[Guest]

I prefer to use archive-grade DVDs and do keep the number of preserved photos under control. The latter is not a straightforward task, but all too important. And if you cannot manage number of photos, BlueRay is still large enough.

[Sylvain]

I prefer to use archive-grade DVDs and do keep the number of preserved photos under control. The latter is not a straightforward task, but all too important. And if you cannot manage number of photos, BlueRay is still large enough.

Being critical about what we keep is #1 advice. I agree.

 

The discussion has drifted way too much into RAID technical specifics IMHO.

If I may venture into a sharp summary tailored for toni who is having a hard time getting back to our digital craft :

 

-forget about any of the "complicated" RAID solutions you read. Don't step into the 3+ disk business : too costly, too dependent on technological aging. Technological aging here is : 

*x months from now, you can't find the disk you purchased, forcing you into stocking them (horrible costs)

*x months from now, you can't repair or replace the controller of your RAID solution. Controller = NAS box, or NAS software.

My opinion is that it is withing "consumer" reach nowadays, that it is indeed more reliable, but not much more for the costs we're ready to involve in it.

 

-Keep it simple and cheap and follow the density doubling : buy a simple solution and take advantage of the ever increasing capacity to replace the drives (new parts are a bonus) and migrate old data to new ones.

 

-Diversify medium and location : Optical, Mechanical, Virtual (cloud)

 

I'd stick to a working drive, then a tiny 2 drive box of 2x4TB (WD RED drives are quiet, cool) in mirroring, a spare drive and an automatic synchronisation to a cloud service, of your "finished & edited" photos folder. For the cloud, noted by Klaus and absolutely important is "can you upload properly where you are?" If you don't have too much backlog already, I'd consider archival grade blu-ray as an extra. My entire collection would fit on 12 Discs right now : nothing excessive I think. Just need courage and a BluRay writer.

 

Cheers,

[popo]

For backup uses, performance isn't the most important thing here. This applies to storage HDs too. You just want the cheapest per capacity, never mind the performance. USB2 external hard disks were my backup for a long time, but now I've got a GBE box things are a little faster.

 

Having had another look at blu-rays, the biggest ones I've seen appear to be 50GB? I hate to imagine using those... 3TB HDs are a sweet spot in terms of cost per capacity and I'd only need a few of those for the near future. By the time they age I'll be moving them to whatever will be the best cost per capacity at the time, maybe 10TB HDs will be common then or some other storage revolution has happened.

[borisbg]

Since the PZ members are also IT savvy let me ask this: Is there software, which will mirror the content of drive E: to drive L: at user request or it will do it shut down? I do it manually at the moment. I think that will solve the controller issue, identical HD issue, internal or external issue.

[JJ_SO]

For backup uses, performance isn't the most important thing here. This applies to storage HDs too. You just want the cheapest per capacity, never mind the performance.

I tend to disagree, but on my iMac the USB 2 is the slowest connection (25MB/s vs 45-50MB/s with FW800). The bigger the picture collection, the faster one can transfer it to another drive. But of course, once the initial copy is done, the incremental copy only takes a fraction of time, thanks to SuperDuper, CarbonCopyCloner and the like. Very nice is also TimeMachine, but I use that more for documents - and then I'm quite happy, if the restoring process is fast.


And the cheapest HD might be the loudest or less reliable, therefore I use WD green and maybe red, too. 5400 rpm are fast enough for FW800, silent and cool. But I don't say WD is the best as they can fail, too. But I'm used to them and don't want to experiment with storage systems. Best is, not realizing that it's working.

 

USB2 external hard disks were my backup for a long time, but now I've got a GBE box things are a little faster.

 

Having had another look at blu-rays, the biggest ones I've seen appear to be 50GB? I hate to imagine using those... 3TB HDs are a sweet spot in terms of cost per capacity and I'd only need a few of those for the near future. By the time they age I'll be moving them to whatever will be the best cost per capacity at the time, maybe 10TB HDs will be common then or some other storage revolution has happened.

In the beginning I used DVD archival grade, too, and still am doing for small, important projects - but the speed is really a pain, they are very vulnerable and who tells me while they remain maybe 50 or 100 years readable from now, there will be hardware in the next century for them? On a Mac, I can't check the quality after burning a ROM. DVD RAM are better, more stable and much more expensive and much more exotic in terms of drives. Since "cheaper is better" the drive quality has continously decreased - I wouldn't trust this kind of "backup media".

[popo]

Since the PZ members are also IT savvy let me ask this: Is there software, which will mirror the content of drive E: to drive L: at user request or it will do it shut down? I do it manually at the moment. I think that will solve the controller issue, identical HD issue, internal or external issue.

 

I use SyncBack for exactly that kind of use.

[Brightcolours]

 

 On a Mac, I can't check the quality after burning a ROM. 

You can when using Toast.

[JJ_SO]

Toast doesn't give a measured graph of write errors and jitter - it just checks if the DVD/CD is within specifications. I don't see, if the medium is well inmidst the tolerance or just at the limit, the amount of jitter is not visible. On Windows, there once was a quality check for Plextor drives (Plextools Professional), but this was 10 years ago - on DVD RAM there's no check tool for end users (only the toast function OK/not OK) and on bluray not even the lab's testtools are working. I meant something like this:

 



 

Source: PCWelt.de, that CD or DV is close to data loss because of poor burn quality, high PIF values - it would still be ok for Toast, though.

 

The trouble is, scratches, grease and dirt just add to the disc surface and a freshly burnt DVD which was checked and confirmed OK may well be on the upper limit of tolerance

[borisbg]

I use SyncBack for exactly that kind of use.

Polo, thank you very much.

[borisbg]

I use SyncBack for exactly that kind of use.

Popo, which version do you use? They have several product.