Good news for high volume data backup
 

In article ,
wrote:

I gave up on that a while ago. I prefer to use two usb drives which I
rotate, keeping one in my desk at work. Prior to this I kept DVDs at work.
But given how inexpensive these disks are these days and how much quicker
they are than burning DVDs, it's not a hard choice to make.

i used to do the cd/dvd route too. what a royal pain in the butt that
was.

now, i have all my images on a single drive (backed up of course) and
any image is easily accessible at any time, even when i travel. that
would be impossible with dvds.

Good news for high volume data backup
 

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsr...700383,00.html

Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).

This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).


Of course on the downside for Blue Ray is that Sony is on their side. How
can one argue with a company whose line of "successes" include:
1) Betamax
2) MD
3) 8mm video
4) Hi-8 video
5) Digital-8 video
6) Memory Stick and Memory Stick Pro
7) SACD
8) Li-Ion batteries used in Dell and other PCs (you remember, that enormous
recall...)
I've probably even missed some!


Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
Gigabytes of images :-)
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Good news for high volume data backup
 

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , david-
says...

.. and I think I would prefer to copy one 250GB disk to the next 2TB
(or whatever) rather than have to copy 60 DVDs.

You can still do that. But you should keep backups on DVD just in
case.

I do agree with you, but then I ask, why? What is to say that a
cheap-and-nasty DVD-R (the sort you can buy in the local shops) written on
the cheapest DVD writer (the sort fitted to most PCs), is going to be more
reliable?

I'm proposing that my processed photos will be on 4 HDs, two 3.5-inch
"live" disks, and two 2.5-inch portable backup HDs, one kept off-site.

Cheers,
David

Good news for high volume data backup
 

In article , david-
says...

I do agree with you, but then I ask, why? What is to say that a
cheap-and-nasty DVD-R (the sort you can buy in the local shops) written on
the cheapest DVD writer (the sort fitted to most PCs), is going to be more
reliable?

Obviously you would use quality DVDs, wouldn't you? As for the writers
they seem to cost all the same. In any case, so far I have experienced
perhaps 1-2% bad DVDs which could not be read anymore and to be on the
safe side I burn two copies of each DVD (and I also have a HD backup,
see below).

I'm proposing that my processed photos will be on 4 HDs, two 3.5-inch
"live" disks, and two 2.5-inch portable backup HDs, one kept off-site.

I burn each file on two DVDs and keep a copy on a RAID array. I also
keep an additional copy on an external hard disk. I use the DVDs in case
something is wrong with the hard disks. In any case, at the moment I
have a huge and growing stack of DVDs, which is why a disk which has the
capacity of 11 DVDs sounds so appealing. Would reduce my DVD stack size
by a factor 11.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Good news for high volume data backup
 

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , david-
says...

I'm considering whether I really want wallets and wallets of DVDs for
backup - DVDs which may not be readable in a few years time. Instead, I'm
thinking of a couple of portable 250GB 2.5-inch HDs......

A highly risky approach. One head crash and you lose everything.


You need multiple backup copies no matter what the backup media is.

Good news for high volume data backup
 

On 5 Jan, 11:35, Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsr...700383,00.html

Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).

This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).

Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
Gigabytes of images :-)
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site

did you ever consider compressing the files first ??

Good news for high volume data backup
 

Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsr...700383,00.html

Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).

This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).

Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
Gigabytes of images :-)

Well, it will sell more players...
I am still not convinced that optical media is reliable enough for my
backups.
I have rented entirely too many unplayable DVDs.

Good news for high volume data backup
 

Bolshoi wrote:
On 5 Jan, 11:35, Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsr...700383,00.html

Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format
(50GB
per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).

This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and
lower
costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).

Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
Gigabytes of images :-)
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum
athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo
sharing site

did you ever consider compressing the files first ??

Did you every try compressing JPEGs?

Good news for high volume data backup
 

Bolshoi wrote:
did you ever consider compressing the files first ??

JPEG is already a compressed format. Even much more elaborate (read: much
more expensive) compression algorithms won't be able to squeeze them more
than a very few percentage points tighter.

If you are talking about RAW then that's a different animal, of course.

jue
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Good news for high volume data backup
 

In article , says...

did you ever consider compressing the files first ??

JPEGs are already compressed. Compressing the RAW files would reduce
their size to a bit over half, but it's not that practical (you have to
decompress the files to be able to use them and this takes time).

Besides, should there be some data damage to individual bytes, with an
uncompressed file only one pixel or also its neighbours are affected,
while if it's a compressed file the damage is much greater.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site