Best way to back up 50GB or more worth of files?

[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)

Edited June 20, 2006 by crahak

[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.com/topic/punched-tape

Edited June 20, 2006 by RJM

[ripken204]

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.

[Delprat]

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

That's a common mistake. I have CD-R, first generation (when CD burners were at least as costly as BD burners now) that proven to be more robust than HD bought within the same period (it were old HD... less than 500 MB). Noticeable thing is that both CD-R and HD were "low-cost" ones !

I presume that this year's HDs are more robust ; but optical discs are also.

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)...

Who wants to burn slow ? I burn slow and leave comp away. Especially for something like a backup !

Again, you're making strange comparisons... neglicting that HD heads read/writes operations are far more complex than optical read/write ! Imagine that each time the HD needs to read a bit, it must re-write it after (including error correction bits) ! It involves MUCH more operations than for an optical disc, thus dramatically increasing the risk of error (this is meaning that checking if a HD has errors can create errors, whereas checking if a CD has errors won't).

Indeed, no optical burn is ever perfect. Same thing for magnetic write.

Indeed, optical drives have lots of error correction features. But no more than HD.

You're talking a lot about disc manipulation : this has nothing to do with its reliability ! Can you imagine manipulating a magnetic plate by hand ? No ? So keep the disc in its box, and you avoid half of these problems. Use a drive that accept optical cartdriges, and you avoid half of the rest. Store you disc in an appropriate place, and you avoid half of the rest.

What remains ? well... you'll need a lot of imagination to find, and even more malchance to do !

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

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

Here comes an enormous misconception !

Imagine that a car, a train, an elevator are faraday cages. But you can use your cell phone when you're into. Easy for a car or a train, a bit tricky for mosts elevators.

Nearly no faraday cage is perfect (never "took electricity" when trying to open your car in a windy day ?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage (read the part about microwave oven, it's the more interesting in this case)

Obviously, the HD box is robust. But if the disk stay (like backup disks usually do), errors can occur. (did you noticed that most backup software adds software error correction checks ?)

[sonu27]

External HDD, I recomment WD My Book HDD, available in various sizes.

[TranceEnergy]

This is simple. Buy another harddrive , 1tb drives here are cheap, get a decent usb2/fireware box to keep it in, with preferrably built in ac adaptor or such so u dont have to drag that along to. Simply connect usb/fw to computer, start backup, disconnect drive, put it back in the closet/drawer, and put a small note to self, backup done.

[specialbao1]

I have not tried it out myself

But i have heard about

http://kgbarchiver.net/

that can compress ten gb into 10 mb if PAQ7 compression is selected.

[specialbao1]

Are there external hard disks available that can store data up to 120gb?

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Sh*tLoads of them look on ebay and newegg. You can get over 500 gig ones!

[specialbao1]

Thankyou.

Ordered a new external hard disk

[bledd]

just buy an icybox (the 390 model is awesome, has usb2 and esata), and buy a samsung hard drive for it

£120 ($240 ish) for 1000gb in an icybox in the uk

[RJM]

specialbao1,

It's up to paq8.08 now and it will only take 12 hours to compress 316MB to 64MB. I don't think I'd want to wait as long as it would take to

compress 50GB.

KGB1.1(paq6) only takes 4.3 hours to do the same file to 75MB.

http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf.php

Edited May 27, 2008 by RJM

[specialbao1]

But if you try it yourself you will know the difference.I compressed 1gb into 3.19MB

But time taken was 27hours

Edited May 27, 2008 by specialbao1