Windows 8.1, bitlocker and backups, oh my!

<p>I've recently built a new computer and installed Windows 8.1 Pro as my OS. My system has a 256gb SSD for just the OS and applications, a 256gb SSD for the LR catalog and previews, and for now a 2TB drive for photos, with the ability expand that storage capability in the future as it becomes necessary. I'm curious if others here are using the bitlocker encryption capabilities that come with this version of Windows - are you encrypting your drives with photos, lightroom catalog, and OS? Are there any implications for performing backups from an encrypted drive? Any hints, tips, suggestions for Windows 8.1 are welcome. </p>

<p>As far as protection (encryption) is concerned, you are just keeping dumb people out. Big brother (cops, etc) all have overrides for that stuff. You would need some custom code to keep them away.</p>

<p>The reality is your data is not really encrypted while your pc is running. It is seamlessly decrypted/encrypted as programs try to access the data because you booted up with the correct password (or whatever). All the normal ways for thiefs to get your data is still in play, via virus and the like. What you need to be protect is probably already on the cloud. </p>

<p>So why complicate life? Most thieves that steel laptops and the like strip it anyway. It takes too much time to dig for anything useful.</p>

<p>Of course, this is only my opinion. Locks are just for honest people.</p>

<p>I agree with Peter, why do you need to encrypt your photos? Are they of secret activities or places? No, then don't bother.<br>

I back up my files (photos, music, documents, etc) with a file copy utility that simply makes a duplicate on the backup disk. That way no software is required to recover a lost or corrupted file, and I can actually just plug the backup disk (an external USB HD) into a computer and keep working if worse comes to worse.<br>

Common practice is to have three copies of every file you want to protect, one on your working drive, one on a local backup drive, and one on a backup drive stored off site. Your level of real protection depends on how often you back up and how often you swap the local backup for the remote.<br>

<Chas><br /><br /></p>

<p>I would say don't use Bitlocker, or other encryptions, unless you know how to save your encryption codes. I once decided to reload my OS because it had been in use for years. I had a drive with EPS encryption set (came with Windows XP Professional), even though it was just a data drive, and I know the files were there, there was literally no way to access the files because the encryption codes weren't backed up and there is no way to recreate them under a different OS. Something as simple as an operating system crash on another drive can cause a data drive to be unreadable. Really stinks losing pictures of your infant son, and other family events. Luckily, most of the files were backed up somewhere else as well, but some were just lost.</p>

<p>I don't use BitLocker, and for my personal PC, I see completely no use for it either, for the reasons the others gave already. It adds overhead (unless you have one of the few SSD drives that support hardware-base decryption), and you'd be encrypting data that is hardly sensitive.<br>

My work notebook used to have encryption, and there it surely made sense as these notebooks could get lost during travel and contained sensitive documents. This is the scenario for which BitLocker is meant for most of all - enterprise systems with sensitive data, to keep the dumb people away, as Peter described. And it works well in that scenario (with pretty good recovery methods, though it's never as easy as un encrypted drive). It's not much added value for single users.</p>

 

<p>I don't have very much I need to encrypt, but I use AxCrypt for the nuclear launch codes and such. It works on the fly and is unrelated to the Windows OS. It wouldn't stop Edward Snowden, but it would stop a lot of people. And the FBI would just blame North Korea anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My system has a 256gb SSD for just the OS and applications, a 256gb SSD for the LR catalog and previews</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I'd keep the catalog and previews on the same drive as the os. I would however move the "My Pictures" folder over to the second ssd and do your importing and exporting with it. I also moved my dropbox, google drive, and onedrive over to the second ssd so that c drive didn't filled up to quickly</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughts and perspective folks, we live in a world of paranoia so its good to hear some common sense being applied.<br>

@Eric, i'm curious about your suggestions here. How big is my catalog with previews likely to be? As is, with even just a few programs and the OS installed the system drive is already at 1/2 full. In fact, if I had followed typical suggestions to use a 120gb drive for the C:\ drive, i'd already be at capacity. My thinking was to keep the catalog along with previews on its own drive and not compete for space with the system drive. Since most recommendations are to fill SSDs to about 75% capacity, i'm already 2/3s of the way to where that drive could start running into performance issues. As for keeping my photos on the SSD, my reading has suggested that SSDs are best suited for objects that are being accessed alot and are fairly dynamic. Since photos are relatively static objects, and will only grow in volume over time, probably soon outstripping the space available on a modest sized SSD, it seems that putting these on the HDD is a better approach. Perhaps this is a workflow issue - are you only keeping a limited number of photos in your catalog at any given time? I'm new to working with lightroom, so perhaps I'm confused about how this is supposed to work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My thinking was to keep the catalog along with previews on its own drive and not compete for space with the system drive.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The catalog and previews are fairly small, when all things are considered. You have to becareful of your backup folder though as it can grow fairly large if you don't keep an eye on it. I delete my previews all the time, as well.<br>

<br>

It's in my experience that the OS and LR performs better if the catalog and preview files are all on the same ssd drive together; the c drive. I've also have better performance when the photo files are not on the same ssd as the OS and LR and therefore use d drive to import and export. I use two different drives because of read/write conflicts. Having everything all on one ssd, like when using a laptop or iMac, is a lot of work to ask for one ssd so I put the read and write duties of the images onto their ssd. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps this is a workflow issue - are you only keeping a limited number of photos in your catalog at any given time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. Well, sorta :)</p>

<p>Christopher, I use Bitlocker all the time for USB drives and laptops, since they are somewhat likely to get stolen or lost. I use the same (somewhat long) password for all of these Bitlocker devices, and have left a copy of it in the safe.</p>

<p>I keep all my photos on a separate 3TB drive from my 120GB OS SSD. It gets a (differential) backup every night.</p>

<p>As a Mac user coming to Window 98 back when it was fairly new, I decided to try something different.<br>

I just staked myself out naked at the crossroads and let Microsoft (and the others) do what they would with me.</p>

<p>Auto-updates - surely Mama knew best, eh?</p>

<p>I got news for you. It's not a winning strategy. YMMV</p>

<p>It's not even a good idea with Apple - </p>

 

<p>Eric, thanks for the suggestion - I'll look closer at that and see what I can find about optimal configurations, though I think past research suggests the differences stemming from where the catalog goes is six of one and half dozen of the other.<br>

Alan, that seems like a reasonable strategy, I've moved away from a laptop so the portability factor isn't nearly as much of an issue for me - though if someone breaks in and has enough incentive to take my case I they could get all my stuff. I"m not worried about Big Brother either.<br>

JDM - as murky and impenetrable remark as I'd expect from an archaeologist!</p>

<p dir="ltr">Here's a couple great articles I followed.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">"However, we should also note that Lightroom will always run slightly better when the catalog and cache is on the fastest drive available, even if that drive is also the operating system drive. Splitting the catalog and cache did not improve performance even when both drives were SSDs."</p>

<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-lr5-lr4-hardware-performance-test-review/" target="_blank">http://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-lr5-lr4-hardware-performance-test-review/</a></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">"The best compromise between photo load times and storage capacity is configuration 3. That is, the application, catalog, previews and Camera Raw cache are all located on the SSD with photos being stored on the conventional disk drive."</p>

<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance/" target="_blank">http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance/</a></p>

<p dir="ltr"><br /> And the above conclusion is what I found as well except that I use ssd instead of a conventional mechanical hdd. On my most recent computer build, I started off with everything on the C drive ssd and Lr was okay. I then moved "my pictures" to the D drive ssd and used it for ingestion and exporting, and it improved Lr performance somewhat. I wouldn't say it was huge, but it was over or 5% and noticeable.</p>

<p>If one is building or buying a computer for Lr, the biggest favour they can do for themselves is to get the fastest (clock speed) cpu possible. The number of cores, amount of ram, and ssd's are all secondary to having a fast cpu. I watercooled and then overclocked my i7 to 4.4ghz and Lr is awesome.</p>

<p>Again, thanks Eric - I read those articles among the many I'd perused when considering my uses and needs and found them helpful. In my build, which I did just this last week (http://pcpartpicker.com/user/cltmaps/saved/Ydw8TW) I was trying to balance cost against performance and went with an i5-4690K processor because the cost difference between the i7 and i5(about $100)didn't seem warranted for the slight gain its native speed might offer, particularly since I found a really good buy on the i5. I will be working on an overclock once the holidays are done and life returns to normal - will be interesting to see how that works out.</p>

<p>You're welcome Christopher. I hope the new rig serves you well. I'm two years on my i7-2600K overclocked to 4.4ghz and not a glitch or hiccup. This has been the best Windows computer I've owned. I went with a Corsair water-cooler and consequently, using fewer fans made it quieter as well as less dog hair in the case! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>JDM - as murky and impenetrable remark as I'd expect from an archaeologist!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm personally feeling not so much "murky" as feeling I'm over subtle, but that depends on where you're standing I guess.<br>

I was merely illustrating the point metaphorically that there is no reason to rush to updates and toward simultaneously using all the new features before you've got the fundamentals under control.</p>