirroring and other types of RAID systems are not backups, they allow you to continue working when you have a disk hardware failure. If you can take an 'outage' while you replace a drive and restore it then you probably do not need to consider a RAID system.


----------



## nu2scene (Mar 13, 2011)

Sizzlingbadger thank you for pointing that out. That is something else to think about as well. I really appreciate all these points everyone is contributing. I'm purposely not rushing into setting things up in a hurry. I'm looking into it, and want to set things up correctly from the beginning, and not having to re-do things.


----------



## drmaxx (Mar 13, 2011)

sizzlingbadger said:


> This does make a difference and it has nothing to do with fans (I have no fans in any of my enclosures)



Can you let us know what kind of enclosures you have? So far, I was not able to find enclosures for 2 or more disks without a fan (and with decent air flow pattern).


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Mar 13, 2011)

I only have single disks. My point was that the setup with mirroring does make a difference. Fans are a secondary issue but as you point out a good enclosure is important


----------



## nu2scene (Mar 14, 2011)

For a while I was looking at setting up a mirror RAID1 setup, to keep things cleaner, tidier, and less cable management. But after Sizzlingbadger's noting about mirroring any accidents, I think I'm going to go with two separate drives. I've been reading some reviews for different drives. I've read some good some bad about the Western Digital FW 800 drives. I've also been looking at OWC (Other World Computing) and their Mercury Elite -AL Pro drives. Has anyone had any experience with them?


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Mar 15, 2011)

I think you'll find good and bad stories about any drives if you look hard enough 

If you have a good backup policy you shouldn't need to worry too much about using cheaper drives. I've never had an issue with my WD Elements (yet....  all disks fail at some point)


----------



## nu2scene (Apr 7, 2011)

Decided to go with 2 OWC drives. Had them a few days now. They are FW 800, and seem quick enough so far.


----------



## jliu (Jul 12, 2011)

The best bet is that you should have your photos on 3 different disks/locations if possible.  For example, you can have two copies on two separate disks/arrays, and a third copy backed up online/offsite.


----------



## georgehd (Nov 2, 2011)

After a number of tests, I now have my main catalogue and images on two external Western Digital Studio drives.  Those drives are  backed up to a larger 2TB Western Digital Desk Top drive.    The second small drive was added when the first drive filled up  Both of my external drives are small enough for me to take on workshops or trips so that I have my entire catalogue at my disposal.  At home both drives are backed up to the single 2TB drive which is partitioned to handle the two smaller storage drives.  Hope that this makes sense.  It is a very easy system to set up and is useful if you need to carry your catalogue with you.  The only thing to be careful of is to be sure that LR knows where the catalogue is stored.  Lightroom automatically backs up each time that I close it and it currently is backing up the the newest external small drive.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 3, 2011)

Hi George, welcome to the forum.  Sounds like you have a well thought out setup there.


----------



## livefats (Dec 3, 2011)

Thank you - this has been a really useful  thread for me. I'll be changing my one external drive this weekend!


----------



## viento (Mar 3, 2012)

I store my photos (and iTunes data) in a Taurus Super-S LCM double enclosure running with two 2TB WD hard disks mirrored as a raid 1.
I can use their data over firewire800 from whatever prog. I like, such as LR3, PS etc...If I ever gonna change my computer there will no wasting time transferring files.
I haven´t imported those files into LR  but  have "added" them only. So they don´t occupy any space inside my iMac.
For the backup of all other programs and their data I use a 2TB time capsule.

...just my 2cents.

Hardy


----------



## livefats (Mar 4, 2012)

Wow! That sounds super secure. What are the benefits of using the Taurus Super-S LCM rather than manually backing up to the external drives? (Sorry, this sounds like a stupid question already!)

Chris


----------



## georgehd (Mar 4, 2012)

viento said:


> I store my photos (and iTunes data) in a Taurus Super-S LCM double enclosure running with two 2TB WD hard disks mirrored as a raid 1.
> I can use their data over firewire800 from whatever prog. I like, such as LR3, PS etc...If I ever gonna change my computer there will no wasting time transferring files.
> I haven´t imported those files into LR  but  have "added" them only. So they don´t occupy any space inside my iMac.
> For the backup of all other programs and their data I use a 2TB time capsule.
> ...


This sounds like a very good system.  Do you use a large desk top computer?  I use an iMac and find that Lightroom slows down if the external drive gets too full.  I cannot connect all of my external drives directly to the iMac and have to use a hub.  Using a hub slows things down.  I use my firewire port for other things and do not know of a way to have a hub in the firewire system.  Would like very much to connect LR using firewire.


----------



## clee01l (Mar 4, 2012)

George, a hub is not required for FireWire. FireWire devices can be daisy-chained.  Each FireWire device should have two FireWire ports. Just connect the second FireWire device two the first and the thirde to the second and so on. I'm sure there is a limit to the number of devices that can be connected in the chain but that number is likely to be 8 or more.


----------



## viento (Mar 4, 2012)

livefats said:


> Wow! That sounds super secure. What are the benefits of using the Taurus Super-S LCM rather than manually backing up to the external drives? (Sorry, this sounds like a stupid question already!)
> 
> Chris



Chris,that´s no stupid question. I have my photo import programs (LR and/or Nikon NX2) store the data of my cams directly into the external raid1. If I want I can also manually move data into the Taurus enclosure.The benefit of that raid1 is that I don´t have to double manually my data when storing them.That is done automatically by the Taurus.




georgehd said:


> This sounds like a very good system.  Do you use a large desk top computer?  I use an iMac and find that Lightroom slows down if the external drive gets too full.  I cannot connect all of my external drives directly to the iMac and have to use a hub.  Using a hub slows things down.  I use my firewire port for other things and do not know of a way to have a hub in the firewire system.  Would like very much to connect LR using firewire.



I´ve got a 27" iMac. As *clee01l* states, you will be better off -and not slowed down -by using FireWire in a daisy-chain. I have such a chain with my Taurus enclosure plus a FireWire 800 card reader. Each is as quick in that chain as if those parts were used separately.One can use up to 63 "daisies" in one chain.



clee01l said:


> George, a hub is not required for FireWire. FireWire devices can be daisy-chained.  Each FireWire device should have two FireWire ports. Just connect the second FireWire device two the first and the thirde to the second and so on. I'm sure there is a limit to the number of devices that can be connected in the chain but that number is likely to be 8 or more.



___________________
Best regards!

Hardy


----------

