Jump to content

backup!


dchalfon

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i've been doing my backup on my apple timecapsule for quite some time now. and then copying the aperture projects to flickr. but flickr does not support raw files.

 

i've tried smugmug today but they charge extra for dngs.

 

what are other viable options of cloud backup that allows me to save raw files?

 

i simply can't trust in hard drives only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple has a database in California for their users. I don't remember the name, I am not a member of it.

But, that is the way in my opinion, a professional database is the safest manner to keep your work.

 

My father has taken many fotos of Rotterdam before the second WW. In 1939, as times got critical, he put his negatives in the safe of the bank, where he worked.

In May 1940 the Germans bombed Rotterdam and part of the building of the bank was destroyed too. His negatives - shot with the first Leica models - were gone.

Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

....

I simply can't trust in hard drives only.

 

Why not? The trick is to have more than one; then it beats any cloud solution for both cost and safety. Personally, I have one auto, to a permanently mounted disk (several times a day), one weekly to a separate disk stored in a strongbox on site, and one monthly to a disk in another building. Paint me paranoid if you wish, but I haven´t lost anything so far....:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've been doing my backup on my apple timecapsule for quite some time now. and then copying the aperture projects to flickr. but flickr does not support raw files.

 

i've tried smugmug today but they charge extra for dngs.

 

what are other viable options of cloud backup that allows me to save raw files?

 

i simply can't trust in hard drives only.

 

Sorry to say that hard drives, under whatever config you might use them, are today the most reliable media, and also the cheapest per Gb.

 

As for "cloud", IMO it's good for relatively small amounts of data, but still not yet comparable to an hd for access speed, and, money-wise, for huge amounts of data, like I'd expect were the case for pix backup.

 

Anyway, if you need just a backup and not a showcase, two free solutions, at least they start free, are Ubuntu-One and Dropbox. They both offer 2Gb for free, and more for a fee.

I think you need to run a Linux/Ubuntu to setup an account with the former, but with Dropbox you should have no problem.

 

As for me I use them just when on the road, or to share data between different locations, it's safer than an usb key which can be lost.

 

Locally I use a NAS as a backup, and, given you can usually set it up as a RAID, with it you have a very reliable form of backup, actually even more than one copy if you set the RAID to mirror the data.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest advantage to online backup is that it is by definition "offsite". Should your home be destroyed, your images will be elsewhere. But I would use it in addition to, not instead of, multiple hard-drives. You have a vested interest in the safety of your images, any company you "sub-contract" to is only interested while you pay them.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading that article on LL when it was first published, an ideal solution, but not much viable moneywise for the "cloud" part, at least for most photographers, pro or amateur alike.

 

I expect that "cloud" storage will become a good solution when (and if) it will replace all of our local storage, but now it just adds to it. At the moment it can be useful for distributing data, for the backup of critical files, but not for an extensive storage, although size is certainly not a problem with the likes of the Amazon/S3.

The cost issue, for storage or licenses, is IMO likely out of reach for most of those who'd think of using it for a full backup.

Depending on the service we choose, in a year, if not just in a couple months, it could easily get level with the cost of both my 8Tb Iomega NAS units that I use just for backup, and this cost will be charged "for ever and ever".

 

I fully agree that an "offsite" backup can be an advantage in a few situations but current hard disks can withstand quite a bit of rough handling, be it shock, fire or water, and data can be recovered from them in most cases.

 

Anyway another problem that I see in the cloud solution is reliability, not on their side, they often claim a 99.99% level, but on my side. If I cannot access the net for any reason, I'm also cut out of my critical data.

 

So I stand by what I said in my former message, at the moment hard disks are the cheapest and most reliable media, and using a NAS unit with RAID as a backup is one of the best ways we have today to protect our data, either money and speed wise.

 

Just let me add a suggestion in case anyone chooses to follow this route. Do not forget to protect it from a power loss with a small UPS, as this event is not only the most likely to happen, but also is most likely to put your data at risk, well before any hardware failure. Even the cheapest one will do.

 

Just my 2cent of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use one time machine and two other externals. I drag and drop files to the two mirror image externals as I see fit. Then clean off the HD. Images are left on 3 other drives.

 

Photos are stored in folders that start with date, year , month. day, + a short description in that exact format.

 

Starting with the date they stay in order and it is easy to move them to the two permanent drives. You also know what you can delete off the HD and keeping it relatively clean is a key to a nice running computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...