Storing My Digital Files -- Recommendations?

Wilt wrote in post #5353463
External USB drives. putting photos on internal drives simply sets you up for a massive data transfer task when you upgrade to a newer, faster PC that utilizes harddrives with a newer hd interface!

It's not as bad as you might think. I have all of my data on an internal 500 Gig SATA/300 drive. If my computer craps out, I can always put that drive in an external case, and have yet another external drive.

Killjoy wrote in post #5354546
It's not as bad as you might think. I have all of my data on an internal 500 Gig SATA/300 drive. If my computer craps out, I can always put that drive in an external case, and have yet another external drive.

Great. A lot of users are not technically savvy enough to have a drive inside the PC which uses an interface standard for which one could obtain an external drive enclosure which plugs in via USB, or how to add an interface card external connector to use with non-USB

I've got a large hard disk in my main PC that I use to store the main copies of my images. Every couple of hours, Allway Sync runs and duplicates that drive onto a raid array in my home file server.

In addition, I use Mozy to send a copy of all of my images off-site each night. $5/month for unlimited offsite storage is a bargain.

alduin wrote in post #5354693
I've got a large hard disk in my main PC that I use to store the main copies of my images. Every couple of hours, Allway Sync runs and duplicates that drive onto a raid array in my home file server

Why use RAID for back-ups? That's taking an extra risk if you ask me.

Molnies wrote in post #5354749
Why use RAID for back-ups? That's taking an extra risk if you ask me.

Simple. I can have up to three hard drives fail (provided no more than two of them are in the raid array) and still not lose a single photo. I don't consider that extra risk at all, but added insurance against hardware failure.

I use Amazon's S3 service with Jungle disk. Its $.10 per Gig! Last month I stored 30GB of images for $5! haha.

Best of all they back it up and I can get to it from anyplace with internet access!

alduin wrote in post #5354942
Simple. I can have up to three hard drives fail (provided no more than two of them are in the raid array) and still not lose a single photo. I don't consider that extra risk at all, but added insurance against hardware failure.

So I'm guessing you're not using the standard RAID 0 then? (Combining disks to make a larger single disk) Since that will increase the risk of failure and is unwise to use as backup. If you have mirrored RAIDs then it's a bit safer, but I would still go with larger HDD on their own.

Molnies wrote in post #5355654
So I'm guessing you're not using the standard RAID 0 then? (Combining disks to make a larger single disk) Since that will increase the risk of failure and is unwise to use as backup. If you have mirrored RAIDs then it's a bit safer, but I would still go with larger HDD on their own.

No. It's a 5 disk RAID 5 with a hot spare, hence the redundancy. Besides being able to use a greater percentage of the disk space than with a mirror, I'd much rather have the fault tolerance than put all my eggs in one basket, so to speak.

Edit: I guess that should be "all my backups of my eggs in one basket"...

Ideally you want a large internal hardrive and 2 external backup drives. One of those should be kept offsite (ie away from your home). the backup drives then get swapped out periodically. Oh and do not be confused. RAID is not backup. 2 different things used for 2 different purposes.

Precisely. RAID just protects against hardware failure, and even then only if it's not a RAID 0. If your only copy of a file is on a RAID array, your only insurance is against some degree of hardware failure. Fire, theft, fat fingers, and any number of other forces majeure will easily trump that.

There's absolutely no substitute for having an off-site copy. Whether it's an external hard disk tucked in your desk drawer at work, an online backup service, or DVDs burnt and mailed to your mom for safe-keeping, it's always best to act on the assumption that unless your data exists in two separate physical locations it doesn't exist at all.

alduin wrote in post #5354942
Simple. I can have up to three hard drives fail (provided no more than two of them are in the raid array) and still not lose a single photo. I don't consider that extra risk at all, but added insurance against hardware failure.

Not to nit-pick, but you can only have two hard drives fail and not lose any data in a 5 disk RAID 5 array with hot spare. One drive in the array fails, the hot spare builds in. A second drive fails, the array keeps going with 4 disks in a degraded state. A third drive fails, the array loses striping and the array fails. Of course, the chances of three drives failing under normal circumstances in less time than it takes to order and receive replacements is exponentially low, so it's a bit of a moot point.

toniintc wrote in post #5358572
Not to nit-pick, but you can only have two hard drives fail and not lose any data in a 5 disk RAID 5 array with hot spare.

Not to nit-pick, but you didn't read my post very carefully. =)

The third failure is either the primary storage drive in my computer or the offsite copy. I specifically said that only two of the dead disks could be in the array.

toniintc wrote in post #5358572
Not to nit-pick, but you can only have two hard drives fail and not lose any data in a 5 disk RAID 5 array with hot spare. One drive in the array fails, the hot spare builds in. A second drive fails, the array keeps going with 4 disks in a degraded state. A third drive fails, the array loses striping and the array fails. Of course, the chances of three drives failing under normal circumstances in less time than it takes to order and receive replacements is exponentially now, so it's a bit of a moot point.

...the poor guy who had his RAID totally fail when the single cooling fan in the enclosure went bad should have bought a lottery ticket since the astronomical odds were not so insurmountable!

Okay, does anyone know of an external drive with a cf reader in it so you can dump and roll.

mattograph wrote in post #5339784
Hello

Since I started shooting RAW last year, I have found myself in a space quandry. Not enough storage.

My current system setup involves the hard drive of my work laptop (not its intended use -- I do not work in the industry, but my employer allows us to use our laptops for personal apps, understanding that it remains their property.) I back that up with a 160 gb Western Digital portable hard drive.

My problem is that I simply cant get enough space on my laptop hard drive now to load new shots. I cannot process fast enough to stay ahead of the game. That means I will have to start moving first copies to my portable HD, with no backups. My optical drive is a CD burner only. Any upgrade to my laptop is not an option.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hard disk is cheap. Pick one, there isn't much difference.

But before you get too far into this, read The Dam Book where DAM=Digital Asset Management. This organizes your whole storage and backup strategy.

J.