If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
In article , Tim Watts
wrote: The cheaper way is to copy to a decent make of SD card or external SSD disk (less chance of mechanical failure) but the downside is you really need to have a yearly regime of checking all devices are readable and an X-yearly regime of "copy to new device" - even SSDs fail with age. using sd cards is *not* cheaper, *not* practical and not reliable. a bad choice all around. I disagree on all 3 counts. On what basis do you make your arguments? price, failure rates and capacity. hard drives are more than an order of magnitude less expensive, more reliable and available in far higher capacities than is possible with sd cards (sdxc has a 2tb maximum). sduc can go higher, but that's not available yet and won't be cheap. 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. are you actually going to swap among multiple sd cards every time you want to back up?? using an ssd for backup purposes is a waste of money because the speed advantages are lost. use an ssd for the main drive and spinners for backup purposes. You missed the point - spinners are mechanical. They are prone to damage due to shock (handling and dropping) and if used for offline archival purposes, run the risk of seizing if left unpowered for long periods (years). don't drop them and don't leave them unpowered for long periods of time. problem solved. 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. 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. 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. also, they're not limited to linux (nor is any file system). exFAT has only metadata checksumming. exfat is not a modern file system and is 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
On 17/11/18 19:18, nospam 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. 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. Works for me (and I use Tresorit too for a cloud backup). 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... 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. 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? 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. 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. 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 NTFS does not maintain file data checksums nor does Apple's APFS. 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. 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! I think I've demonstrated that I know a good deal more about filesystems that you appear to. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore, welcome to the KF... -- Email does not work |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
On 19/11/18 11:10, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 17 November 2018 18:29:38 UTC, Tim Watts wrote: On 17/11/18 17:11, nospam wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: The cheaper way is to copy to a decent make of SD card or external SSD disk (less chance of mechanical failure) but the downside is you really need to have a yearly regime of checking all devices are readable and an X-yearly regime of "copy to new device" - even SSDs fail with age. using sd cards is *not* cheaper, *not* practical and not reliable. a bad choice all around. I disagree on all 3 counts. On what basis do you make your arguments? I'd make the same statement based on experience , practicalities and looking at the devices. using an ssd for backup purposes is a waste of money because the speed advantages are lost. use an ssd for the main drive and spinners for backup purposes. You missed the point - spinners are mechanical. So. They are prone to damage due to shock (handling and dropping) and if used for offline archival purposes, run the risk of seizing if left unpowered for long periods (years). So, it is possible to eliminate these problems to some. 1/ DO NOT practice juggerling with hard drives, stick to balls and those items designed for that purpose. 2/ Like cars if you want them to last a lifetime then routine checks are requred leave a tank of gas in your car for 10+ years and it's unlikely to start. Why add to your risk? I'm recognising the real world - people do bang/drop/shock things like this. People have a hard enough time actually backing stuff up - so I would always recommend the most robust device (which has the least moving parts) for a job like this. If you're happy with that, that's upto you. I'm telling you all what *I* do and what *I* recommend. SSDs lose the mechanical problems which greatly increase the reliability. and their attractiveness for theft, and even accidetnal lose the smaller an item is the easier it is to lose too. I'm nto sure if it;s been tried by conecting a SSD up to a voltage it wasntl expecting would seriusly damaged it. Do that to a HD and the logic board will fail and you might still get the data back. We've done it here faulty contoller board replace with identical one get the data back. There are companies out there that can get data back from HD's I;'m not sure it's been done for SSD as yet. Again, in the real world, the risk of mechanical damage is far more likely than electrical damage. the data.f.com/tag/5-warning-signs-ssd-break-fail/ https://www.makeuseoDO NOT assume just because it;s on a SSD you wopn;lt lose Obviously - I did not claim it was infallible - just that it was *better* than a mechanical spinning disk. I'm really not sure why some are finding a simple argument so hard to grasp? 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. People bet on all sorts of things including their lives. But just suppose you had differnt backup systemes in place. SSDs, HDDs, CD/DVDs, floppies, tape, punched cards. if someone broke it what items are they most likely to steal, well provided they were looking for tech and not jewlery & cash ehat would they take otr what are you most likely lose. That's why you put your good stuff on 2 devices, one at another location - or one in the cloud... -- Email does not work |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
In article , Tim Watts
wrote: They are prone to damage due to shock (handling and dropping) and if used for offline archival purposes, run the risk of seizing if left unpowered for long periods (years). So, it is possible to eliminate these problems to some. 1/ DO NOT practice juggerling with hard drives, stick to balls and those items designed for that purpose. 2/ Like cars if you want them to last a lifetime then routine checks are requred leave a tank of gas in your car for 10+ years and it's unlikely to start. Why add to your risk? I'm recognising the real world - people do bang/drop/shock things like this. no they don't. it also doesn't matter, since drives are rated for 300g shock: https://www.wd.com/content/dam/wdc/w...ssets/eng/spec _data_sheet/2879-800022.pdf People have a hard enough time actually backing stuff up - separate problem. so I would always recommend the most robust device (which has the least moving parts) for a job like this. ssds are not 'the most robust' and are *not* a good choice for backup. If you're happy with that, that's upto you. I'm telling you all what *I* do and what *I* recommend. if you regularly bang drives, you're not in a position to be recommending *anything*. if someone broke it what items are they most likely to steal, well provided they were looking for tech and not jewlery & cash ehat would they take otr what are you most likely lose. That's why you put your good stuff on 2 devices, one at another location - or one in the cloud... have multiple copies of everything (not just the 'good stuff'), with at least one off site and one in the cloud. the more the merrier. should any one copy fail, there are others. replace the failed drive and update. an ssd is a complete waste of money and its speed advantages are completely lost. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Obviously - I did not claim it was infallible - just that it was *better* than a mechanical spinning disk. Better in what respect ? Theres no evidence yet that it is better for backups as that depends on the users and the amount backed up SSD are NOT the best for me, mostly due to cost, i.e the number I'd need. yep, and the speed advantages are lost. I'm really not sure why some are finding a simple argument so hard to grasp? because yuo are wrong, it;s that simple, ask google what type of drives they use in their servers then argue with them that they should eb using SSDs. or read a bit more about the subject. https://www.zdnet.com/article/ssd-re...es-experience/ € SSD age, not usage, affects reliability. .... The SSD is less likely to fail during its normal life, but more likely to lose data. so much for being better. worse, he wants to archive stuff on a single device and then put it in a drawer, which means only *one* copy. that's a disaster waiting to happen. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
On 19/11/18 14:02, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 November 2018 12:20:08 UTC, Tim Watts wrote: I'm recognising the real world - Not everyone lives in the same real world. In my real world, spinning hard drives are susceptible to shock damage and a variety of other modes of failure that a pure electronic device is not. What world do you live in? But that doesn't make it THE most robust device. For the second time, I have never claimed that. I said it was "better". because yuo are wrong, it;s that simple, ask google what type of drives they use in their servers then argue with them that they should eb using SSDs. I'm not wrong. Google design redundancy in at a server level and at a high factor (ie they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing. This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to several spinning disks. Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all. Ergo a more expensive less likely to fail due to accidents/mechanical issues device is generally what I recommend for that type of user. If you are sure of your own regime, that's fine for you. In the general case of the average person, I completely stand behind my advice. -- Email does not work |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
In article , Tim Watts
wrote: I'm recognising the real world - Not everyone lives in the same real world. In my real world, spinning hard drives are susceptible to shock damage and a variety of other modes of failure that a pure electronic device is not. ssds have *different* types of failures. they are not immune (nothing is), and shock isn't an issue in the real world anyway. people don't normally drop their computers or servers. anyone who regularly drops hard drives has bigger issues to resolve. What world do you live in? not your imaginary one. But that doesn't make it THE most robust device. For the second time, I have never claimed that. I said it was "better". because yuo are wrong, it;s that simple, ask google what type of drives they use in their servers then argue with them that they should eb using SSDs. I'm not wrong. yes you are. Google design redundancy in at a server level and at a high factor (ie they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing. that's not unique to google. anyone can have a redundant server. This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to several spinning disks. what's to prepare? enable backups and the computer does the rest. Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all. separate problem, and one which has been resolved. Ergo a more expensive less likely to fail due to accidents/mechanical issues device is generally what I recommend for that type of user. even if that were true (which it isn't), it doesn't solve the real problem of people struggling to make backups. the best solution is an automatic backup strategy using a nas which syncs to a cloud service. set it and forget it. manually backing up up to multiple devices is asking for trouble. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
On 19/11/18 15:39, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 19 November 2018 14:45:21 UTC, Tim Watts wrote: On 19/11/18 14:02, Whisky-dave wrote: Google design redundancy in at a server level why bother if they could use SSDs. Because when scaling to 10000s of servers, even a few percent savings of costs amounts to a *lot* of capital. For a professional (or keen amateur) user, even a premium of 100-odd% extra is unlikely to amount to a huge amount in absolute terms. It's like giving your dinner guests Lidl digestives because they're cheaper than After Eights. and at a high factor (ie they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing. and that's the way backups should be done/kept. I bought an external 4TB for £85 last week. How much would I need to spend to get 4TB of SSD ? I bought a 1/2 TB for £80 internal. So I would have needed to spend about ~£1600 + a PSU for a similar SSD. Rubbish. And you have the cheek to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Ext.../dp/B078STRHBX £180 for 1TB. That's a decent make (I have 2), fast and reliable. I have never had a Sandisk flash product fail on me, whereas I have had several spinning hard drives fail from a similar number of units I have bought for home use. Little over 2x to lose the whole mechanical aspect - also more compact, lighter, faster. I'd rather have multiple HDs than rely on one SSD. This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to several spinning disks. why wouldn't I be. Because lots of people can barely manage to maintain a simple regime let alone one that requires making multiple copies of the same data. Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all. you mean sub-normal people like yourself. Says the one arguing the toss and resorting to ad-hom because he's lost the argument. I have an excellent backup regime. I use SSDs for primary, SD for secondary (which gets pulled for a batch, then replaced back in its box) and Tresorit which is automatic with no intervention on my part and puts a copy of my data in Switzerland. Anyway - welcome to the KF - You can argue with yourself. Anyone sensible can take my advice, leave it or adapt it to the way that suits them. -- Email does not work |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
In article , Tim Watts
wrote: Google design redundancy in at a server level why bother if they could use SSDs. Because when scaling to 10000s of servers, even a few percent savings of costs amounts to a *lot* of capital. the difference is *much* more than a few percent, not that it matters, since google can't afford *not* to lose user data, which would cost a lot more than the difference in hardware costs. For a professional (or keen amateur) user, even a premium of 100-odd% extra is unlikely to amount to a huge amount in absolute terms. It's like giving your dinner guests Lidl digestives because they're cheaper than After Eights. you're off by an order of magnitude, particularly for sd cards. see below. and at a high factor (ie they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing. and that's the way backups should be done/kept. I bought an external 4TB for £85 last week. How much would I need to spend to get 4TB of SSD ? I bought a 1/2 TB for £80 internal. So I would have needed to spend about ~£1600 + a PSU for a similar SSD. Rubbish. And you have the cheek to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? you don't. https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Ext.../dp/B078STRHBX £180 for 1TB. the largest capacity for that is 2tb at £419, which means two of those would be needed for the requested 4tb, or £838, along with the additional hassle of managing two devices rather than one for a single backup. meanwhile, a 4tb hard drive is £80: https://www.amazon.co.uk/WD-Elements...ve/dp/B00JT8AJ Z0/ that's more than a ten-fold difference, a difference in cost of £758, far more than your claimed '100% premium'. that difference is enough to buy an additional *nine* 4tb hard drives, or better yet, a fully populated nas. also, 4tb is considered small these days. backing up 10-20tb and the difference becomes *substantial*. the other problem is you said you use sd cards for your backups. looking at prices for those, a 512g sd card is £274: https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Ext...y/dp/B00NP699Z I/ the requested 4tb would require *eight* sd cards, totaling £2192, nearly *thirty* times the price of a single 4tb hard drive, and nowhere near as convenient nor as reliable. That's a decent make (I have 2), fast and reliable. I have never had a Sandisk flash product fail on me, whereas I have had several spinning hard drives fail from a similar number of units I have bought for home use. nothing lasts forever and hard drive failures do not matter. simply replace the failed drive and restore to the new drive as appropriate. it takes maybe a minute to unbox and swap, with the remainder of the restoration process being entirely automatic. Little over 2x to lose the whole mechanical aspect - also more compact, lighter, faster. try 10x-30x see above. I'd rather have multiple HDs than rely on one SSD. This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to several spinning disks. why wouldn't I be. Because lots of people can barely manage to maintain a simple regime let alone one that requires making multiple copies of the same data. that you're calling it a regime shows your ignorance. all the user needs to do is click a button to enable backups (which is done *once*) and then computer takes care of everything else, the part that you're calling a 'regime'. in other words, there is nothing for the user to manage. it's all *automatic*. Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all. you mean sub-normal people like yourself. Says the one arguing the toss and resorting to ad-hom because he's lost the argument. you're not one to be talking about ad hominem, especially when you kill file anyone who disagrees with you. you have *nothing* to back up your claims (no pun intended). I have an excellent backup regime. I use SSDs for primary, SD for secondary (which gets pulled for a batch, then replaced back in its box) and Tresorit which is automatic with no intervention on my part and puts a copy of my data in Switzerland. that's a clumsy manual process which uses very expensive low capacity media. no reasonable person would call that acceptable, let alone 'excellent'. Anyway - welcome to the KF - You can argue with yourself. Anyone sensible can take my advice, leave it or adapt it to the way that suits them. anyone sensible knows that your 'advice' is awful, a disaster waiting to happen. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Adobe Cloud was deleting MAC files | Davoud | Digital Photography | 0 | February 16th 16 04:02 PM |
Adobe Cloud was deleting MAC files | nospam | Digital Photography | 0 | February 16th 16 05:26 AM |
Brisbane Wedding Photographer takes amazing bridle portrait! | D_Mac | 35mm Photo Equipment | 10 | August 27th 07 09:50 PM |
Deleting photos | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | June 6th 07 10:44 AM |