k-hawinkler Posted September 9, 2014 Share #21 Posted September 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) As pico already kindly pointed out, the SD cards are of course so equipped. However, the resulting reliability when used in cameras is not quite comparable to that of the hard disks in computers. Source? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here 256 GB SD card not recognized?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JohnJWhite Posted September 9, 2014 Share #22 Posted September 9, 2014 I wouldn't worry, it's a Leica – the shutter will probably die before the card is filled. Tell that to my IIIc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJWhite Posted September 9, 2014 Share #23 Posted September 9, 2014 Certainly you are aware that RAID systems increase data availability but reduce data security, aren't you? That's true in the case of RAID 0, also known as "striped" but not true of RAID 1, also known as mirrored. With RAID 1 your data is written to two drives simultaneously, with both drives receiving the identical data. You then have two drives with the same data on both; an automatic back-up. So you double your data security with RAID 1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted September 9, 2014 Share #24 Posted September 9, 2014 Certainly you are aware that RAID systems increase data availability but reduce data security, aren't you?That's true in the case of RAID 0 ... Sigh ... so many experts. No, RAID 0 is an exception to the whole RAID concept. It does not only reduce data security but also reduces data availability, in an exchange for increased data access speed. So you double your data security with RAID 1. And then, divide the doubled per-disk security by the RAID controller's reliability. No seriously—if data security is your objective then stay away from any RAID configuration. Use an entirely separate hard disk (or any storage medium) and store a back-up on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 9, 2014 Share #25 Posted September 9, 2014 With RAID 1 your data is written to two drives simultaneously, with both drives receiving the identical data. You then have two drives with the same data on both; an automatic back-up. So you double your data security with RAID 1. Help me with this issue. Several years ago one of my university departments called to complain that their networked RAID drive had died. I checked and it was indeed non-responsive. So what happened? What was the vulnerable component? Its drives were not accessible. I suspect that its motherboard died. So much for so-called network RAID, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJWhite Posted September 9, 2014 Share #26 Posted September 9, 2014 Sigh ... so many experts. No, RAID 0 is an exception to the whole RAID concept. It does not only reduce data security but also reduces data availability, in an exchange for increased data access speed. And then, divide the doubled per-disk security by the RAID controller's reliability. No seriously—if data security is your objective then stay away from any RAID configuration. Use an entirely separate hard disk (or any storage medium) and store a back-up on that. I infer from this that you think the hard drive controller in the PC is inherently more reliable than the RAID controller in a networked raid box. I don't know why that would be the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJWhite Posted September 9, 2014 Share #27 Posted September 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) So much for so-called network RAID, no? Sure. And that's why in my business I have multiple back-ups. I back-up to a network RAID 1 box. I back-up to a SSD drive directly attached to my Mac Pro. And, I back-up to an internet service, "the cloud", so to speak. It's cheap insurance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 9, 2014 Share #28 Posted September 9, 2014 Sure. And that's why in my business I have multiple back-ups. I back-up to a network RAID 1 box. I back-up to a SSD drive directly attached to my Mac Pro. And, I back-up to an internet service, "the cloud", so to speak. It's cheap insurance. The cloud is the weakest link. It is nothing but another slow drive that should be on your own system. The cloud is bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted September 9, 2014 Share #29 Posted September 9, 2014 I infer from this that you think the hard drive controller in the PC is inherently more reliable than the RAID controller in a networked RAID box. No. Instead, you simply should infer that I think the simultaneous death of two independent hard-disk controllers is less likely than the death of just one of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 10, 2014 Share #30 Posted September 10, 2014 The cloud is the weakest link. It is nothing but another slow drive that should be on your own system. The cloud is bullshit. Pardon me, but you don't know what you are talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 10, 2014 Share #31 Posted September 10, 2014 I infer from this that you think the hard drive controller in the PC is inherently more reliable than the RAID controller in a networked raid box. I don't know why that would be the case. If you are using plain RAID1, properly implemented, then if a disk fails you can just get one of the other disks and your data are safe (i.e. not controller dependent). Disks failure rate is orders of magnitude higher than controller failure rate. In any case, it is easier to get a new controller than a disk containing your own data Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 10, 2014 Share #32 Posted September 10, 2014 Pardon me, but you don't know what you are talking about. MITM, weak passwords... do I have to go on? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 10, 2014 Share #33 Posted September 10, 2014 MITM, weak passwords... do I have to go on?. MITM is fixed with certificates. Yes, a few governments may be able to see our photos on cloud storage. Personally, I have nothing to hide. Passwords are as weak as you make them. Please go on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lss- Posted September 10, 2014 Share #34 Posted September 10, 2014 Moreover—would you really recommend to refrain from using, say, 2 TB hard-disk drives and to use a dozen 512 GB drives instead? No? Then why so with memory cards? Hard drives accumulate data over the years, memory cards accumulate data over a single use cycle. The requirements and therefore also the upgrade strategy are rather different. I am still using 1GB memory cards in many cameras, because they were sufficiently large the day said cameras were taken into use. When upgrading a camera, I assess whether existing memory cards will do. If not, I get new ones. Hard drives I generally replace in a rather continuous way by buying large drives and retiring those smaller ones that serve no purpose anymore. I would buy smaller cards only to save money. They however have the added benefit of protecting some of your photos against theft. Never happened to me, but it seems obvious that anyone taking your camera (and the card in it) also takes all the photos on the card. Insurance will not help there. A memory card failure, I have had one so far with fairly limited losses, does not necessarily wipe out all your photos. Even then, I guess there is some comfort in using several cards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 10, 2014 Share #35 Posted September 10, 2014 Thanks to all who called my attention to my mistake. [emoji33] RAID1: would it be frightfully difficult to read the data with a non-RAID controller from the remaining of the two drives? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 10, 2014 Share #36 Posted September 10, 2014 RAID1: would it be frightfully difficult to read the data with a non-RAID controller from the remaining of the two drives? Intelligent RAID1 implementations do not use proprietary formats, so you can read data from one of the remaining disks with a generic controller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 10, 2014 Share #37 Posted September 10, 2014 It is also interesting to note that pro cameras have 2 card slots, but they are not handled as a RAID1. The solution is much simpler: the camera just writes each shot to both cards. If one of the cards is full you will get a warning. You can even use two different card models/sizes. No more card hardware error panic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJWhite Posted September 10, 2014 Share #38 Posted September 10, 2014 The cloud is the weakest link. It is nothing but another slow drive that should be on your own system. The cloud is bullshit. The "cloud" is automated off-site back-up. If my business is broken into some Saturday night and all the computers are stolen, or if there's a fire that destroys everything, all of my data is safe. Or, at least it's a whole lot safer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 10, 2014 Share #39 Posted September 10, 2014 Personally I prefer a professional off-site backup service I do not think the Cloud is suitable for professional use. The user loses control over the data, there is no guaranty of confidentiality; Apple decides who can have access to the data and when, and there is no chain of liability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJWhite Posted September 10, 2014 Share #40 Posted September 10, 2014 Thanks to all who called my attention to my mistake. [emoji33] RAID1: would it be frightfully difficult to read the data with a non-RAID controller from the remaining of the two drives? No. With RAID 1, each drive works just like a single drive would work in a typical computer. I can remove one of the drives from the RAID 1 box, move it to another box, and continue reading and writing data to and from the drive. All RAID 1 does is read and write simultaneously to two drives. So, if one of the drives should fail, you still have the data stored safely on the other drive. RAID 0 is radically different. RAID 0 spits the data being written in half. Half of the zeros and ones are written to one of the two drives, and the other half are written to the other drive. This happens simultaneously, so the time required to write the data is dramatically reduced. If all you're doing is typing a letter in a word processor, it's not a difference you would notice. But if you're writing changes to a large file in Photoshop it can save you a lot of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.