Your BACKUP Solutions: Redundancy Obsessive!

[ipedro]

As photographers – many of us digital – we live with the threat that our entire life's work can be wiped out in a second. It's all there, sitting in a magnetic registration on a hard drive... Even redundant systems can fail.

Here's my obssessively redundant system:

http://marqx.com/storage/MediaSetup/iPedro_MediaSetup.png (http://marqx.com/storage/MediaSetup/iPedro_MediaSetup.pdf)

Click the diagram for a hi-res close up.

- My Aperture library sits in full on my MacBook Pro's 320GB HDD.
- The entire contents of the MBP are automatically backed up to a 1TB Time Capsule
- A second Time Machine drive is stored offsite in a bank safety deposit box
- An Aperture Vault is stored in the same deposit box
- In addition, I send all my 4 and 5 star rated photos in full res to an online SmugMug account
- Separately, I archive my company's completed project dockets to an HDD connected to the Time Capsule.
- The project dockets HDD is backed up periodically to an FTP online space.

I stopped using optical media as backup because you only discover that your backup didn't burn properly when you lose your original files and go to the DVD for desperate hope that you didn't lose it all.

My iPhoto library (personal photos) is on a Mac Mini, backed up to the 1TB Time Capsule and these photos along with my iTunes library has "backups" held in my tv and iPod.

Please share your setup and any backup nightmare and "THANK GOD I BACKED UP" stories.

[AlexH]

Wow, that's, well, redundant. I suppose if it's your business, you do what you gotta do.

What's up with the Time Machine drive in the safety deposit box? Do you regularly make trips to the bank and switch out drives or what?

[gnd]

I stopped using optical media as backup because you only discover that your backup didn't burn properly when you lose your original files and go to the DVD for desperate hope that you didn't lose it all.


It is possible to use optical media for archiving, but you have to do it the right way. Don't just burn and forget.

First thing is to choose the best type of media, DVD+R. Why DVD+R? Here is the reason. (http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/2006/10/30/how-to-choose-cddvd-archival-media)

You need to prepare your files for the burn and verification. I calculate md5 sums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5#Applications) for all the files that go on a certain disc. Make sure the file with the md5 sums goes on the disc.

Then burn multiple copies of each disc (I burn 3) and verify all the files on each disc against the md5 sums. Make sure everything checks out on all discs. Now you can be sure you have good copies of each set of files.

If you also use good media then you can be sure you will be able to read all the files when you need them. If you're paranoid, store the discs with the same sets of files in different locations.

[ChrisA]

The rule of thumb is that a backup system should:


maintain at leat three copies of the data on at least three different physical media
maintain the dat in at least two geographically different locations


But in order to do this you will likely need more than three copies of the data. for example if you have backup drives A, B and C and then when you re-fresh A the first step is to wipe the old backup. At this point for 20 minutes or so you only have two copies. Guess when the most likely time for a failure is? During a backup. You need four copies and a rotation system in order to keep three good copies at all times. Same withthe off-site copy. If you take it home then you don't have an off-site, so you need to rotate the them so that you drop one off before you bring the old one back to be refreshed.

But if your backup software does not over wipe the old backup off the disk then you can maybe do with one less copy. Copies do not need to be on a hard drive. on-line services and DVDs can be used. Yes, I've used DVD but you can't depend on them to last, you have to re-burn the backup set periodically, say once a year. and then toss out the 4 or 5 year old discs.

I've written many times that I'm pretty sure that in 50 years there will very, very few 50 year old photos. Hardly anyone does backup s correctly, not correctly enough to servive 50 years

My opinion is that any system that implements the two rules above will work.

[ChrisA]

Then burn multiple copies of each disc (I burn 3) and verify all the files on each disc against the md5 sums. Make sure everything checks out on all discs. Now you can be sure you have good copies of each set of files..

I've used DVD also and agree it can be done right. But rather then burn all three copies at the same time, I made just one copy and placed it in my fire safe. Then a little later I made a second copy and put in it the safe and took the set in the safe to the office. Then I made a third set. The total amount of work involved was the same but in the end at least one backup set was "fresher" and had more current copies of the files.
After a while you have to git rid of the very old copies

I got tried of burning discs and went to hard drives. The last drive I bought was a 1TB for $150. Cheap enough that now I just buy drives and rotate them around

[ipedro]

What's up with the Time Machine drive in the safety deposit box? Do you regularly make trips to the bank and switch out drives or what?

Whenever I go to the bank, I have my MacBook Pro on me so I just go in to the safe for 10 minutes and update the Time Machine drive.

Money can't buy the peace of mind of knowing that you have all your data stored in a bank safe in addition to the online copies, the local Time Capsule and the original files :D

[ipedro]

I got tried of burning discs and went to hard drives. The last drive I bought was a 1TB for $150. Cheap enough that now I just buy drives and rotate them around

Exactly. Drives are so cheap these days that you can buy 3,4,5 drives and just use Time Machine and Aperture Vault. Unless your entire city gets swiped by some sort of electromagnetic wave and renders useless all the hard drives in your city, you know you'll have an updated copy of all your data somewhere.

The odds are absolutely in your favor. I like those odds. :D

[jodelli]

Depending on which particular folder, I have as many as three or four copies backed up to portable media, some also on web storage sites such as Flickr and Photobucket, and all on at least three separate HDDs.

[costabunny]

I use RAID5 in my Mac
I have a TimeCapsule (250GB) for daily backups
I run my backup script which rsyncs to my RAID5 NAS
Once a week I run the script with a remote target (a raided debian server I rent in Germany)Whilst I do not earn money from my Mac, I do wholeheartedly beleive in a solid backup regime.

[AlexH]

Whenever I go to the bank, I have my MacBook Pro on me so I just go in to the safe for 10 minutes and update the Time Machine drive.

Money can't buy the peace of mind of knowing that you have all your data stored in a bank safe in addition to the online copies, the local Time Capsule and the original files :D
Very cool. That would be secure! :D

[duncanapple]

Question for those of you using multiple external hard drives for backing up via time machine... if I had two drives i was swapping out with time machine, and I wanted to have complete backups on both, how would it handle that?

For example, I assume I would plug backup drive A in, configure time machine to use that as the backup volume and then do a complete backup.

Then, (again, I assume) I plug backup drive B in, configure time machine to use that as a backup volume, and do a complete backup.

What happens then, when I plug drive A back in? Wouldn't time machine be looking for drive B?

And now lets say it sees both as backup volumes - lets say I have done one full backup on each. Then I upload a bunch of pics to my laptop and want to back up to both drives. So I plug in backup drive A, and it writes just the new photos to the existing backup. What happens when I plug in drive B? Will it think it already backed up those new photos, or will it know drive B doesnt have them written yet?

Sorry if the above sounds complicated - just trying to make sure my data is safe? Here I thought I was safe just using one backup drive - after reading this I wonder if I should buy a second drive, occasionally do backups to it as well, and leave it at my parents house.... Just not sure how time machine would handle that...

Thanks!

[66217]

I'm also quite paranoid about my photos, but not so much.:)

My photos reside in an external drive at home. At home I also have another external drive for Time Machine, were I backup the photos there as well.

I burn all my photos to DVDs and store them in a safe place. I have planned on doing this every 2 weeks for new photos, and every 6-12 months to replace all the DVDs.

Most photos (3 stars and above) are uploaded to MobileMe. So far I haven't been uploading the master files, but I think I'll start doing that.

And finally, all photos are stored in an extra hard drive which I keep at the office.

[ChrisA]

What happens then, when I plug drive A back in? Wouldn't time machine be looking for drive B?

And now lets say it sees both as backup volumes - lets say I have done one full backup on each. Then I upload a bunch of pics to my laptop and want to back up to both drives. So I plug in backup drive A, and it writes just the new photos to the existing backup. What happens when I plug in drive B? Will it think it already backed up those new photos, or will it know drive B doesnt have them written yet?

It's simple: ALL of the information about what has been backed up and when is kept on the Time machine backup drive. So when you switch drives from A to B TM "forgets" everything about what happened with drive A. It worksthe way you'd like it to.

The only trouble with rotating out TM drives is that those TM drives have to be a bit larger then all the data on your system. This could force you into using RAID as the TM drive. Then you'd need multiple RAID boxes

I keep just one TM drive connected at all times for hourly backups and then use Aperture's "vaults" for photo archive. I have several vaults and rotate them.

[duncanapple]

Thanks for the help! I think I need to get a second external HD and start storing it elsewhere (ie not at my house).

[akm3]

I thought that Time Machine ignored Aperture libraries? Are you *sure* you are getting your Aperture library backed up?


(I'm anal too, just want to make sure you are covered...I don't know much about Aperture, I'm still with iPhoto)

[MacLadybug]

Here's my nightmare... I still cry when I think about it. First off, I'm not a photographer. Most of what is on my HDD can be replaced with some work with the exception of my family photos collected over many years. It was about 6 years ago and we had just purchased a brand new Dell uber computer custom built with top of the line specs, the best of everything at that time. It was ginormous. I had decided that I needed to backup photos to safe-guard them. The plan was to burn backup disks then I thought I'd be real intelligent and upload them to one of those sites like iFoto (can't remember which one now). Well, a real genius would have uploaded the photos first, but I decided to burn the disk first. I was using Roxio software to burn my photo collection. The disk drive malfunctioned and froze and I was forced to restart the computer. After the reboot, I could not find one photo. Everything was gone. Not on the disk, not on the hard drive. Gone. Gone all the family photos, our trip to Ireland, our trip to England... gone. EVERYTHING. I screamed and cried... called tech support and looked all over the computer, it was gone. I even called in a reputable Computer repair company and paid them too much money to scan my HDD for the photos. Nothing. If only I had uploaded the pics first.

We've been 100% converted to Mac for 1 year and 7 months now, but who's counting. My photos are on my iMac, my new alum MB, classic iPod, iPhone and backed up on my TimeCapsule. Additionally, just for good measure I do have them burned to disks and on a LaCie 500GB hard drive. A bit redundant, but oh well.

[anubis]

Yeah, I put backup DVDs of the weddings I shoot in a safe deposit box. No point in backing up the data to multiple drives in my house if the house burns down.

My primary backup mechanism is Smugmug. Smugmug allows for UNLIMITED photo storage and transfer, and stores photos in the full uploaded resolution, so you get a built-in unlimited image backup solution with your standard Smugmug account. Smugmug advertises that when you upload a photo, it gets copied and stored in 3 data centers in 3 different geographic locations.

[dllavaneras]

My external 250Gb HD died a month ago. Now I'm getting two external 1Tb drives (one for files, the other for backup) and keeping an external backup HD at a friend's house. No sense in losing years of hard work.

[elcid]

How do you not own a Drobo?

[dllavaneras]

How do you not own a Drobo?

I hadn't heard about it until after I read your post, and I'm already stretching my budget as it is. Besides, you can't get it in my country, and even if I could find a store that gets them, it'd cost a kidney. Just for reference, a Canon XTi costs 500 bucks in the US, and down here it costs 2350 bucks.

If I get a Drobo in the future, can I set two internal drives as data drives and the other two as backup drives? If the controller automatically mirrors the content of the drives, then I'd really think about one.

[Digital Skunk]

The rule of thumb is that a backup system should:


maintain at leat three copies of the data on at least three different physical media
maintain the dat in at least two geographically different locations


This is pretty much what I do and that's that.

I don't carry my entire library on my MBP, just my working projects, and have everything in triplicate on the home tower and LaCie drives.

Did I mention photo and HD video? I am looking for an Apple Xserve RAID just incase anyone has seen one lying around.

p.s. Yes, Time Machine can't backup the Aperture Library file. You have to back that up separate. That's the main reason I still reference my files from the tower and have the 100+ GB of archived photos and active images backed up using Time Machine. The Aperture library then is only a few GBs in size and can be tossed on a few smaller drives.... hence my need for one large array of drives.

[snberk103]

I know some photographers who periodically (monthly or so) make a backup copy of their image library to an external HD, and then courier it their friend who lives on different continent (there are 4 or 5 friends who live in North America, Europe, and Asia). I don't know how they schedule it among it themselves, but their thinking is that even if the worst calamity - short of a global catastrophe - happened, a copy of their images would exist somewhere.

I don't tell them that if they actually needed to go to their off-shore copy - - then the people who would normally be buying their images probably are having their own problems.

Cheers

[ipedro]

How do you not own a Drobo?

A Drobo or Drobo-like solution is coming. I did say redudancy Obssessive ;) . I'll never be fully relaxed, but I think my data is relatively safe at this point.

[ipedro]

Here's my nightmare... I still cry when I think about it. First off, I'm not a photographer. Most of what is on my HDD can be replaced with some work with the exception of my family photos collected over many years. It was about 6 years ago and we had just purchased a brand new Dell uber computer custom built with top of the line specs, the best of everything at that time. It was ginormous. I had decided that I needed to backup photos to safe-guard them. The plan was to burn backup disks then I thought I'd be real intelligent and upload them to one of those sites like iFoto (can't remember which one now). Well, a real genius would have uploaded the photos first, but I decided to burn the disk first. I was using Roxio software to burn my photo collection. The disk drive malfunctioned and froze and I was forced to restart the computer. After the reboot, I could not find one photo. Everything was gone. Not on the disk, not on the hard drive. Gone. Gone all the family photos, our trip to Ireland, our trip to England... gone. EVERYTHING. I screamed and cried... called tech support and looked all over the computer, it was gone. I even called in a reputable Computer repair company and paid them too much money to scan my HDD for the photos. Nothing. If only I had uploaded the pics first.

We've been 100% converted to Mac for 1 year and 7 months now, but who's counting. My photos are on my iMac, my new alum MB, classic iPod, iPhone and backed up on my TimeCapsule. Additionally, just for good measure I do have them burned to disks and on a LaCie 500GB hard drive. A bit redundant, but oh well.

That's horrible my friend... horrible. :(

What prompted me were two experiences.

The first: all the data that I had been safekeeping since I owned my first computer was passed on from computer to computer. One day, I had a problem with my then Windows system, and I had to do the familiar format/reinstall routine.

I popped in a new HDD and formatted it to be ready for a fresh Windows install. I formatted the wrong drive! I cleaned out all my life's worth of data.

... fortunately for me, after nearly crying, kicking holes in the walls and shouting "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" until my neighbors knocked on the door thinking something tragic had happened, I managed to keep a relatively cool head and go through reversing the process. Back then, I had just that one computer so I couldn't look up information on how to revert to my HDD pre-format. Luckily, I had been impatient and hadn't done an exhaustive format and was able to recover everything.

I learned from that and from then on, I copied important data to DVDs on a (not regular enough) monthly, schedule.

My second shock into action came when my PowerBook, with all my data on it, got stolen. Fortunately, this happened during a trip, so I had performed one of my monthly backups just prior to leaving home. I recovered everything except for the earliest photos from that trip. Had it happened during any other time, I'd be one month behind on data.

That's when I came up with the system that prompted this thread.

I can breath pretty easy knowing that I have my data in the bank, online in a cloud somewhere (SmugMug), on a Time Capsule at home and on external HDDs in my home office.

[ChrisA]

Here's my nightmare... ...Everything was gone. Not on the disk, not on the hard drive. Gone. Gone all the family photos, our trip to Ireland, our trip to England... gone. EVERYTHING. I screamed and cried... called tech support and looked all over the computer, it was gone. I even called in a reputable Computer repair company and paid them too much money to scan my HDD for the photos. Nothing. If only I had uploaded the pics first.

We've been 100% converted to Mac for 1 year and 7 months now, but who's counting. My photos are on my iMac, my new alum MB, classic iPod, iPhone and backed up on my TimeCapsule. Additionally, just for good measure I do have them burned to disks and on a LaCie 500GB hard drive. A bit redundant, but oh well.

You problem was not that you didn't do the upload first, it was in your workflow. It one time the files were on a camera memory card. You need a workflow that backs up data. For example you copy them to (say) iPhoto, then let Time Machine back that up and then at the time time burn a CD and ONLY them with three copies of the files in hand would you erase the memory card.

The rule is (2) Three copies of the data on three media and (2) two geographical locations.

You current system is NOT very redundant. Not if all the data is in one building. At the very least buy a fire safe.

[MacLadybug]

You problem was not that you didn't do the upload first, it was in your workflow. It one time the files were on a camera memory card. You need a workflow that backs up data. For example you copy them to (say) iPhoto, then let Time Machine back that up and then at the time time burn a CD and ONLY them with three copies of the files in hand would you erase the memory card.

The rule is (2) Three copies of the data on three media and (2) two geographical locations.

You current system is NOT very redundant. Not if all the data is in one building. At the very least buy a fire safe.

How could I not have thought of that. I do have a fire safe and tomorrow backups will go into it. We also have a safety deposit box at our bank that has our wills, etc. and we never use it for anything else. I'll put copies there too. I don't have a large amount of data/photos like you professionals, but what I have is important business wise and the photos sentimental. I never want to go through the experience of losing it again.

[ajpl]

I always find that HDs are never big enough to easily back my data up to multiple locations. Why - currently I have about 20 HDs under my desk, many 1TB, the others 500G.
So that's at least 10 large ext HDS that need to be copied to elsewhere.

As for uploading stuff to say SmugMug, I worked out that it would take so long I'd probably acumulate at least as much again before uploading finished!
High speed broadband!! Not for uploads it isn't! :mad:

[ipedro]

So I went ahead and updated my backup system.

1) I added a Kensington lock to the Time Capsule. My main backup was easily compromised by theft.
2) I replaced the second Time Machine HDD (Time Machine isn't made for multiple backups so I gave up on the workarounds) with a Carbon Copy Clone in my safety deposit box, which also holds my first Aperture Vault.
3) I replicated those copies, and store them in my girlfriend's apartment.

I think now I can breath knowing that my data is tripled in 3 different locations + my most important work is also stored on my photo site in full resolution. :D

New diagram:
http://marqx.com/storage/MediaSetup/iPedro_MediaSetup.png (http://marqx.com/storage/MediaSetup/iPedro_MediaSetup.pdf)

[ChrisBrightwell]

Here's my obssessively redundant system:

http://marqx.com/storage/MediaSetup/iPedro_MediaSetup.png

This is almost exactly the system I'm working to build. Thanks for the detailed info.

[sl1200mk2]

Some nice setups here. Personally, I'm comfortable with having a couple 1TB external drives rotating them between home and work and using Mozy to backup everything to a 3rd source in the cloud.

I'd love to add a pair of Drobo's with 4 1TB drives sometime next year when I convert my large vinyl record collection to digital over the next couple years.

Thanks for sharing -

Wayne

[CarlsonCustoms]

Here's what I do...

500gig internal in Imac.. just system files and applications
1TB external TimeMachine Backup drive

Drobo with 4 1tb drives.. holds all my documents, photos, music, videos , EVERYTHING

Promise NAS holding 4 500gig drives holding backup of Drobo and Timemachine

I do plan on moving the NAS to a friends apartment across my yard so if my building burns down but his stays unburnt I'll still have everything (i plan on putting another router in his apartment so I can just extend my network there)

I have considered uploading my precious photos to Amazon's S3 service

zack

[romanaz]

I know mine isn't redundant enough, but it suits my needs and I am nearly prepared enough for the worst.

I got my macbook pro doing a time machine backup to a LaCie 250 I keep on my school desk, and another LaCie 250 at my parents house that I backup when I go there once a week or two. I have yet another LaCie 250 that is my non-time machine backup and its a portable drive, with a copy of that 250 drive in my desk. On top of that I have a 1TB LaCie that I do my work stuff off of, with another 1TB LaCie sitting next to it that is backed up at the end of every work day. I also back up all my photo's once a week to my MobileMe. Also, all my photo's and personal videos are on my iPod video.

What I would REALLY love to do is drop my superdrive out and put a 250 WD drive in to do a time machine backup inside the machine.

[raxafarian]

I have a 500gb drive in my mbp.

I use one 1TB external for time machine.
I then make a superduper bootable backup to a different external drive.

Both of those drives sit on my desk at home.

I also have 2 small 500gb G-Drive mini's that I backup to with superduper (also bootable). One of these travels with me (able to boot and use it if the internal drive dies while on the road) and the other is kept at work.

[ThunderRobot]

Time Machine can't backup the Aperture Library file. You have to back that up separate.

I know that was posted on Nov 15 but that is no longer the case, is it?

According to Apple's support docs (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1878) Time Capsule backs up Aperture without a problem as long as you're using 10.5.3 or later.

[stagi]

Thats a pretty good backup system! I have a Ready NAS drive for my main drive in studio that is setup in a RAID and then online offsite backup, its easy and lets me sleep at night

[pprior]

My aperture library is on a separate hard drive
That drive is backed up via time machine to a DROBO

Aperture Vault 1 - stored on same DROBO (different partition)
Aperture Vault 2 - External hot swap drive, rotated into firesafe on property
Aperture Vault 3 - Same as #2 (2 drives rotated in and out of the safe)
Aperture Vault 4 - On a NAS in my basement (raid5)
MOZY - offsite backup of my photos. Dog slow, but eventually gets there.

I need to do more with offsite backup, and I really would like to get a bluray burner and some high capacity DVD burns. I never backup my initial RAW captures when importing, which I REALLY NEED to do, but given I will frequently shoot 8-12GB at a time, it's been too much hassle to do this on standard DVD.

I try to run the vault backup as soon as I do imports. but lately Aperture has been flakey and so I'm trying to migrate to LR and i know it has an auto backup on import option as well.

[heron88]

http://www.networkingaudiovideo.com/pictures/pileOfCDs.jpg

very redundant. they are in different physical locations (scattered all over my house)

[ipedro]

^ not very reliable. Before HDD's came down in price, I used to backup everything on DVDs. On occasion, I'd retrieve a DVD to get to a file, only to discover that the DVD isn't readable. I would then have to scramble around looking for another copy.

Multiple HDDs onsite, offsite and in the cloud is the way to go.

[maestrokev]

^ not very reliable. Before HDD's came down in price, I used to backup everything on DVDs. On occasion, I'd retrieve a DVD to get to a file, only to discover that the DVD isn't readable. I would then have to scramble around looking for another copy.

Multiple HDDs onsite, offsite and in the cloud is the way to go.

Be sure to check with your TD branch, not all banks have waterproof and heat resistant safes for electronic data - I had to ask around at several Royal Bank and TDCT. Also don't put your hard drive in any plastic bags/Ziploc or such material that can melt easily. Now that safe (http://www.sentrysafe.com/) prices have come down so much, I also have one at home.

I also use Mozy, Carbonite and ZumoDrive to store in the cloud.

We have similar backup strategies. It's too bad most people don't think about protecting their photos/video - only thing I can't replace with home insurance.

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

^ not very reliable. Before HDD's came down in price, I used to backup everything on DVDs. On occasion, I'd retrieve a DVD to get to a file, only to discover that the DVD isn't readable. I would then have to scramble around looking for another copy.

Multiple HDDs onsite, offsite and in the cloud is the way to go.

Completely untrue. High quality DVD's are far more reliable than HD's especially if you do multiple back ups. It just take more work backing up on them. If you were runnning into DVD's that didnt work that often then you either werent verifying your burns, you were using crappy media or you have serious problems with either your burner or your computer.

[bobfitz14]

expensive backup solution as well...

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

expensive backup solution as well...

You can say that again. It would cost me 50,000 dollars to back up all of my pictures like that. Look I have nothing against any of the back up methods. I have already stated if you have a small collection and can afford it than HD's are a perfectly acceptable back up system . However some people keep making these ridiculous claims that not only are HD's more reliable but DVD's are not reliable at all. Its completely untrue. HD failure rates massively exceed DVD failure rates.

Its very simple. If you use high quality DVDs and verify your burns, Make multiple back ups (2 or 3), use archival materials to store them and keep a dehumidifying device stored with them then your DVD's are going to last you at least 30+ years. The odds that you run into a bad disc are going to be low, the odds that you run into a bad disc and then find your back ups bad as well are astronomical. In over 10 years of backing on DVD's and over 5000 DVD's burned I have yet to lose 1 image. I haven't even come close to losing an image.

Not only are DVD's a perfectly acceptable back-up method, they also offer many advantages.

1 - Considerably cheaper
2 - Unlimited size potential
3 - Easier to catalog
4 - Frees up a lot of space on your computers
5 - Makes your image library on your computer vastly more manageable.

[maestrokev]

However some people keep making these ridiculous claims that not only are HD's more reliable but DVD's are not reliable at all. Its completely untrue. HD failure rates massively exceed DVD failure rates.

DVD's are going to last you at least 30+ years.

1 - Considerably cheaper
2 - Unlimited size potential
3 - Easier to catalog
4 - Frees up a lot of space on your computers
5 - Makes your image library on your computer vastly more manageable.

HD failure rates are higher than DVD because the hard drives are spinning 24/7 in most computers. DVD's wouldn't last long if they were continually spinning and accessed 24/7.

How long have DVD's been around? The Optical Storage Technology Association has a blurb (http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa11.htm) informing that most of the longevity test are based on CD's. There's also a difference between commercially pressed media vs home burning of DVD media.

The advantages you list are not isolated to DVD's.

The salient point is DVD's (with the exception of BluRay) are appropriate for small data backups whereas external hard drives are more convenient for large backups. I wouldn't stake any claims on longevity to either forms of media which is why I am constantly testing my hard drives when I update the data and replace my drives every few years.

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

HD failure rates are higher than DVD because the hard drives are spinning 24/7 in most computers. DVD's wouldn't last long if they were continually spinning and accessed 24/7.

How long have DVD's been around? The Optical Storage Technology Association has a blurb (http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa11.htm) informing that most of the longevity test are based on CD's. There's also a difference between commercially pressed media vs home burning of DVD media.

The advantages you list are not isolated to DVD's.

The salient point is DVD's (with the exception of BluRay) are appropriate for small data backups whereas external hard drives are more convenient for large backups. I wouldn't stake any claims on longevity to either forms of media which is why I am constantly testing my hard drives when I update the data and replace my drives every few years.

While what you say does have some truth, I have had HD's fail less than a week into using them and I know many other people that have had similar occurrences. HD's dont just fail after years and years of use. The problems with HD's is that any one of a hundred things can go wrong, and the bottom line is you NEVER know when that is going to be. When you buy that HD in the store you have absolutely no way of knowing whether that drive will last a week or 10 years. That just isnt the case with DVD's or any other high quality optical storage disc for that matter.

As for the rest of your post, convenience doesn't even play into it for me. I am making back ups of my life's work so if it takes a little work, or a lot of work for that matter, then so be it. I am not concerned about such things. As for how long DVD's have been around, I really have no clue what that has to do with anything. If your trying to suggest that we have no clue how long DVD's will last then I am not buying that for a second. Science and technology in general is not some big guessing game. We are not utterly clueless when it comes to understanding the long term storage capability of digital media. If that were the case then things would be very very different and you wouldn't see places like the Library of Congress using such technology. We may not know yet the maximum length of time that such media will remain functional however we do have a very good understanding of the minimum time they will remain useful and most of the high quality discs available claim at least 30 years with some claiming up to 100 years. Considering I already have burns that are 12-13 years old that are scanning as good as the day they were burned, without even a sign of old age, well I for one absolutely believe those figures and there is no data out there that proves otherwise.

As for those advantages, yes they absolutely are just for DVD's. If you can make an argument that disproves one of them, or all of them for that matter, then lets hear it.

I will openly admit if you back up on DVD's like a schmuck then your going to get burned however if you take the proper steps and use the proper media and storage supplies then backing up on DVD's is without a single doubt one of the safest and ultimately one of the best back up methods that exists today. I can tell you this in regards to backing up on redundant HD's, if you plan on shooting a lot and plan on practicing photography for the better part of your life then your going to reach a point, just as I did and just as every other photographer that I know did, where the cost in maintaining such back up systems becomes way way too expensive. Its simply not a good system for large collections, that is unless you have tens of thousands of dollars that you would rather spend on HD's than other things like new photo equipment. I for one would much rather dump that money into other things like new photography equipment, my sons education fund, etc...

Again to back up all of my pictures in such a method would easily cost well over 50,000 and that would just continue to increase substantially from year to year. The 10,000 DVD's I have burned on the other hand have cost me I would estimate around 3000-3500 with the storage cases and materials costing another 1500-2000. So it has basically cost me 4500-5500 dollars or around 450-550 dollars a year. Much better than the 50,000 or 5000 a year I would be spending on HQ Hard drives. Actually HD's have come way down in price. It would probably cost me 50,000 today to use that method but if I were to have used that method during the last 10 years it would have easily cost 2-3 times that much as HD's were vastly more expensive even just a couple years ago.

[maestrokev]

While what you say does have some truth, I have had HD's fail less than a week into using them and I know many other people that have had similar occurrences.

Science and technology in general is not some big guessing game. We are not utterly clueless when it comes to understanding the long term storage capability of digital media. If that were the case then things would be very very different and you wouldn't see places like the Library of Congress using such technology. We may not know yet the maximum length of time that such media will remain functional however we do have a very good understanding of the minimum time they will remain useful and most of the high quality discs available claim at least 30 years with some claiming up to 100 years. Considering I already have burns that are 12-13 years old that are scanning as good as the day they were burned, without even a sign of old age, well I for one absolutely believe those figures and there is no data out there that proves otherwise.

As for those advantages, yes they absolutely are just for DVD's. If you can make an argument that disproves one of them, or all of them for that matter, then lets hear it.

I will openly admit if you back up on DVD's like a schmuck then your going to get burned

So just because you and some people you know had some HD failures that makes your sampling size reliable? If you back up on HD's like a schmuck then of course they're going to fail. Buy good quality HD's and check them regularly.

Yes, science and technology is a guessing game. You make a hypothesis based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation - that's called guessing.

So the Library of Congress doesn't use ANY hard drives?

Claims does not equal proof. Where is your unequivocal data in support of DVD's?

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

So just because you and some people you know had some HD failures that makes your sampling size reliable? If you back up on HD's like a schmuck then of course they're going to fail. Buy good quality HD's and check them regularly.

Yes, science and technology is a guessing game. You make a hypothesis based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation - that's called guessing.

So the Library of Congress doesn't use ANY hard drives?

Claims does not equal proof. Where is your unequivocal data in support of DVD's?

Its very clear that you have your mind set on HD's and regardless of the MOUNDS of data available on the net in regards to this topic your going to believe whatever you want to believe. Its not just me a couple of my friends and if you actually spent some time to research this topic before actually trying to debate it you would already have known that. As for your insinuation that I am a schumck because I have had HD's fail, I am above your petty name calling.

No science and Technology isnt a guessing game and the fact that you think so really shows just how little you know in regards to this subject matter and technology in general.

As for the proof, try actually doing some research on your own instead of expecting everyone else to do it for you. It would take you literally 15 seconds on google to find out that HD failure rates VASTLY exceed HQ DVD failure rates. At this point I could care less if you believe it or not.

Technology is a guessing game, lol.

[ajpl]

When you buy that HD in the store you have absolutely no way of knowing whether that drive will last a week or 10 years. That just isnt the case with DVD's or any other high quality optical storage disc for that matter.Uh, yes it is. DVDs are not perfect, burners are not perfect and readers are not perfect. In fact sometimes only the original burner will play back the burned discs.
I have had DVDs fail. Good ones - supposedly. I never bought cheap DVDs, yet they have failed. Besides they are too small to even consider using now.

I would also normally say all HDs fail. It's just a matter of when. But as I migrate my data fairly regularly, I simply end up with a pile of old HDs gathering dust.
The only brand of HD I haven't had fail [and I've used them all I think] is Samsung, bar the one I dropped whilst it was being used. But that would have killed any desktop HD. It was one of two, so nothing lost.

[sushi]

I also use Mozy, Carbonite and ZumoDrive to store in the cloud.
How would you rate these service in terms of cost, speed (DL and UP), capacity, ease of use and customer support?

Uh, yes it is. DVDs are not perfect, burners are not perfect and readers are not perfect. In fact sometimes only the original burner will play back the burned discs.
I have had DVDs fail. Good ones - supposedly. I never bought cheap DVDs, yet they have failed. Besides they are too small to even consider using now.
I've had both, DVDs and CDs, fail. They were good stock. I've also had cheap stock last forever it seems. You never know.

What ever system one uses, it needs to be redundant and in different locations.

[ProwlingTiger]

I back up with hard drives and DVD's. I use archival DVD's, but only if I can get a good deal. As many have said, optical discs can fail. In fact, we don't really know the true lifespan of them as they haven't been around long enough.