Digital BW, The Print

Rather than to CD/DVD? If so, could you share your experience and observations?
Lew

CrashPlan works great, $5 a month unlimited storage.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Feb 9, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Lew wrote:

> Rather than to CD/DVD? If so, could you share your experience and observations?
> Lew

I'm still not sold on online storage at this point, so I invested $60 in a 1TB Iomega external drive for my primary backup for my files.  It is a great alternative to CD/DVD.  I also have another 160G, secondary external harddrive that I keep off site.

keithz
http://kzarts.com



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Lew" <lew1716@...> wrote:

>
> Rather than to CD/DVD? If so, could you share your experience and observations?
> Lew
>

On 2/10/2011 11:19 AM, zz_ir wrote:
>
> I'm still not sold on online storage at this point, so I invested $60 in a 1TB Iomega external drive for my primary backup for 
> my files. It is a great alternative to CD/DVD. I also have another 160G, secondary external harddrive that I keep off site.
>

I would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
purposes.  With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the chances
of losing data are substantially less.

Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10/02/2011 19:31, Dana Myers wrote:
>
> I would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
> purposes. With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the chances
> of losing data are substantially less.
>
> Dana
>
NO ... RAID 1

RAID 0 does not mirror, and puts your data at risk from failure of 
EITHER drive, as each holds only half your data.

-- 
mike finley photography
fine art photography and website construction
http://mypicks.efikim.co.uk
http://www.mikefinley.co.uk
http://www.roguegenecollective.com/Mike_Finley.html
http://www.efikim.co.uk



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 2/10/2011 11:44 AM, Mike Finley wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/02/2011 19:31, Dana Myers wrote:
> >
> > I would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
> > purposes. With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the chances
> > of losing data are substantially less.
> >
> > Dana
> >
> NO ... RAID 1
>
> RAID 0 does not mirror, and puts your data at risk from failure of
> EITHER drive, as each holds only half your data.
>
Doh.  Of course I meant *RAID 1* mirror.  It's an off-by-one error :-)
(I knew what I *meant* to say)

Mike is completely correct - RAID 0 "striping" is done to increase
performance at the expense of reduced overall reliability.

RAID 1 substantially improves reliability at little or no cost to
performance (actually, read performance can be substantially
better, write performance slightly worse).

Personally, I strongly recommend running a RAID 1 pair as the
"system drive" in general.

Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am presently using CrashPlan which is very cost effective and efficient.  The initial backup can take a painfully long time due to the size involved if you have a lot of photos, but since it just runs in the background even if it takes a month no big deal.  I presently have 250GB backed up with CrashPlan.  If you have more than one computer, or a friend with a computer you can actually use their software for free to back up to the other machine automatically over the network.

I would *strongly* advise you move away from CD/DVD to at least external hard drives that you disconnect after back-up.  CD/DVD is a horrible media, depending on the disk, the drive, and the software a given burn might last 10 years or less than 10 weeks.  If the drive and software don't burn the disk with the proper exposure pattern the media will fade rather quickly (less than a year) even though an immediate verification of the data just after burning will look fine.  Sadly this is not an uncommon problem and lots of people go back to their CD/DVD archives only to discover there is no longer anything there :(.

Ken

They will rent you a HD for the initial upload, it gets shipped back to them to start.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:58 PM, kwalsh74 wrote:

> The initial backup can take a painfully long time due to the size involved if you have a lot of photos, but since it just runs in the background even if it takes a month no big deal.

On 2/10/2011 12:02 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
>
> They will rent you a HD for the initial upload, it gets shipped back to them to start.
>
This is good; one consideration is that some internet providers have
total usage caps, such as Comcast and 250GB total.  An initial upload
could potentially push one over a threshold like this.

Dana

>
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:58 PM, kwalsh74 wrote:
>
> > The initial backup can take a painfully long time due to the size involved if you have a lot of photos, but since it just runs 
> in the background even if it takes a month no big deal.
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Really, they limit your total bandwidth use per day/week/month/year? That sucks. I have Comcast here and upload and download hundreds of MB every month and they have never said anything. Maybe I just never went over 250GB, that is plenty of data.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Dana Myers wrote:

> On 2/10/2011 12:02 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
>> 
>> They will rent you a HD for the initial upload, it gets shipped back to them to start.
>> 
> This is good; one consideration is that some internet providers have
> total usage caps, such as Comcast and 250GB total.  An initial upload
> could potentially push one over a threshold like this.
> 
> Dana

On 2/10/2011 12:13 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
>
> Really, they limit your total bandwidth use per day/week/month/year? That sucks. I have Comcast here and upload and download 
> hundreds of MB every month and they have never said anything. Maybe I just never went over 250GB, that is plenty of data.
>

Absolutely, Comcast enforces a strict threshold of 250GB total usage per month.
You can find information on this www.comcast.com somewhere.

Yes, 250GB total usage in a month is a *lot*.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just a tad more info for Raid.. For most folk here I would think that mirroring between two drives side isthe way to go.. It is the slowest preformer both reading and writing.. but it is redundant.. If yo udo it in a hardwar e2 drive set up an dhav ea couple extra trays with drives you can create an off site back up on teh week end and keep it some where else.. As a note it's not the greatest way to go however to select huge drives for a raid set up if you can manage a few more smaller drives to fill the gaps your better off.
Their are many different Raid specks and probably the most popular on a home or small business level is Raid 5 if you nee dmore room and a bit of preformance.  It would use 4 drives that would be striped and with parity.. So you can loose one drive and still retain all your data .. So typically you want a spare on hand.. This is quite reliable and also very fast..Remember that the systems today can read multiple drives at one time so it significantly faster then a mirror set up which just reads one..

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dana Myers 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Cc: Mike Finley 
  Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?


    
  On 2/10/2011 11:44 AM, Mike Finley wrote:
  >
  >
  >
  > On 10/02/2011 19:31, Dana Myers wrote:
  > >
  > > I would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
  > > purposes. With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the chances
  > > of losing data are substantially less.
  > >
  > > Dana
  > >
  > NO ... RAID 1
  >
  > RAID 0 does not mirror, and puts your data at risk from failure of
  > EITHER drive, as each holds only half your data.
  >
  Doh. Of course I meant *RAID 1* mirror. It's an off-by-one error :-)
  (I knew what I *meant* to say)

  Mike is completely correct - RAID 0 "striping" is done to increase
  performance at the expense of reduced overall reliability.

  RAID 1 substantially improves reliability at little or no cost to
  performance (actually, read performance can be substantially
  better, write performance slightly worse).

  Personally, I strongly recommend running a RAID 1 pair as the
  "system drive" in general.

  Dana

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey Mark,
A lot of places limit bandwidth.. At some point every one will be band width impaired to some degree and or pay for what your using..  All the satellite companies have already done it..  Starband cut your band width at 500MB so you can't even down load a movie.. 

j

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Savoia 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?


    
  Really, they limit your total bandwidth use per day/week/month/year? That sucks. I have Comcast here and upload and download hundreds of MB every month and they have never said anything. Maybe I just never went over 250GB, that is plenty of data.

  Mark
  http://www.stillrivereditions.com

  On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Dana Myers wrote:

  > On 2/10/2011 12:02 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
  >> 
  >> They will rent you a HD for the initial upload, it gets shipped back to them to start.
  >> 
  > This is good; one consideration is that some internet providers have
  > total usage caps, such as Comcast and 250GB total. An initial upload
  > could potentially push one over a threshold like this.
  > 
  > Dana



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For what it is worth I prefer the Raid 10.   It provides less capacity than
the Raid 5 but the Write performance is so much faster.    I use the Raid 10
as my main library and then incremental backups to other SATA drives.    I
also copy data to other drives for off site backup.

 

Paul

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:03 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?

 

  

Just a tad more info for Raid.. For most folk here I would think that
mirroring between two drives side isthe way to go.. It is the slowest
preformer both reading and writing.. but it is redundant.. If yo udo it in a
hardwar e2 drive set up an dhav ea couple extra trays with drives you can
create an off site back up on teh week end and keep it some where else.. As
a note it's not the greatest way to go however to select huge drives for a
raid set up if you can manage a few more smaller drives to fill the gaps
your better off.
Their are many different Raid specks and probably the most popular on a home
or small business level is Raid 5 if you nee dmore room and a bit of
preformance. It would use 4 drives that would be striped and with parity..
So you can loose one drive and still retain all your data .. So typically
you want a spare on hand.. This is quite reliable and also very
fast..Remember that the systems today can read multiple drives at one time
so it significantly faster then a mirror set up which just reads one..

jimbo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dana Myers 
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>  
Cc: Mike Finley 
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?

On 2/10/2011 11:44 AM, Mike Finley wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/02/2011 19:31, Dana Myers wrote:
> >
> > I would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
> > purposes. With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the
chances
> > of losing data are substantially less.
> >
> > Dana
> >
> NO ... RAID 1
>
> RAID 0 does not mirror, and puts your data at risk from failure of
> EITHER drive, as each holds only half your data.
>
Doh. Of course I meant *RAID 1* mirror. It's an off-by-one error :-)
(I knew what I *meant* to say)

Mike is completely correct - RAID 0 "striping" is done to increase
performance at the expense of reduced overall reliability.

RAID 1 substantially improves reliability at little or no cost to
performance (actually, read performance can be substantially
better, write performance slightly worse).

Personally, I strongly recommend running a RAID 1 pair as the
"system drive" in general.

Dana

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5863 (20110210) __________


The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


http://www.eset.com

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5863 (20110210) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10/02/2011 21:02, mrjimbo wrote:
>
> Just a tad more info for Raid.. For most folk here I would think that 
> mirroring between two drives side isthe way to go.. It is the slowest 
> preformer both reading and writing.. but it is redundant
>
Mirroring (RAID 1) well implemented has read performance similar to RAID 
0 (alternate sectors read from each drive). Poorly implemented it will 
have the same read performance as a single drive (data read from only 
one drive, the other being ignored). I would hope that by now the former 
would be more common.
It is probably slowest for writing.
It is probably fastest for rebuilding. (RAID 0 can't rebuild, RAID 5 has 
to read every remaining disc for each sector and calculate what should 
be written to the replacement disc. If you know you need one of the 
other RAID configurations, you don't need advice from me!)

-- 
mike finley photography




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When making your initial online backup, you can greatly reduce the time required if you adjust your computer's power settings so it does not go into "Slumber" mode until the 1st backup is completed. Also, you can sync between computers very easily using Microsoft's Live Mesh service which allows individual files or folders to be synced between boxes and/or to a small free storage on their cloud. This is good for syncing My Documents, music, etc. between boxes.

My safest backups are clean negatives stored in the bank safety deposit box. Next, a 1TB external hard drive stored in the bank. Then, another 1TB external hard drive at home which I update and swap with the other drive in the bank. 

Another question to ask is WHAT digital files do you backup? I backup (a) all original files after only spotting and cropping, (b) all edited and flattened files, and (c) edited files with layers in the case of important (or difficult) images. 

Randy Bresee
www.RandallRBreseePhoto.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Lew" <lew1716@...> wrote:

>
> Rather than to CD/DVD? If so, could you share your experience and observations?
> Lew

Raid 10 works quite well .. a good option..
j

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Grant 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:21 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?


    
  For what it is worth I prefer the Raid 10. It provides less capacity than
  the Raid 5 but the Write performance is so much faster. I use the Raid 10
  as my main library and then incremental backups to other SATA drives. I
  also copy data to other drives for off site backup.

  Paul

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
  Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:03 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?

  Just a tad more info for Raid.. For most folk here I would think that
  mirroring between two drives side isthe way to go.. It is the slowest
  preformer both reading and writing.. but it is redundant.. If yo udo it in a
  hardwar e2 drive set up an dhav ea couple extra trays with drives you can
  create an off site back up on teh week end and keep it some where else.. As
  a note it's not the greatest way to go however to select huge drives for a
  raid set up if you can manage a few more smaller drives to fill the gaps
  your better off.
  Their are many different Raid specks and probably the most popular on a home
  or small business level is Raid 5 if you nee dmore room and a bit of
  preformance. It would use 4 drives that would be striped and with parity..
  So you can loose one drive and still retain all your data .. So typically
  you want a spare on hand.. This is quite reliable and also very
  fast..Remember that the systems today can read multiple drives at one time
  so it significantly faster then a mirror set up which just reads one..

  jimbo
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dana Myers 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  Cc: Mike Finley 
  Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?

  On 2/10/2011 11:44 AM, Mike Finley wrote:
  >
  >
  >
  > On 10/02/2011 19:31, Dana Myers wrote:
  > >
  > > I would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
  > > purposes. With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the
  chances
  > > of losing data are substantially less.
  > >
  > > Dana
  > >
  > NO ... RAID 1
  >
  > RAID 0 does not mirror, and puts your data at risk from failure of
  > EITHER drive, as each holds only half your data.
  >
  Doh. Of course I meant *RAID 1* mirror. It's an off-by-one error :-)
  (I knew what I *meant* to say)

  Mike is completely correct - RAID 0 "striping" is done to increase
  performance at the expense of reduced overall reliability.

  RAID 1 substantially improves reliability at little or no cost to
  performance (actually, read performance can be substantially
  better, write performance slightly worse).

  Personally, I strongly recommend running a RAID 1 pair as the
  "system drive" in general.

  Dana

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
  database 5863 (20110210) __________

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

  http://www.eset.com

  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
  database 5863 (20110210) __________

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

  http://www.eset.com


  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"lgrrrb@..." wrote:

> My safest backups are clean negatives stored in the bank safety deposit box. ...


That's the direction I'm leaning also -- letter size film images that can be sleeved and put into a standard bank box.

Carbon on cotton may be the most "archival," but the signal to noise ratio is not very good.  Viewing and extracting the best image involve different criteria.  I might be willing to give up some longevity if the image quality trade off is high enough. 

I'm now looking at the smoothest substrate and glossy carbon inksets.  I think the digital internegative group may have a lot to contribute here.  In my experience, Pictarico films may be the sharpest.

I'd like to learn more about the relative longevity of a film base. It has to be coated, but I'd think if they really do use a quality film base, there would be less internal stresses than the RC approach.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Dana Myers writ:

> would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
> purposes. With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the  
> chances
> of losing data are substantially less.


You've probably been raked over the coals enough times before I got  
to read this, but I'll reiterate: RAID 0 is a Really Bad Idea if one  
is relying heavily on that data on those two (or more) lashed- 
together drives. I recently had to come to the rescue of a client  
whose Dell tower crashed and burned in the middle of a project;  
pulling off the cover I found two HDs. He said he *thought* one drive  
was a backup, but after ten futile minutes attempting to boot, I go  
into diagnostic mode and see the dreaded words: RAID 0, followed by a  
fatal-error alert for the second HD.  "Absolut Toast", with a touch  
of bitters.

RAID 0 was probably cool when drive capacity was relatively small and  
pricey: with 1, 2, and 3TB disks "on the hoof" these days, it doesn't  
make much sense to me. RAID 1 makes more sense, but again, other than  
for backup capacity (I'll likely be switching the drives in my LaCie  
network drive from a pair of 500GB drives to a pair of 2 or 3TB  
drives), I don't quite see the need. (Your mileage, etc.)


- Barrett

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 2/11/2011 8:06 PM, Barrett Benton wrote:
>
> Dana Myers writ:
>
> > would *highly* recommend using at least a RAID 0 "mirror" for back-up
> > purposes. With a single drive, any error results in lost data; the
> > chances
> > of losing data are substantially less.
>
> You've probably been raked over the coals enough times before I got
> to read this, but I'll reiterate: RAID 0 is a Really Bad
>
It's a crapping thinko.  Ignore the word "RAID 0" and note the
word "mirror" and the description of a RAID 1/mirror.

Mirror is what I meant, and RAID 1 is correct.  It's just an off-by-one
error.  I actually understand this stuff :-)

Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 2/11/2011 8:06 PM, Barrett Benton wrote:
>
>  RAID 1 makes more sense, but again, other than
> for backup capacity (I'll likely be switching the drives in my LaCie
> network drive from a pair of 500GB drives to a pair of 2 or 3TB
> drives), I don't quite see the need. (Your mileage, etc.)
>

The need for RAID 1? It's to insulate the user against
single-drive-failure catastrophes.

Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,
Your thoughts on this are practicle and make sense. Film still is one of if not the best acrhive materials when properly executed. B&W film is tooted at 500 years in dark storage when temperature and humidty control are in place...and that's not frozen.. Realistically today most of us are all using data so in addition to the film a system of archiving data needs to be going in parallel.. And for those that  are shooting digital their really is no other recourse unless they get a folm recorder which in that cas emay not make the best sense...The information possible on a paper print will never come close to that in a raw digital file nor  anegative simply due to the varience in dynamic Range that's possible. 
Digital negatives are another option ..I've been fooling with these to make contact prints and am really enjoying the process .. These negs however are fairly fragile and can easily be damaged .. 
The world has and is changing we still have lots of options .. I think it boils down to how well we execute our options for our personal needs..

jimbo

 ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 7:14 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?


    
  "lgrrrb@..." wrote:

  > My safest backups are clean negatives stored in the bank safety deposit box. ...

  That's the direction I'm leaning also -- letter size film images that can be sleeved and put into a standard bank box.

  Carbon on cotton may be the most "archival," but the signal to noise ratio is not very good. Viewing and extracting the best image involve different criteria. I might be willing to give up some longevity if the image quality trade off is high enough. 

  I'm now looking at the smoothest substrate and glossy carbon inksets. I think the digital internegative group may have a lot to contribute here. In my experience, Pictarico films may be the sharpest.

  I'd like to learn more about the relative longevity of a film base. It has to be coated, but I'd think if they really do use a quality film base, there would be less internal stresses than the RC approach.

  Paul
  www.PaulRoark.com 



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just to add a little more to the discussion, remember a key point:

RAID is not a backup!!!!

RAID protects against just one thing, hard drive failure.  That is it.  That is not necessarily even the most likely failure, just one of the common ones.  Your OS could thrash your entire array.  Your RAID controller could thrash your entire array (actually saw this happen to someone).  You could accidentally delete/overwrite/format your own data (did this to myself once, fortunately the data loss was not very large and could be recreated with work).  A virus could corrupt all your data (saw someone do this to their work group's network mounted drive, lots of unhappy campers).  And so on.

Now, RAID is probably better than not backing up at all.  And similarly if it is something that happens automatically whereas another backup option is one you must manually do and frequently don't then it has benefit.  But it really isn't intended as, nor does it function particularly well as a backup.  It only protects you from hard drive failure, and that is only one threat to the data.

And it is certainly worth consulting this site to get one's mind in the right place about backing up:

http://www.taobackup.com/

Ken

Ken,
I think your off on the wrong foot with this.. I certainly agree that the word Raid does not equal back up.. But  Raid setups or systems as part of a back up plan certainly functions as just that,  a part of a back up plan.. In truth CD's and DVD's, Tape Drives , flash drives ..you name it they can all be part of a back up plan..

In my environment I have simply made a choice to use primarily hard drives as my vehicle of back up for data.. In truth we have a fairly good back up plan over all I think.. Using Raid driven redundancy is part of that plan.. We do not operate our computers off it .. It is merely a storage and back up plan which we find to have proven advantages over other ways of doing it..
 
It appears that your post doesn't address the possibility of using Raid as part of a back up plan... You are correct in that all it primarily does is protect against hard drive failure but it also really speeds thing up also if your set up to do so. So in truth ..a raid set up can be used as part of or not part of a back up plan.. Are you suggesting that it can't be that way?

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: kwalsh74 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:11 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Anyone backing up their files online?


    

  Just to add a little more to the discussion, remember a key point:

  RAID is not a backup!!!!

  RAID protects against just one thing, hard drive failure. That is it. That is not necessarily even the most likely failure, just one of the common ones. Your OS could thrash your entire array. Your RAID controller could thrash your entire array (actually saw this happen to someone). You could accidentally delete/overwrite/format your own data (did this to myself once, fortunately the data loss was not very large and could be recreated with work). A virus could corrupt all your data (saw someone do this to their work group's network mounted drive, lots of unhappy campers). And so on.

  Now, RAID is probably better than not backing up at all. And similarly if it is something that happens automatically whereas another backup option is one you must manually do and frequently don't then it has benefit. But it really isn't intended as, nor does it function particularly well as a backup. It only protects you from hard drive failure, and that is only one threat to the data.

  And it is certainly worth consulting this site to get one's mind in the right place about backing up:

  http://www.taobackup.com/

  Ken



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm not a fan of using Raid arrays as part of a back up.  Raid controllers
can fail.  I know this, as I've had it happen.  I do have more than one
drive in my machine.  One is only used as a backup of the main photo storage
disk using Cobian back up.    Thus, I have two copies of my data in my
computer, and if one disk was to fail, I'd be ok.  As far as back up goes,
that seems to accomplish what a mirrored raid does without adding another
point of possible hardware failure.  I combine this with multiple back ups
on external hard drives.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"mrjimbo" wrote:
>
> ... Film still is one of if not the best acrhive materials ...

And it is a coated substrate.  

>...The information possible on a paper print will never come close to that in a raw digital file nor  a ...

Particularly if the image size is limited to letter size, which is not irrational given the difficulty of storing larger prints.

> Digital negatives are another option ..I've been fooling with these to make contact prints and am really enjoying the process ...


In my transition from the wet darkroom I first used a variety of digital negatives.  The high end commercial ones can be impressive, but also impressively expensive -- really not an option for me.

I was depressed at the quality of the inkjet negatives I tried because my goal was to be able to enlarge an 8x10 negative to 16x20 inches, which was my standard display print size.  Inkjet negatives of the day just could not be enlarged.

What I found that was the poor man's film recorder that allowed 2x enlargement of an 8x10 negative was the Fujix digital printer.  Samy's in nearby Santa Barbara had one.  It made 400 true RGB pixel per inch images that could be on overhead transparency substrate -- for $8!  So, for a few bucks I had an 8x10 B&W negative that would enlarge to 16x20 and look very good. 

I'm going to see how close I can come to that with a 1.5 pl inkjet and a full 6-dilution glossy carbon ink.  A 720 dpi file can contain 14.4 lp/mm resolution.  All we need in a final 16x20 for it to look sharp is 3 - 5 lp/mm.  So, the 720 dpi 8x10 file is fine. 

When I look at a paper print of a 720 dpi resolution test strip I can see with a scanner those 14.4 lp/mm lines, but they are very ragged and barely visible.  It's close, but what I'm seeing on paper just won't cut it for enlargement.  So, onward to the glossy substrates.  I've ordered some of the Pictorico white gloss film.  I'll do an initial test Ilford's best today.

>... I think it boils down to how well we execute our options for our personal needs..


Since inkjet is my preferred output now, I'm aiming at the best way to use this technology, with very affordable inputs, to accomplish the goal.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On 2/12/2011 9:11 AM, kwalsh74 wrote:
>
>
> Just to add a little more to the discussion, remember a key point:
>
> RAID is not a backup!!!!
>

Of course not.  My recommendation was that the *back-up* storage
should be in a redundant RAID 1 "mirror" configuration.  (Yes, I know
I wrote RAID 0 in my original message.  That was an error).

I'll repeat this again: backups to spinning storage should be
to at least a RAID 1 mirrored pair.  This greatly reduces the chance
that your backup storage will fail when you actually need it.

I also recommend that the "system" storage should be a RAID 1
pair.

> RAID protects against just one thing, hard drive failure. That is it. That is not necessarily even the most likely failure,
>
Have you read this?

http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf

Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It is most unfortunate but the bottom line is that hard drives have a 100% mortality rate. It is not a question of will it fail; it is only a question of when. Although a hard drive will fail, it will retain the magnetically encoded data indefinitely although this can be very costly to remove from a failed hard drive. CD/DVDs will not hold data indefinitely. CD/DVDs lose data overtime due to oxidation. Depending on the media, burn process, and storage of the media the life expectancy has a huge range of 2-20 years.

On my servers, I use redundant mirrored RAID hard drives. Unfortunately, RAID is of little use if the server is destroyed or stolen so I also use offsite backup. For automated daily backup I use on online service. I also like to have months old copies of the data and every now and then you run into problems with backup services or software failing. For that reason, I also have a networked Terabyte drive that I plug monthly into the network and do a full backup and then take that drive home. That gives me two offsite backups created in different ways so if my entire business burns down I have good odds of recovering most of my data.

Cheers,
Mark
http://www.facebook.com/FrameDestination