[BizTalk]

While I need to buy some more dvd blanks, I dont think DVD's are the awnser.

This post has been edited by BizTalk: 18 June 2006 - 10:38 AM

[Sponsor]

[Scubar]

buy another HDD. A 120GB drive only cost about £30 in the uk now. Cheap as chips

[Delprat]

Buy a harddisk...
I don't think you'll find a smaller ("physically" speaking) way to backup 50GB

++

[nitropuppy]

ScubaSteve, on Jun 18 2006, 04:52 PM, said:

buy another HDD. A 120GB drive only cost about £30 in the uk now. Cheap as chips

/me agrees

[ripken204]

http://www.newegg.co...rice=&maxPrice=

just as they all said, its under 50$ for an 80gig hdd. or if you really wanted to, copy the files across a home network to another computer...

[deathwarder]

just buy a big external drive and put it in a drawer, much cheaper than dvd's, dvd's are about .25cents to the gig or something.

[bledd]

deathwarder, on Jun 19 2006, 12:24 AM, said:

just buy a big external drive and put it in a drawer, much cheaper than dvd's, dvd's are about .25cents to the gig or something.

and dvd's take a lot more managing and a hell of a lot of time, an extra hard drive is a must tbh

[Maleko]

Im going with everyone else as well, hard drive, personally an external one would be good, the New WD MyBook hard drives are sweet and cheap. they also turn off when you shut your computer down! (unlike other powered external drives)

[DL.]

I totally agree with the others on getting one more HDD.
The difference in price between HDD:s is quite small nowadays, it's often better to buy a larger drive in order to be more future proof.

You could get a drive of the same size (preferably the same make/model) as the one you already have and use some disk cloning software (there are free ones) to simply mirror the disk on a regular basis. It will spare you of some manual file copying and thereby simplifying the whole backup procedure.

[JoeMSFN]

I can't recommend a hard drive to backup a hard drive.

The reason you're backing up your files (I assume), is because you're worried about your HD crashing. If you're worried about your HD crashing, why would you backup data to another one?

If you have a lot of data, blue ray and HD DVDs are soon (if not already) to be released.

I assume the media would be kinda pricey , but there should be a RW version of it. OK, it would take two discs. That's far better than the current DVD capacity of 4.7 gig. (When did DVDs become low capacity?)

If you are going the HD route, I would recommend a RAID. If your mobo doesn't support it, get a card.

Make sure you install the RAID monitoring and alerting software.

This post has been edited by JoeMSFN: 19 June 2006 - 05:24 AM

[hougtimo]

I have a spare 80gb drive, then use acronis true image to pack all my data up onto it (including the os). a full reformatt is never more then 4mins and 32secs away

[fillalph]

JoeMSFN, on Jun 19 2006, 04:21 AM, said:

If you have a lot of data, blue ray and HD DVDs are soon (if not already) to be released.

I assume the media would be kinda pricey , but there should be a RW version of it. OK, it would take two discs. That's far better than the current DVD capacity of 4.7 gig. (When did DVDs become low capacity?)

I think that the HD DVD and Blue Ray readers are approximately 500US and 1000US respectively. So, I don't think this is the "best way" to backup 50GB at the moment. Perhaps in 2 years or so.

[DL.]

@JoeMSFN:
Backing up a HD to another HD is a way of spreading the risk. It's cheaper, faster and easier to manage than large numbers of DVD:s.
HD-DVD and/or Blue-Ray will probably be viable solutions in the future, but it will most likely take a while until the prices have come down to more acceptable levels.

A RAID solution (both drives connected and running all the time) is more sensitive to failure caused by other hardware (PSU, MB etc), compared to using an extra HD which is offline most of the time and connected only when doing backups.



Do occasional backups of important data to DVD even if using an extra HD or RAID, since HD:s are more likely to fail (or data get corrupted). Data on DVD:s are "solid" and cannot be deleted, corrupted or affected by ESD, unless of course they are physically damaged/worn or aged.

[CoffeeFiend]

Making backups of large amounts of data is a PITA... Current optical discs are way too small. A backup of a single 200GB drive is getting close to a full spindle of DVDs... No matter how cheap the plastic could be, that's just too much discs to swap - to create new backups every now and then (wasting a spindle every couple of months? no thanks!) and to restore if you ever need to. Too time consuming.

The main option I see is more HDs. RAID0 is indeed a bit risky for data you can't afford to lose. RAID1 (mirrorred pair of HDs) would be secure, but halving your space sucks... So ideally you go for RAID5. Four 300GB SATA drives is not a whole lot of $ anymore (in some places the 400GBs are becoming cheap, but here they still cost as much as two 300GBs for one). One drive for parity, the other for data, so 4x 300GB would give you 900GB of pretty safe storage (any one drive can die and your data's safe). Including a 4 port SATA controller and tax and all, it should still be around 50 cents/GB. Preferably on UPS or at least a good surge supressor (don't wanna fry all drives if something happens). More of a "safe storage" thing than a backup really... Works great for my video server (all in mpeg4 - same deal for music collection). No worries of losing everything, but even if something happened, it's not the end of the world either.

The other popular option is backing up on a external drive. Lots of people like this. But I'm not big on it... The drives are no cheaper than in the RAID5 scenario, and the enclosures only add to the cost (and most cheap enclosures suck and will die of heat - especially those with without fans - I'll link to some reviews if you need some "evidence" of that - I've given up on RMA'ing mine for another one that would last a whole month). And you gotta find a place to put all the external drives eventually... Which are also more prone to be dropped or something (from being manipulated/handled more). Either ways, it's far more convenient than swapping discs all day every month or whatever (50 discs x 10 minutes each or more) - just need to start copying files (a few seconds) or it can even be completely automated - no need to even worry about it anymore.

Personally, I take the risk of leaving everything on RAID5. It's not ridiculously expensive anymore for lots of space. You get fast speeds, it's always online and all. For the few things that just CAN'T be lost, then those are kept on a smaller RAID1 from two smaller HDs (think family photos), and are also burnt on 3 taiyo yuden DVDs (two for me, and one "off-site" i.e. sent to my dad - he likes to have them too, and also for in case of fire). Taiyo Yuden are good discs. Don't use cheap stuff for important backups, you'll regret it the day you need it (things like organic dye and cheap manufacturing quality will have likely destroyed the data partly - seen it happen so many times)

HD DVD/Blu-Ray/Holographic isn't there yet. Writers @ 1000$ and 25GB blanks for 60$/ea? No thanks! That's FAR more $/GB than any HD will cost you (would you buy a 25GB HD for 60$? me neither). Transfer speeds are still slow-ish. You'll still have to swap discs (backuping a 200GB drive with 25GB discs is "only" 8 discs - now, backuping several RAID arrays i.e. > 1TB? Spindles of 'em... They're not keeping up with HD size increases... And scratching/losing one disc will mean losing tons of information (kinda scary). Price isn't there and won't be for a while, and you'll still end up swapping discs. No thanks.

DL: I disagree. HDs are far less likely to be corrupted (optical discs need error correction bits - not a perfect process by any measure). Magnetic storage is far more stable. DVDs aren't so "solid" unless they're pressed (pits and lands vs altered dye). Dye problems, light/atm pressure/humidity/etc, imperfect manufacturing, reflective top layer lifting off, you name it - it'll scrap your discs (I've seen hundreds of discs that "turned bad" over time - kept in a CD wallet in a cool place, no scratches or anything, and not cheapest brand either). And DVDs are very easy to scratch - a very common occurence of data loss... I'll take HDs over DVDs anytime. And over the years, I've never seen a single HD die because of a PSU problem or such - not even once, and we've got thousands of PCs at work... You're more likely to just drop an external HD on the floor instead.

My 2 cents...

[Innocent Devil]

as JoeMSFN

just WAIT for Blue-Ray

and go 4 dual layer blue-ray
it allows 54GB in one disc

[Delprat]

crahak > reading a so long post is a PITA. after doing it, buying a HD and backup 50GB on it is a good enjoyment (just listen to the seller's speech ). I didn't read every word, but you're writing at least one strange thing : "Magnetic storage is far more stable"... why ? 'coz you think there's no "error correction bits" ? if that were the case, HD will always send random bytes ! Plus, magnetic storage, as the name suggest, is subject to magnetic sensivity ; where optical storage is not (or far less).

JoeMSFN > if one HD crashes, its backup has nearly no chance to crash at the same moment. Following widespread SETI rules to define the probability of the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence, you are more likely to see an OVNI crashing on your car than having both the original HD and the backup HD crashing in a reduced time (a week or so)


footnote > RAID is not meant for backups
It's either a spray to eradicate bugs ; either a storage solution to eradicate bugs.

[CoffeeFiend]

Why wait for Blu-Ray?

-The format just may die i.e. lose to HD DVD - good ole format war yet again
-It'll be like a couple of years at least before the writers are half-decently priced
-And even then, 4 layer media may take more than 2 years to be somewhat cost effective (assuming Blu-Ray wins)... By that time, 400GB drives or more will be mainsteam. By the time we get decently priced 200GB media, people will have drives over 1TB or such (just look at the new 750GB seagate - in a couple years it'll be quite affordable and there will already be bigger ones).
-and by "wait", you make it sound like he shouldn't backup until then or something... When it's available and cost effective (if it ever does), one should consider using it, but meanwhile it's irrelevant. One still needs backups.

If you want to wait forever for some expensive technology, then you might as well wait for holographic storage like InPhase's, which will have large capacities (200GB to 1.6TB per disc) i.e. the smallest holographic disc will have as much capacity as Blu-Ray's maximum theorical capacity.

Personally, I have no plans to buy a Beta-Ray drive, ever, at any cost.

[edit - Delprat posted while I was writing this]

"Magnetic storage is far more stable"... why ?

The magnetic "data" on the platters is very very stable - you could leave it alone for MANY years with no problem.

'coz you think there's no "error correction bits" ? if that were the case, HD will always send random bytes !

You're misunderstanding. We're not talking about CRC-like error checking for transmission, or to verify if data blocks were valid - DVDs use those error correction bits to fix stuff that wasn't recorded properly (they even measure things like this i.e. BEL and such). All discs have loads of PI errors and some PO errors - no burn is ever "perfect", and cheap discs are quite bad (increasing burning speed only makes things worse - and who wants to burn slow?) HDs don't rely on that type of "error correction".

Imperfect burns, combined with dyes that change over time (especially discs using organic dye - most discs do), and all the previously mentionned factors (temp, humidity, etc), imperfect manufacturing (very common - improper sealing, imperfections in plastic, etc), and some disc aging problems (like pin holes in some discs, plastic becoming cloudy on others, oxydization, etc), and with everyday wear (scatches and dust)...

I've seen hundreds of discs gone bad... And for a reason.

Plus, magnetic storage, as the name suggest, is subject to magnetic sensivity

Not so. The drive's in a metal box (faraday cage).

@SecretNinja: A ait2 drive alone will cost hundreds... Enough to buy a mega-huge RAID5 array... and the price of tapes ($/GB) isn't much lower than HDs (unless your stuff really compresses well perhaps)

This post has been edited by crahak: 20 June 2006 - 09:09 AM

[SecretNinja]

humm, no one has suggested tape ait2 should be sufficent for your needs and its much cheaper than blu-ray or hd for both drive and medium.
</snigger>

[RJM]

Slow but reliable.

http://www.answers.c...ic/punched-tape

This post has been edited by RJM: 20 June 2006 - 09:15 AM

[ripken204]

JoeMSFN, on Jun 19 2006, 07:21 AM, said:

I can't recommend a hard drive to backup a hard drive.

The reason you're backing up your files (I assume), is because you're worried about your HD crashing. If you're worried about your HD crashing, why would you backup data to another one?

If you have a lot of data, blue ray and HD DVDs are soon (if not already) to be released.

I assume the media would be kinda pricey , but there should be a RW version of it. OK, it would take two discs. That's far better than the current DVD capacity of 4.7 gig. (When did DVDs become low capacity?)

If you are going the HD route, I would recommend a RAID. If your mobo doesn't support it, get a card.

Make sure you install the RAID monitoring and alerting software.

umm... i dont get it
you said that backing up to another hdd is bad. but you said to use raid?...
raid1 IS backing up to another hdd, which completely negates your first statement.