What's the best way to store over 400 GB of digital photos?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3












My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3












My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago













up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3






3





My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?







digital storage file-transfer






share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









Dan Barkhorn

191




191




New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago








1




1




What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
– null
4 hours ago




What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
– null
4 hours ago




1




1




Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
– xiota
4 hours ago






Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
– xiota
4 hours ago






1




1




Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
– Fábio Dias
4 hours ago




Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
– Fábio Dias
4 hours ago




1




1




@Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
– Hueco
3 hours ago




@Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
– Hueco
3 hours ago




1




1




It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
– WClarke
2 hours ago




It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
– WClarke
2 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






share|improve this answer























  • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
    – Fábio Dias
    2 hours ago










  • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
    – twalberg
    2 hours ago










  • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
    – xenoid
    2 hours ago












  • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
    – Fábio Dias
    2 hours ago










  • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
    – Nobody
    1 hour ago


















up vote
2
down vote













The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



Both methods have pros and cons.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



    https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



      All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



      If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



      With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



      Hope this helps.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 2




        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
        – R..
        2 hours ago












      • @R.., I have a small RAID system on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my photos (and all the rest of my data as well.) I don't understand why a RAID "does not serve as a backup" because that seems to be exactly what I've been doing for years.
        – CramerTV
        26 mins ago




















      up vote
      0
      down vote













      The general reccomendation is a 3-2-1 Backup strategy, meaning you have 3 copies: 2 local, 1 offsite. Here's one way:




      • Get a NAS appliance (like a Drobo) to protect against a disk crash


        • (or just an external disk, with no disk failure protection)



      • Add an Apple Time Machine to get your 2nd local copy.

      • Use some service like CrashPlan, BackBlaze, Amazon Prime, ... to do offsite backups.


      The downside to these off-the-shelf solutions is they do not protect against bit rot on the disks. To get that, best I can tell, you'll need to do something custom like periodically running par2 or deploying a custom FreeNAS appliance with ZFS.






      share|improve this answer





















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "61"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });






        Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103412%2fwhats-the-best-way-to-store-over-400-gb-of-digital-photos%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        5
        down vote













        Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



        I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



        Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



        For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






        share|improve this answer























        • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
          – twalberg
          2 hours ago










        • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
          – xenoid
          2 hours ago












        • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
          – Nobody
          1 hour ago















        up vote
        5
        down vote













        Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



        I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



        Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



        For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






        share|improve this answer























        • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
          – twalberg
          2 hours ago










        • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
          – xenoid
          2 hours ago












        • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
          – Nobody
          1 hour ago













        up vote
        5
        down vote










        up vote
        5
        down vote









        Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



        I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



        Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



        For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






        share|improve this answer














        Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



        I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



        Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



        For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 hours ago









        Philip Kendall

        16.4k44881




        16.4k44881










        answered 3 hours ago









        twalberg

        2,120511




        2,120511












        • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
          – twalberg
          2 hours ago










        • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
          – xenoid
          2 hours ago












        • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
          – Nobody
          1 hour ago


















        • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
          – twalberg
          2 hours ago










        • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
          – xenoid
          2 hours ago












        • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
          – Fábio Dias
          2 hours ago










        • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
          – Nobody
          1 hour ago
















        And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago




        And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago












        @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
        – twalberg
        2 hours ago




        @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
        – twalberg
        2 hours ago












        Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
        – xenoid
        2 hours ago






        Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
        – xenoid
        2 hours ago














        @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago




        @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago












        This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
        – Nobody
        1 hour ago




        This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
        – Nobody
        1 hour ago












        up vote
        2
        down vote













        The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



        You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



        The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



        Both methods have pros and cons.






        share|improve this answer

























          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



          You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



          The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



          Both methods have pros and cons.






          share|improve this answer























            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



            You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



            The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



            Both methods have pros and cons.






            share|improve this answer












            The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



            You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



            The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



            Both methods have pros and cons.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 3 hours ago









            Rafael

            13.3k12141




            13.3k12141






















                up vote
                0
                down vote













                With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



                https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote













                  With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



                  https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote









                    With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



                    https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



                    https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031







                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer






                    New contributor




                    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered 4 hours ago









                    Mathias

                    1




                    1




                    New contributor




                    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                        All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                        If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                        With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                        Hope this helps.






                        share|improve this answer

















                        • 2




                          RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                          – R..
                          2 hours ago












                        • @R.., I have a small RAID system on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my photos (and all the rest of my data as well.) I don't understand why a RAID "does not serve as a backup" because that seems to be exactly what I've been doing for years.
                          – CramerTV
                          26 mins ago

















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                        All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                        If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                        With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                        Hope this helps.






                        share|improve this answer

















                        • 2




                          RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                          – R..
                          2 hours ago












                        • @R.., I have a small RAID system on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my photos (and all the rest of my data as well.) I don't understand why a RAID "does not serve as a backup" because that seems to be exactly what I've been doing for years.
                          – CramerTV
                          26 mins ago















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote










                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote









                        For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                        All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                        If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                        With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                        Hope this helps.






                        share|improve this answer












                        For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                        All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                        If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                        With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                        Hope this helps.







                        share|improve this answer












                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer










                        answered 3 hours ago









                        WClarke

                        1665




                        1665








                        • 2




                          RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                          – R..
                          2 hours ago












                        • @R.., I have a small RAID system on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my photos (and all the rest of my data as well.) I don't understand why a RAID "does not serve as a backup" because that seems to be exactly what I've been doing for years.
                          – CramerTV
                          26 mins ago
















                        • 2




                          RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                          – R..
                          2 hours ago












                        • @R.., I have a small RAID system on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my photos (and all the rest of my data as well.) I don't understand why a RAID "does not serve as a backup" because that seems to be exactly what I've been doing for years.
                          – CramerTV
                          26 mins ago










                        2




                        2




                        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                        – R..
                        2 hours ago






                        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                        – R..
                        2 hours ago














                        @R.., I have a small RAID system on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my photos (and all the rest of my data as well.) I don't understand why a RAID "does not serve as a backup" because that seems to be exactly what I've been doing for years.
                        – CramerTV
                        26 mins ago






                        @R.., I have a small RAID system on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my photos (and all the rest of my data as well.) I don't understand why a RAID "does not serve as a backup" because that seems to be exactly what I've been doing for years.
                        – CramerTV
                        26 mins ago












                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        The general reccomendation is a 3-2-1 Backup strategy, meaning you have 3 copies: 2 local, 1 offsite. Here's one way:




                        • Get a NAS appliance (like a Drobo) to protect against a disk crash


                          • (or just an external disk, with no disk failure protection)



                        • Add an Apple Time Machine to get your 2nd local copy.

                        • Use some service like CrashPlan, BackBlaze, Amazon Prime, ... to do offsite backups.


                        The downside to these off-the-shelf solutions is they do not protect against bit rot on the disks. To get that, best I can tell, you'll need to do something custom like periodically running par2 or deploying a custom FreeNAS appliance with ZFS.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          The general reccomendation is a 3-2-1 Backup strategy, meaning you have 3 copies: 2 local, 1 offsite. Here's one way:




                          • Get a NAS appliance (like a Drobo) to protect against a disk crash


                            • (or just an external disk, with no disk failure protection)



                          • Add an Apple Time Machine to get your 2nd local copy.

                          • Use some service like CrashPlan, BackBlaze, Amazon Prime, ... to do offsite backups.


                          The downside to these off-the-shelf solutions is they do not protect against bit rot on the disks. To get that, best I can tell, you'll need to do something custom like periodically running par2 or deploying a custom FreeNAS appliance with ZFS.






                          share|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            The general reccomendation is a 3-2-1 Backup strategy, meaning you have 3 copies: 2 local, 1 offsite. Here's one way:




                            • Get a NAS appliance (like a Drobo) to protect against a disk crash


                              • (or just an external disk, with no disk failure protection)



                            • Add an Apple Time Machine to get your 2nd local copy.

                            • Use some service like CrashPlan, BackBlaze, Amazon Prime, ... to do offsite backups.


                            The downside to these off-the-shelf solutions is they do not protect against bit rot on the disks. To get that, best I can tell, you'll need to do something custom like periodically running par2 or deploying a custom FreeNAS appliance with ZFS.






                            share|improve this answer












                            The general reccomendation is a 3-2-1 Backup strategy, meaning you have 3 copies: 2 local, 1 offsite. Here's one way:




                            • Get a NAS appliance (like a Drobo) to protect against a disk crash


                              • (or just an external disk, with no disk failure protection)



                            • Add an Apple Time Machine to get your 2nd local copy.

                            • Use some service like CrashPlan, BackBlaze, Amazon Prime, ... to do offsite backups.


                            The downside to these off-the-shelf solutions is they do not protect against bit rot on the disks. To get that, best I can tell, you'll need to do something custom like periodically running par2 or deploying a custom FreeNAS appliance with ZFS.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 11 mins ago









                            rrauenza

                            42428




                            42428






















                                Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103412%2fwhats-the-best-way-to-store-over-400-gb-of-digital-photos%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Bundesstraße 106

                                Verónica Boquete

                                Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten