What's the best way to store over 400 GB of digital photos?
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
New contributor
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
New contributor
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
digital storage file-transfer
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
Dan Barkhorn
191
191
New contributor
New contributor
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
|
show 6 more comments
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
|
show 6 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 3 hours ago
Rafael
13.3k12141
13.3k12141
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!
https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
Mathias
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 11 mins ago
rrauenza
42428
42428
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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