In article , Tim Watts
wrote:


there is also very little infrastructure to support sd cards. have you
ever seen a multi-bay sd card cage? the concept itself is laughable.

I never said they would be all online at once.

which means more work for yourself. no point in that.

are you actually going to swap among multiple sd cards every time you
want to back up??

No - I churn a year's worth of stuff onto one then file it in a small
tough box where it won't get lost and it's labelled "2017" or whatever.
It's not expensive for the volumes I produce, simple and fairly foolproof.

1 sd card per *year*????

obviously, you don't produce much volume, as in almost nothing.

Works for me (and I use Tresorit too for a cloud backup).

but not for others.

don't drop them and don't leave them unpowered for long periods of
time. problem solved.

Or use an SSD for when you will in fact fail to manage all of the above...

or stop making up scenarios that don't actually matter.

non-operating shock is 300 g:
https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/w...ssets/eng/spec
_data_sheet/2879-800022.pdf

it's a non-issue.

SSDs lose the mechanical problems which greatly increase the reliability.

that's true, but the point *you* missed is that ssds are the wrong
choice for backups. you're paying for speed that won't ever be
realized, with much lower capacity per dollar than with hard drives.

backups do not need to be fast since they happen automatically in the
background. ssds are a complete waste.

I'm well aware of that.

apparently not, since you suggested an ssd for a backup.

But even so, I wouldn't put any device in a drawer and forget about it
for several years, but if I did, I'd bet on the SSD and flash cards
being more likely to still work.

you'd more than likely lose, and there's no point in doing that anyway.

Really?

really.

Ideally all files should have a checksum file written with them (MD5,
SHA1 or anything reasonable) and this used to verify files on an annual
basis.

that's automatic with modern file systems.

No it isn't.

it is.

The only common filesystems with *file data* checksums are ZFS, BtrFS -
both linux (and one also Solaris).

in other words, it is.

try to keep your story straight.

It's you that's having trouble keep their story straight.

nope. you contradicted yourself.

first you say it's not automatic, then you list two filesystems that do
it automatically.

also, they're not limited to linux (nor is any file system).

Show me a Windows or Mac device that runs either commonly. I run ZFS on
one linux server at home - and I am quite rare in that regard. I have
seldom come across either BtrFS or ZFS run in a commercial environment.
It can happen but it's pretty uncommon.

btrfs is not only common, but it's *extremely* widespread.

synology, one of the most popular nas vendors in the world (if not the
most), supports btrfs on most of their nases. netgear, another popular
nas vendo (but not as good), also supports btrfs.

many commercial and consumer environments are running btrfs, wiht more
every day.

There will be few professional photogs would would run either. Most will
be using some sort of NAS with a far more basic FS, or Mac or Windows
with their native FS'es

nope. most will use a synology nas with btrfs, and not just
photographers. they're a *very* popular nas.

NTFS does not maintain file data checksums nor does Apple's APFS.

neither is suitable for a server.

exFAT has only metadata checksumming.

exfat is not a modern file system and is also proprietary. bad choice
all around.

Yes it is. It is the most modern variant of the FAT family used commonly
on removable storage devices which makes it highly relevant to any
discussion on backups.

exactly why it's *not* modern, and it's also proprietary. bad choice
all around.

The rest with file data checksumming a SquashFS, ReFS, NILFS and NOVA
and of those, SquashFS is the only one I've seen anywhere in use.

none of those are commonly used.

So yes, you really need to run a checksum generator at the start and
that is the only way you can be reasonably sure your data has not
suffered corruption.

nope.

Yes!

no. there is *no* reason to do it manually when a computer will do it
*for* you and do a much better job of it.

I think I've demonstrated that I know a good deal more about filesystems
that you appear to.

you have not.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore, welcome to the KF...

because you don't have anything to support your claims.