BACKUP FILES ONTO DVD

[Graybeard]

Hi all
I want to burn my pic files to dvd as I'm running low on hard drive space.
What would be the best way.
I have WinRar, do I compress the files first then transfer to disc, or do I transfer without compressing.
I have noticed something strange, I arranged my pics into files that are 4.6 gb in size, thinking that if transfered directly to dvd without compressing, it would fit as dvd's are 4.7gb, but when files are brought into program for burning, they appear greater in size! I am using Nero7
Some help would help!

[ed rader]

Hi all
I want to burn my pic files to dvd as I'm running low on hard drive space.
What would be the best way.
I have WinRar, do I compress the files first then transfer to disc, or do I transfer without compressing.
I have noticed something strange, I arranged my pics into files that are 4.6 gb in size, thinking that if transfered directly to dvd without compressing, it would fit as dvd's are 4.7gb, but when files are brought into program for burning, they appear greater in size! I am using Nero7
Some help would help!


have you considered an external hard drive? they're pretty cheap these days and a lot less hassle :D.

ed rader

[milorad]

if you're talking about lots of small files, vs few larger files, the reason for this is 'cluster size'.

typically, to prevent massive waste of space, newer hard disk file systems have smaller cluster sizes, whereas cd and dvd media have larger cluster sizes to improve performance.

Cluster size can vary, but a cluster is always the minium unit of space that can be consumed. On a file system with 64K clusters, an 8K file takes up 64K of space... and a 65K file takes up 128K of space. Make sense?

Smaller cluster sizes are more efficient in terms of storage, but it means more of them need to be allocated so they're slower to use (bad for removable media)

If you have lots of files on your DVD, then you can bank on there being lots of wastage in terms of half-filled clusters.... a problem which is less apparent on your hard drive.

I don't know if that helps make sense of the issue for you, as it can be a complex concept to grasp, but that's the reason for your size mismatch.

...

As for which program to use, it doesn't matter. Personally I wouldn't compress jpegs, since they're already compressed, and it would make grabbing a single photo a pain in the ass. I might compress raw files, but only individually, since again, I'd hate to be accessing a huge archive to grab one picture.

On the whole, I agree with the above post. A USB drive is a good choice... and you can always get another when you need it. There's nothing wrong with leaving it on a shelf unplugged when not in use. Burned DVDs are a fraction safer in terms of technical failure, but also a fair bit more fragile in terms of scratching etc. The cost per megabyte is pretty low on drives now, but they do still represent a significant (to some) initial investment compared with pay-as-you-go DVDs.

[TheHoff]

I ended up doing a manual copy of my Lightroom directory, day by day / month by month, to DVDs. I couldn't find a backup program that did everything I wanted -- first and foremost was to leave the files alone and just copy them. I didn't want a proprietary archive format, I didn't want a huge spanned zip -- I wanted to be able to access any file at any time and not worry about installing some arcane software in the future.

All of the backup programs I tried either wanted to package the files into a spanning format of some sort across the disks or they wouldn't intelligently split the backup to multiple disks while leaving the files intact. Moving them through Explorer probably took 30 minutes extra vs. the two hours I spent rummaging through backup programs unsuccessfully.

*** I also keep external hard drive backups on an e-sata array

[Graybeard]

OK, so that explains the size difference, thanks, yes an external drive would be the answer but funds at the moment do not permit it, so now to get my files to fit I would have to take a few pics out, that's ok....files are a mixture of raw/jpeg..so that's what must be done, so be it..thanks for the replies, great help!

[Wilt]

Burnable DVDs are not a terrific way to archive...they are OK as a secondary storage vehicle, for data redundancy, but do NOT trust them as your only copy of data!

[madberry]

Burnable DVDs are not a terrific way to archive...they are OK as a secondary storage vehicle, for data redundancy, but do NOT trust them as your only copy of data!

Good point. If you have to burn DVD's then burn multiple copies just in case the data on the DVD gets corrupted.

I would get some funds together and invest in an external hard drive this doesn't have to be very expensive at all.

As said in an other post (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6438320&postcount=18) the Drobo (http://www.drobo.com) is at the moment one of the better ways to back up your precious data. The Drobo takes 4 hard drives of similar size and when one fails you just exchange it for another with out lost of data.

You really have to throw some money at it. Just imagine losing all the pictures on one DVD because the DVD got damaged.

[TheHoff]

The Drobo is ridiculously expensive relative to what is needed here. The Drobo is great for taking any size and any number of drives and making them easy to use externally... but if cash is short, just get a simple Seagate or similar external drive. Here is a WD for $80

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136245




(Cool moustache by the way, and welcome to the forum)

[Lester Wareham]

The oversize is due to the block size granularity and directory/file index space on the disk.

DVD R/RW does not have the best archival properties, I would recommend getting a 500Gb external harddrive, there are ones available with dual USB-2 and firewire ports. Copy you backups to this then disconnect it and store it somewhere safe in it's original packaging. Ideal get two drives so you have duplicate backups.

I think this thread might be better placed in the Computers sub-forum, you should get better feedback there.

[tim]

Burnable DVDs are not a terrific way to archive...they are OK as a secondary storage vehicle, for data redundancy, but do NOT trust them as your only copy of data!

Agreed - DVDs aren't reliable.

As said in an other post (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6438320&postcount=18) the Drobo (http://www.drobo.com) is at the moment one of the better ways to back up your precious data. The Drobo takes 4 hard drives of similar size and when one fails you just exchange it for another with out lost of data.

Drobo is a waste of money, it only protects against drive failure. It doesn't protect against accidental deletion, viruses, or your house burining down.

External hard drives stored offsite are the best option. Never trust your data to one storage device, two is a minimum IMHO. Most people learn this one the hard way, don't be one of them.

[Graybeard]

with external hard drives, the difference between 8mb & 16 mb cach just on file transfer/access rate?..does it really matter

[tim]

I doubt 8/16 makes much difference for external drives, the bottleneck is the USB interface, not the disk access time.

[Dan-o]

External hard drives stored offsite are the best option.
Also a good offsite option is the internet. I use Smugmug as a third backup. They have unlimited upload so when I download off my CF card I store my photos on one drive. immediately create a backup on a second drive, then upload to Smugmug. How many pictures are you trying to back up? If it is fairly small then DVDs should be alright if money is tight. If you are talking about 500 gigs worth then that will end up being a PITA.

[Graybeard]

Also a good offsite option is the internet. I use Smugmug as a third backup. They have unlimited upload so when I download off my CF card I store my photos on one drive. immediately create a backup on a second drive, then upload to Smugmug. How many pictures are you trying to back up? If it is fairly small then DVDs should be alright if money is tight. If you are talking about 500 gigs worth then that will end up being a PITA.

It will take 30 dvd's to put my pics on, I have now done it, but what a mission!, I found that burning to DVD-R gave problems whereas DVD+R no sweat!....strange as I was led to believe yhay there was hardly any difference between them.

[Dan-o]

As others have said, don't just create 1 set. I would never trust all my pictures to one location.

[Graybeard]

I have taken the advice given to me here, I have them on DVD, now I'll shop around and get an external hard drive!
Thanks again

[glacebay]

Anyone given any thought to Amazon's S3 online storage? Is it worth the cash in the long run?

[tim]

It's not too badly priced, it's most the hassle of uploading so a huge amount of data. The US doesn't currently meter data much, but most other parts of the world do, and the US is starting to. I shoot 50GB/month, culled to 20GB or so eventually, and my home internet plan is only 40GB/month. I only have 2Mbps upload as well.

Hard drives are cheap, fast, and easy.

[Dan-o]

Anyone given any thought to Amazon's S3 online storage?

500 GB of storage is $75 per month. Is that right. Wow, no thanks.

[glacebay]

500 GB of storage is $75 per month. Is that right. Wow, no thanks.

I would imagine a varying answer depending on your work.