Hi Phil-
There are versions of CCC that work back to OS X 10.2 too. I use CCC
every few weeks to back-up my entire system install but its very
simple to turn on an external drive every day for a few minutes and
manually back-up the new contents of a few, well-organized folders.
Its easy for my mind to separate OS backup from media file back-up
because the files are on a separate drive partitions. The risks of
loss are also isolated. If my OS creates a corrupt file (and its
making thousands a day) my media file directories are not affected.
Maybe its because the absolute need to back-up data became very
evident to me in 1995, but I'd rather not have any application
performing these crucial tasks "automatically" for me. The
self-sufficiency of knowing exactly what needs to be done and doing
it oneself probably lessens the chances of error more than relying on
automation-- perhaps more so for a person starting to learn good,
back-up habits.
The CCC and Time Machine back-up programs are probably very good, but
backing-up recordings isn't a precaution for me, it part of the
process of recording. My maxim is, "A digital file doesn't really
exist until there are two copies on different media and I know
exactly where both are." The simple, "manual approach" promotes the
cause because when I am very familiar with the structure of my file
archive, the changes I need to make are more cohesive and hopefully
more understandable down the road. Rob D.
= = = = = = =
At 9:46 AM +0000 9/30/09, Philip Tyler wrote:
>Hi
>
>Any one running an Apple Mac with Leopard as their operating system
>should have a look at Time Machine and a Time Capsule. It has
>revoloutionised backing up for me, coupled with something like
>SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner and an external drive makes a great
>backup system.
>
>Phil
>
>On 30 Sep 2009, at 03:43, Rob Danielson
><<type%40uwm.edu>> wrote:
>
>Hi Jeremiah--
>In "archival" time, I think it is wise to assume that the products
>that best meet necessary criteria will change pretty frequently. We
>now add "instantly accessible" to "indestructible" and "cheap." I
>agree that a huge argument for _redundant_ hard drives is the
>probable ability to quickly convert one's data from one storage
>system to another (at least compared to current optical discs).
>
>For folks with a few hundred GB's to store, its not a huge chore to
>use both drives and optical disks. For larger archives, arrays of
>more than 8 drives become quite pricey and 1 TB per drive does seems
>to be the recommended maximum capacity today. For me, its worth the
>extra time to burn everything, including the less critical, original
>long takes to DVD-R discs for more confidence and perhaps the ability
>to "skip-over" a few less than-perfect storage solutions. If I follow
>recommended storage conditions, I'll feel safer waiting for the ideal
>storage medium with a bunch of optical discs 30 years from now than
>holding onto 20 hard drives.
>
>What I want to avoid is not making recordings because it will take
>too much time or money to care for them. It will be fun to see where
>all of this ends-up :-). Rob D.
>
>= = = = =
>
>At 2:55 PM -0700 9/29/09, Jeremiah Moore wrote:
>> I think the idea is to see archive maintenance as an ongoing process. To
>>maintain a digital archive, I see it as essential to re-copy the data every
>>few years to new media. In addition to allowing verification, this will
>>allow bridging the various gaps presented by constantly shifting storage
>>technologies. i.e. for a while, it was common to have SCSI and firewire
>>interfaces on workstations; that would've been a good time to migrate to
>>Firewire drives.
>>
>>Factors in my decision to use hard drive mechanisms as primary archive
>>media:
>>
>>- easy to archive large amounts of data without handling many individual
>>pieces of media. This saves time and labor downstream as each piece needs
>>to be cataloged and stored.
>>
>>- easy to copy a significant chunk of archived material in one move, saving
> >time and labor when the archive is migrated to the next medium.
>>
>>- costs per MB are reasonable. 1TB HDD is around $100. 1TB of DVD-R is
>>roughly 240 discs, at $0.30 ea is $72.00 not including sleeves or cases.
>>
>>- de-facto, I was always way behind on archiving via DVD-R becuase of the
>>work involved. Typical doc film mix would involve backing up to eight or
>>ten DVD-Rs, plus their redundant copies. It would take much of a day to
>>archive a single project, time I could not afford to spend.
>>
>>Significant downside is that the medium is writeable, meaning it's
>>susceptible to filesystem damage or file corruption. Corruption could be
>>carried from the "A" copy to the "B" copy during synchronizing.
>>
>>A better system would involve checksumming, perhaps zipping or using a unix
>>tool like tar. I access files from my archive semi-frequently, so it's
>>helpful to have it all easily mountable and file-accessible on my system, so
>>I make this tradeoff knowingly. If others have suggestions, I'd love to
>>hear them.
>>
>>-jeremiah
>>
>>Rob Danielson wrote --
>>-snip-
>>
>>> Its interesting to read that folks are using redundant drives as a
>>> primary storage medium. Maybe drive hardware, stored under the right
>>> conditions will work fine in 30-50 years. It might be faster to
>>> convert data from a drive to the improved media that come along than
>>> from optical disks. However, it could also become a headache to mount
>>> current drives or a disc reader on a computers made even 15 years
>>> from now. Certainly, both drives and optical discs will look ancient
>>> in 100 years. Consider the challenge of mounting a SCSI drive on a
>>> computer produced in 2009.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>-snip-
>>
>>--
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>jeremiah moore | SOUND |
>><jmoore%40northstation.net><jmoore%40northstation.net>
>><<http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/>http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/><http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/>http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
--
|