I can understand where you are coming from Rob regards making backups. What=
I find so great about the TimeCapsule approach is it just does it without =
any input from you. I still carry out a clone of my hard drive with SuperDu=
per and I also burn DVD's of files. All as an insurance, but the TimeCapsul=
e is always there and the files are so easy to locate.
The other day I was checking a file I had worked on, probably too late at n=
ight and decided I have over cooked it. Open TimeCapsule and I quickly loca=
ted an unadulterated file and was able to recover my position very quickly.=
I had the file on some DVD somewhere but the TC makes it very easy to trav=
el through the file history.
Horses for courses I suppose, I used to just rely on DVD's and CDR's to bac=
k data up on, as well as separate hard drives, and I still do as you have t=
o protect against the 'what if' scenario. But with something like TC it wil=
l make recovery a lot quicker and simpler. But if the worst case scenario h=
appened, as mentioned, then I can piece it together from the other copies.
Phil
--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
>
> 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.
> >
> >=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
> >
> >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 e=
very
> >>few years to new media. In addition to allowing verification, this will
> >>allow bridging the various gaps presented by constantly shifting storag=
e
> >>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 t=
o
> >>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 individua=
l
> >>pieces of media. This saves time and labor downstream as each piece nee=
ds
> >>to be cataloged and stored.
> >>
> >>- easy to copy a significant chunk of archived material in one move, sa=
ving
> > >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 t=
he
> >>work involved. Typical doc film mix would involve backing up to eight o=
r
> >>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 b=
e
> >>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 syste=
m, 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 moun=
t
> >>> 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>jmo=
> >><<http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/>http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/><http://w=
ww.jeremiahmoore.com/>http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
>
|