Best memory for your memories
By now you've probably dumped your pictures off of your digital camera, and onto your hard drive. Everything from the 3rd grade Christmas musical, the kids sitting on Santa's lap, putting the cookies out for Santa, opening the presents, etc, etc — all six-hundred of them.
You certainly don't want to lose them; you want to keep them safe in the photo drawer, along with the pictures of your great-great grandfather that came over on the boat 100 years ago. But right now, they're on your hard drive, which could crash in the next minute, week, or two years from now.
You do archive these treasures somewhere safe, right?
Since most computers come with CD or DVD burners, most people — if they're doing backups at all — are backing them up onto CD-R's or DVD-R's. I also know people who've spent a small fortune transferring their old Super-8 film reels onto DVDs
Enjoy them now, because they'll likely be gone in 5 years.
In Do Burned CDs Have a Short Life Span?, we find out that burned discs will last 2-5 years. You're best bet is magnetic tape which typically has a 30-100 year life span.
I'm sure both of those figures assume ideal storage conditions. I'm also going to suggest that you need to make sure that you're using good quality media and hardware to ensure that you're making good archive copies to start with. Years ago, I had been lured into the inexpensive (<$100) tape drive hardware offered by Iomega. We got four of them at the office. Three out of the four were either DOA, or so marginal in quality that we couldn't get a verifiable backup out of them. I swore them off. Iomega later became well known for their inexpensive Zip drives. Removable disks which you could use to backup and transport data. These earned a lot of notoriety for a mis-feature known as the Click Of Death (also here)
You get what you pay for. So perhaps you should spend good money on a tape drive (at least a few hundred dollars) and a few hundred dollars on good quality tapes. You will also need to hope that in 30-100 years that your great-great grandkids will have the technology to read that tape and to decipher what's on it. By then they'll be using some miniature compact flash cards that store Duotrigintillion bytes of data, and you will buy them in 50-packs for $15.99.
Or maybe do what I've been doing for the last 10-15 years. It's all on my hard drive. It's all backed up onto another hard drive, either on the same machine or in another machine that I have on my network at home... Or both. In three years, I'll have a new computer with a drive that's 3 times bigger than the one that I have. So I'll plug that one into my network, copy everything important to it, and then make sure that I keep that one backed up somewhere at all times.
In other words, I'm not putting anything onto disc or tape and expecting it to stick around in a drawer somewhere. I keep the data with me and it just keeps hopping from old hardware to new hardware, and I keep multiple copies on various machines. Slim chance of two or three hard drives going down at once. Have a large external hard drive so that you can keep a copy at work also.
Need a great utility to help keep your data synced or backed up in different drives and across a network? I found SyncBackSE which is a superb tool.
UPDATE: Brett Levy already covered this territory in Shelter for the storm of digital photos, in the LA Times.


5 Comments:
At 12:16 AM, K. Todd Storch said…
You bring up a number of great points. First of all, not many people back up their data and now that there are fewer and fewer hard copies of photos being printed out, all those memories are going to be lost after a hard drive crash.
I bought a 250MB Iomega hard drive that I back up each week with my photos and music (your iTunes and .mp3's are at risk as well if you don't have the CD's...).
Tape drives, huh? I haven't backed up to tape since my PC back in the mid-90's. So, do I need to buy another hard drive and begin a backup rotation system where I keep a master offsite?
I do think a network server backup is a good bet, but what if the host company folds?
And, improved technology does pose a bigger threat due to incompatability in the near future. All the stuff I have on 3 1/2 discs are nearly worthless because I don't even have a disc drive anymore...
Can I just download this data and files into my own brain? Hmm...you know that is coming...
Thanks,
Todd
At 2:42 PM, Mark Sicignano said…
We've got a tape backup at the office. We back our server up nightly with a simple 4-tape rotation. Occasionally, we do a full backup to tape and take it offsite.
For my critical files (such as Quicken data, tax info, etc), I have an automated backup, using SyncBackSE, that copies the files up to an FTP server. Knock on wood, my hard drive doesn't crash at the same time that my host goes belly-up and takes the data with them. :-)
You bring up a good point. All of those MP3s too. It doesn't help that images and music are *big* files.
Maybe we just need to come up with a plan to "rotate" media that we've backed up on CD's to newer CD's every couple of years to ensure that they aren't fading. That will also teach us to try to be less of a packrat as well. :-)
RAID is nice, but that doesn't account for theft or physical destruction of that computer.
No simple solutions here that all of the possible disasters. Some combination of redudant copies on hard drives and occasional offsite backups, and don't rely on archival media. It's name is a misnomer.
Good to hear from you Todd.
At 12:35 AM, brettdl said…
Mark, I wrote an article on this for the Times a few months ago. Here's the link.
At 3:55 AM, Phil said…
I'm really glad to read this, and Brett's article... I've always backed up and printed out the best photos, but it's important to be diligent about the family photos.
I'm also concerned about music... 25,000 MP3 files. The original CDs are long gone, sold off on eBay to reduce clutter. I've backed up my music collection onto DVDs, but if they last only two years... Yikes! Placing all these files on multiple hard drives sure sounds like the best way to go.
We have about 3,000 family pictures, with maybe 500 of those being actual keepers and not just similar shots or scenery. It would be worth the money to pay snapfish for 4x6 prints of those 500 pictures. It would only be about $100 and would give additional peace of mind.
At 9:39 AM, Mark Sicignano said…
Yes, printing 4x6's is cheaper than ever. I think a role of 35mm is around $9-10 for 24 exp.
At digital prices, you're talking about $5 for that same 24... and the best part is you only have to print the ones that came out nice, so it's even less expensive... Yes, archiving to paper is a must also.
Now I just have to find the time to upload those prints. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home