Mass storage solutions

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by plunar, Jan 4, 2007.

  1. plunar macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #1
    I am rapidly filling up my external firewire with 140MB tiff files as I (very, very slowly) scan in my old film negatives.

    1 roll nearly fills up a whole DVD. is there any more economical alternative to additional hard drives? this is more for long term storage.
     
  2. SpookTheHamster macrumors 65816

    SpookTheHamster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #2
    As far as cost per GB goes, hard drives are the cheapest option, I'm afraid.
     
  3. dllavaneras macrumors 68000

    dllavaneras

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    Caracas, Venezuela
    #3
    Is such a large file size really necessary? (I don't work with TIFFs, so I have no clue)
     
  4. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    That's about average for high res TIFFs
     
  5. plunar thread starter macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #5
    Okay, then as far as hard drives go, would i be better off investing in a raid setup or a single large hard drive. for example, the applestore had a stackable la cie drive in 320mb and 500mb models. i could buy two 320mb drives for about the same cost/mb as the 500. i'd assume i could then set it up as a RAID from apple's disk utility?

    If you do set up a raid, can you mix and match drives of different sizes? does it affect performance?
     
  6. Canerican macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    #6
  7. plunar thread starter macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
  8. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    Depends. Personally, I would have thought that was incredibly excessive for 35mm negs, particularly if they're only 8-bit and RGB and LZW-compressed. However, if you are scanning in 16-bit, perhaps.

    Most image libraries would give you an effective 40-60mb file at the top size...
     
  9. plunar thread starter macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #9
    these are 16-bit 4000 dpi scans. the quality in the details really is quite sublime - to the point of making out contact lenses on peoples' eyes. never saw that even in 8x10 darkroom prints.
     
  10. mrmma macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    Missouri
    #10
    Macmall has a terabyte external drive, the "G-Force MegaDisk 1.0TB" for ~$380. This is pretty cheap, though you'd probably want firewire...Their big firewire drives are all much more expensive.

    Tape drives give a pretty good bang for the buck, though you won't have near the same access speed...if you're doing this for archival purposes and want to edit a particular file, just copy it onto the desktop to work on it.

    Then there's an Iomega Rev 35GB drive. It should be faster than a tape drive, and 35GB media is about $50. Not spectacularly cheap, but more convenient/faster than 10-15 dvds.

    If you have the cash or plan on editing them frequently, I'd say go with a monster firewire drive, 1TB =8700 photos under your scheme..., with either tapes or dvds as backup.
     
  11. joshysquashy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    If its for archival purposes, does archiving (zipping) the files reduce the file sizes?

    how about waiting for blue ray or hd dvd recordables? they will fit a lot more on per disk.

    if you shop around you can get dvd's for 20p (40 cents) per disk, surely that makes dvd's the most economical solution?
     
  12. jtown macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #12
    It should be noted that hard drives are not good for archival purposes. You can't stick one on a shelf for a decade and expect it to be readable (even if you do still have a machine capable of accessing it). They're just not made for that type of thing.

    Long term archiving of digital information is difficult. Look at the storage media you had 20 years ago and tell me how you'd read the data today. MFM, RLL, SCSI, ESDI, etc. hard drives. First, assuming the drives still worked (not likely), you'd need a proper controller which hasn't been manufactured in 15 years or more, pluged into an expansion slot that hasn't been included on a new machine in 5-10 years, and software capable of interpreting it.

    If this is strictly for archiving, tape or optical media would be a better choice. They're more suited to sitting on a shelf for years at a time. But you still need to keep the media current and have more than one copy. Heck, preferably more than one copy on multiple forms of media stored in different locations. Two sets of tapes and two sets of DVDs. Check them annually. If you see any errors reading your test set, do a full restore of all your data and make entirely new sets on new media (probably upgrading to whatever's current at the time).

    And, even if everything can still be read 5 years from now, it's still time to upgrade the equipment and media. Transfer everything to Blue-Ray and holographic storage or whatever is the current mix of affordability and reliability. Wait much longer than that and it could become difficult to find a single system that can bridge your old media and new. I recently moved and found a QIC-80 tape I made a decade ago. It was only by chance that I also ran across a QIC-80 drive. But the old drive didn't work with Windows 2000 or XP. I borrowed a 98 machine off the junk pile at work to read the old tape (which took 3 days due to all the retries) and copy the contents to an external drive which I then hooked up to a current PC.
     
  13. jtown macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #13
    It should be noted that hard drives are not good for archival purposes. You can't stick one on a shelf for a decade and expect it to be readable (even if you do still have a machine capable of accessing it). They're just not made for that type of thing.

    Long term archiving of digital information is difficult. Look at the storage media you had 20 years ago and tell me how you'd read the data today. MFM, RLL, SCSI, ESDI, etc. hard drives. First, assuming the drives still worked (not likely), you'd need a proper controller which hasn't been manufactured in 15 years or more, pluged into an expansion slot that hasn't been included on a new machine in 5-10 years, and software capable of interpreting it.

    If this is strictly for archiving, tape or optical media would be a better choice. They're more suited to sitting on a shelf for years at a time. But you still need to keep the media current and have more than one copy. Heck, preferably more than one copy on multiple forms of media stored in different locations. Two sets of tapes and two sets of DVDs. Check them annually. If you see any errors reading your test set, do a full restore of all your data and make entirely new sets on new media (probably upgrading to whatever's current at the time).

    And, even if everything can still be read 5 years from now, it's still time to upgrade the equipment and media. Transfer everything to Blue-Ray and holographic storage or whatever is the current mix of affordability and reliability. Wait much longer than that and it could become difficult to find a single system that can bridge your old media and new. I recently moved and found a QIC-80 tape I made a decade ago. It was only by chance that I also ran across a QIC-80 drive. But the old drive didn't work with Windows 2000 or XP. I borrowed a 98 machine off the junk pile at work to read the old tape (which took 3 days due to all the retries) and copy the contents to an external drive which I then hooked up to a current PC.
     

Share This Page