cloud back-up?

[AlanKlein]

You can buy a 4 TB hard drive for $150-$200.

Western Digital has a My Passport USB 2 or 3 plug and play 4TB for $99 less 10% sale price. You can get a 5TB for $119.

https://www.westerndigital.com/products/portable-drives/wd-my-passport-usb-3-0-hdd#WDBPKJ0050BBK-WESN

[AlanKlein]

I use them to back up my desktop and it;s convenient to remove the USB connection and take it somewhere else. No external power is required. Back-up software from Acronis and Western Digital are included.

[dcstep]

You can install a NAS anywhere you like, and make it accessible (to only you and whoever else you choose) via the web.

Cloud storage is the same thing, just on a larger scale, and with access to your data entrusted to someone you have to pay.

 

So get a NAS, install it at home, as local storage. Connect it to the web.

Get another one, as back up, and install that at your business address or similar. Connect that one to the web too.

And attach USB drives to the NAS units, for local back up as well.

Overly redundant, at multiple sites, accessible from anywhere where you can use the internet, your data and access to it not made dependent on someone else, and cheap.

 

Mirroring to an external drive only works when there is not a lot on your computer to mirror. A NAS will become the best local option very quickly, as data amounts grow.

 

Not seeing where it's less expensive, UNLESS you've got a second location that you have free access to. $60 per year is hard to beat and management is handed off to professionals. BB is painless, except for the management fee.

[Ken Katz]

How much does 2 NAS drives cost and how much technical expertise do you need in order to acquire, setup and maintain. Do duel NAS drives make sense if you don't readily have a remote location for one of them?

 

This is relevant to me since I need to implement a backup solution quite soon and so practicality, cost, and minimizing brain damage are my main decision factors. Security is also a factor, but since I don't have any nuclear launch codes (just personal tax returns), I don't think I would be a specific target for hacking. Right now I am leaning towards BB, especially to minimize brain damage on my part.

[samstevens]

I don't have any nuclear launch codes (just personal tax returns), I don't think I would be a specific target for hacking. Right now I am leaning towards BB, especially to minimize brain damage on my part.

LOL. And those codes would probably be more secure in your hands or on a BB backup than some places they’ve more recently been! Like you, from what I’ve read here, I’ll be looking into BB. Since I also have hard backups of my photos, I’m not concerned with the very unlikely scenario that BB is out to abscond with my body of work which, along with $2.50, will buy someone a subway ride from the East Village to Coney Island. And thanks to all who’ve contributed.

[q.g._de_bakker]

One NAS in one location already provides a 'cloud'. A simple mirroring RAID using two disks in a NAS will already provide a backup, that is synchronised automatically and will survive failure of one disk without interrupting your access to your files.

 

NAS software comes with all options you need to set it up, both as a storage pool and as a web-accessible device. That includes enough explanations of how to do things. And there are forums that provide as much help as PNET does for photographers.

Once setup, the only thing you need to do is update the NAS software periodically. And that too is done by the NAS unit itself.

 

NAS software also provides backup options that help backup the NAS unattended to an external drive. That provides a next level of security.

 

Duplicating the setup in another location (office, your garage, at familiy, friends or the neighbours) will make it even more secure.

 

Initial costs of a NAS are, of course, relatively high (and there is a wide range, from cheap and simple two bay units, to expensive more advanced units that take more disks.) But after purchase the only costs are for electricity and internet.

A, for me, big advantage is that you keep your data private, do not trust it to some company that may do anything. Including have outages, or go out of business, cutting you off from your data, unless you keep a local store. Hacking is not the worst thing that might happen. Not having access is also quite annoying.

And then you're back to the question what the best way to arrange local storage might be. And when you have some TBs to store, a NAS presents itself as a good choice again.

[paddler4]

Ken,

 

If you want something cheap and easy, use an external hard drive (as Alan said, $100) and sync software for one mirrored copy and something like Backblaze for a cloud backup.

 

I don't know whether you use a mac or a pc, and the sync software differs. I use a PC, and there are loads of options. Microsoft's synctoy is free but a little kludgy. I like to sync from within a good 2-pane file manager that allows me to see one disk in one pane and the other disk in the other. I use Director Opus Pro, which is an extremely powerful and flexible file manager, but it costs about US $62. There are cheaper options. Tim Gray recommends Goodsync Backup Cleanup with GoodSync – Ask Tim Grey

 

Personally, I find a mirrored copy much easier to work with than a backup, so I use the cloud backup as my option of last resort.

 

Dan

[AlanKlein]

Ken,

 

If you want something cheap and easy, use an external hard drive (as Alan said, $100) and sync software for one mirrored copy and something like Backblaze for a cloud backup.

 

I don't know whether you use a mac or a pc, and the sync software differs. I use a PC, and there are loads of options. Microsoft's synctoy is free but a little kludgy. I like to sync from within a good 2-pane file manager that allows me to see one disk in one pane and the other disk in the other. I use Director Opus Pro, which is an extremely powerful and flexible file manager, but it costs about US $62. There are cheaper options. Tim Gray recommends Goodsync Backup Cleanup with GoodSync – Ask Tim Grey

 

Personally, I find a mirrored copy much easier to work with than a backup, so I use the cloud backup as my option of last resort.

 

Dan

What's the difference between a mirrored copy and a backup?

[paddler4]

A mirror is a simple copy, where the file is treated as intact. You can simply drag from one disk to another. A backup stores fragments of files; if you only change certain sectors, those are stored in an incremental backup. The restore process reassembles the pieces.

[q.g._de_bakker]

What's the difference between a mirrored copy and a backup?

There is no difference, except that a mirrored copy is an exact copy of a drive, while a backup may be only a copy of a selected part of what is on your drive.

 

When you write a file to, or remove from, or replace or move a file on a mirrored RAID, it is done on both copies. An automatic backup: every action is performed on both drives.

A backup procedure compares selected folders or entire drives, and copies new or altered files from the main drive to the backup drive.

[paddler4]

There is no difference, except that a mirrored copy is an exact copy of a drive, while a backup may be only a copy of a selected part of what is on your drive.

 

This is not entirely correct. Most often, backup software creates "incremental" backups--that is, it copies only what has changed since the last backup. In the case of large files, this means that new or modified sectors will be copied, but unchanged sectors won't be. All sectors are present in the copy or backup either way, but in the case of a backup, the software has to reassemble the pieces. The end result is the same, but it's a bit more cumbersome because one has to tell the backup software to restore the file, rather than simply dragging it from the mirror.

[dcstep]

One NAS in one location already provides a 'cloud'. A simple mirroring RAID using two disks in a NAS will already provide a backup, that is synchronised automatically and will survive failure of one disk without interrupting your access to your files.

 

NAS software comes with all options you need to set it up, both as a storage pool and as a web-accessible device. That includes enough explanations of how to do things. And there are forums that provide as much help as PNET does for photographers.

Once setup, the only thing you need to do is update the NAS software periodically. And that too is done by the NAS unit itself.

 

NAS software also provides backup options that help backup the NAS unattended to an external drive. That provides a next level of security.

 

Duplicating the setup in another location (office, your garage, at familiy, friends or the neighbours) will make it even more secure.

 

Initial costs of a NAS are, of course, relatively high (and there is a wide range, from cheap and simple two bay units, to expensive more advanced units that take more disks.) But after purchase the only costs are for electricity and internet.

A, for me, big advantage is that you keep your data private, do not trust it to some company that may do anything. Including have outages, or go out of business, cutting you off from your data, unless you keep a local store. Hacking is not the worst thing that might happen. Not having access is also quite annoying.

And then you're back to the question what the best way to arrange local storage might be. And when you have some TBs to store, a NAS presents itself as a good choice again.

 

This IS a good option for those that have a second location and a little bit of technical savvy.

 

OTOH, a 16TB USB HD is under $500, one time and requires almost no experience to hook up and manage. The initial back up to BackBlaze takes a while (limited by your internet upload speed), but the software manages that process seamlessly.

[AlanKlein]

This is not entirely correct. Most often, backup software creates "incremental" backups--that is, it copies only what has changed since the last backup. In the case of large files, this means that new or modified sectors will be copied, but unchanged sectors won't be. All sectors are present in the copy or backup either way, but in the case of a backup, the software has to reassemble the pieces. The end result is the same, but it's a bit more cumbersome because one has to tell the backup software to restore the file, rather than simply dragging it from the mirror.

MY Acronic backup app allows different types including incremental, etc etc. Which is the best method to select? For my use, I would like to be in a position where years later I don't need the backup software to reassemble it in case that app isn't around. So for example. There's a file on my backup disk that I want to copy and paste into my new computer. I don't want to use the "restore" option in the backup software. I may not even have that software anymore. So what's the best way to handle backups?

[paddler4]

Alan,

 

There are several kinds of backups. You can find an explanation here: https://www.partitionwizard.com/clone-disk/types-of-backup.html

 

No service is going to do a full backup every time. That would take days or weeks. They will do either incremental or differential, I think usually the former because it's quicker and takes less space. A differential backup gets progressively longer.

 

None of these do what you want. What you want is a mirror: a copy of the relevant drive. That's why I use a mirror for my first "backup" and a true backup for the second. What de-bakker is suggesting is also a mirrored copy, just using different devices.

 

I have a new desktop on order. When it arrives, I'll first install my file manager / synch program of choice, and then I'll simply drag the folders I want from the mirror on my external HD to my new computer. This won't take care of everything; I'll still need to install sofware, set program paramters, yada yada. But all I have to do to put all of my photos onto the new computer is one drag and drop. I can also be selective if I want; I can put some files into different locations on the new drive with no difficulty. It's all simple, and there is nothing obscure.

 

I use the online true backup as a last resort. I have used it on rare occasions--e.g., if I mess up a file on the mirror as well.

 

Dan

[q.g._de_bakker]

To keep things simple, and still correct: a backup is just another copy of (in this instance) files you do not want to lose. No more.

 

Yes, there are a few different methods to create a backup. But that does not mean there are different types of backup: it still is a spare copy (or several copies) of something you do not want to lose.

The different methods deal with the task of minimizing the time and effort it takes to create a backup, as well as the time and effort it takes to restore a file from the backup should you indeed lose a file (or more).

Edited May 11, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[paddler4]

But that does not mean there are different types of backup:

 

Actually, it does. There are lots of types, and they store data differently. See, for example, this description. Regardless of the method used, the software will have a method for re-assembling the pieces.

 

Alan, this disagreement is irrelevant to your question. If you want to be able to access the copies without using a restore function, a mirror (copy) is your answer. But if your only concern is being able to retrieve the file by some method, either will work.

 

The file manager I used for my mirror, Directory Opus, makes this extremely simple. I have it configured so the active window comprises three panels: one on the left that shows the directory tree, and then two larger panels that show specific parts of the structure, both directories and files. I have all of the photos in my active catalog under one parent directories named "photos". So I just set the middle and left panel to the same part of \photos on the different drives, and drag from the copy to the mail disk. Trivially easy. It also allows you to compare file dates.

[dcstep]

To keep things simple, and still correct: a backup is just another copy of (in this instance) files you do not want to lose. No more.

 

Yes, there are a few different methods to create a backup. But that does not mean there are different types of backup: it still is a spare copy (or several copies) of something you do not want to lose.

The different methods deal with the task of minimizing the time and effort it takes to create a backup, as well as the time and effort it takes to restore a file from the backup should you indeed lose a file (or more).

 

The KEY is off-site vs. on-site.

 

I have two friends that have totally lost valuable archives of their lives' work, that were backed up on-site, one due to fire and one due to flood.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The KEY is off-site vs. on-site.

 

I have two friends that have totally lost valuable archives of their lives' work, that were backed up on-site, one due to fire and one due to flood.

So put the duplicate "setup in another location (office, your garage, at familiy, friends or the neighbours)". Make it accessible over the internet, and you can have your personal cloud.

 

The 'key' is to have both on and off site storage. What if that off-site location burns down or gets flooded?

[samstevens]

DC, meet brick wall … :)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Can you imagine qg going round his mate’s house and saying

 

hi buddy, don’t mind me, I’m just gonna set up my NAS in your dining room and ponce a bit of electricity while it’s running. Ok?

Very telling post, Ludmilla.

[Niels - NHSN]

What did serious photographers do in the film days?

Prints on-site, negatives off-site?

Enthusiast photographers probably didn't sweat too much over that, at least I didn't.

 

I have many things in my home, impossible to replicate or copy, that I would feel more sad about loosing in a disaster over my measly efforts as a photographer.

 

Certainly, with the technology available and cheap, no reason not to spread out the risk if one feels strongly about it, but no need to bloat it out of proportions the either.

[dcstep]

DC, meet brick wall … :)

 

Yeah, LOL, Sam. Anyway, I think most readers can understand the options.

[samstevens]

What did serious photographers do in the film days?

Prints on-site, negatives off-site?

Enthusiast photographers probably didn't sweat too much over that, at least I didn't.

 

I have many things in my home, impossible to replicate or copy, that I would feel more sad about loosing in a disaster over my measly efforts as a photographer.

 

Certainly, with the technology available and cheap, no reason not to spread out the risk if one feels strongly about it, but no need to bloat it out of proportions the either.

Good points.

 

Still, times and technology have changed. Since protecting and storing photos has become so much easier, no one really has to sweat too much to do so.

 

Best not to let discussions and arguments on PN fool us into thinking everyone concerns themselves will all these nuances. Most “enthusiasts” may not back up their work or will do so with a minimum of thought and probably be just fine. People who take their photos more seriously will do more research and there are a variety of suitable options out there for backup.

 

Like you, I have some things more important than my photos that are one-of-a-kind and can’t really be backed up. Family heirlooms and mementos and such. But those things don’t get in the way of my backing up photos.

 

I imagine most would not consider their garage or neighbor’s house offsite enough, since fires and floods, a concern for many, are as likely to affect your garage and neighbor’s house as yours. Thus the idea that the cloud is more remote, and thus more safe … with the knowledge that there are few perfect guarantees in life.

[dcstep]

About being an "enthusiast" versus a pro. I had over a TB of images and RAW files before I got serious about backup. After being with Getty Images since 2010, I finally started selling large prints (50" and larger). Before I became a serious enthusiast this time around, starting with my first digital camera in 2007, I'd been serious back in the '50s, '60s and '70s, but let that fade after my equipment was stolen. I reawakened in 2007, with my first small sensor digital, when I realized how I could easily process. I moved to full frame in 2008 and strove for 100% quality from day-one. Today, I'm selling prints from 2008, 2011, etc. My printer and I are talking about a 60+" version of my favorite Grand Canyon in snow shot. Even though I was selling prints, or even printing for myself, I felt like I should make the effort to create the best files that I could, because you never know what you'll do in the future.

 

Of course, I was spending 20 to 30-hours per week, so I was problem beyond most average "enthusiasts" at the start of that reawakening. Still, I think that striving for the best quality that you can manage can really pay off down the road. Luckily, I got serious about backup well before my HD crashed with 7-TB of images. The RAW files of everything on the walls of our gallery would have been lost. In some cases I could make do with the high-rez JPEGs, but I prefer to go back to my files for another look at each printing.

 

Still, my point is, "enthusiasts" can take some really special images. I was an enthusiast when I was at the Grand Canyon and it snowed. Now, as a part-time pro, I'm glad that I took the steps that made those images "professional level."

 

Oh, while talking about "back up", I save all of my "keepers" at full resolution JPEGs on Flickr. I consider Flickr and tertiary backup. I don't have the RAW file, but those full rez JPEG usually only need small tweaks for printing, or sales on Getty Images (mostly internet and some print publications). Thanks to Getty, I've been published in Field & Stream, Travel & Leisure, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, etc..

[paddler4]

Like you, I have some things more important than my photos that are one-of-a-kind and can’t really be backed up. Family heirlooms and mementos and such.

 

I've finally started digitizing some very old family photos--most going back only to the 1940s or 1930s, but one dating from roughly 1885--and doing a little digital restoration. It's slow going, and I won't get all that many done, but every one I complete is immediately backed up twice, so there are three digital copies of it as well as any prints I make.