Interesting article, something else I’d like to add is that for added security in storing RAW images it is well worth considering a RAID (which stands for a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives). In the most basic form you have two drives that are mirrored automatically (known as a RAID 1 configuration) which means you don’t have to worry doing regular copies of data onto another disk. A RAID set-up has the advantage that should one drive fail all your data is not lost as the other takes over. It’s then a case of replacing the failed drive and the system will automatically mirror the data back to the new unit.An external UBS pluggable RAID unit worth looking at is something like the Lacie 2Big Triple there are also other similar units from other manufactures like Western Digital, Maxtor, Buffalo, etc. Remember however if you buy a unit with 1TB of storage setting this up in a RAID 1 configuration will halve the available space to 500MB. Alternately if you are of good technical ability it is also well worth considering. that a number of home computers now also support RAID configurations. This allows the addition of extra internal hard drive(s) which can be set-up to mirror your data.
There are plenty or articles on RAID device on the internet so hopefully it’ll spark some interest in ensuring some of those irreplaceable file are backed-up.
Having a mirrored RAID array is a good idea, and the cost of storage - whether internal or on a series of NAS boxes - is dropping, but a RAID array option still a relatively expensive one. But you are absolutely right; if you have your archive stored on two identical discs, you stand less of a chance of losing all your data even if one of them dies.
My relatively simple JBOD/off-site DVD store system has its flaws. In particular, it doesn't allow for the archive to be accessed immediately, unless you have just the one external HDD. It also means you need to attach physical labels on the front of each external HDD to identify it (if your cataloging program points to images stored on the second HDD of 2007, you need a way to physically find that external drive). It's also not automated, which is not ideal. But, with two sets of backup in two locations, I think it's about the right combination of safety without too much investment.
If you use a dedicated RAID card and full-on RAID 6 array (RAID 5 is pretty safe... but even this is not 100% secure, as DPReview has recently discovered - TWO discs fell over in quick succession, taking down the whole RAID 5 server and effectively destroying the forum), it's a lot of money whatever system you use. Even without the card, five goodly sized identical discs is not a cheap option.
For mission critical then just running a RAID5 without hot failover is stupid. I'm pretty surprised they weren't mirrored on a couple of others servers (and I bet they are within a few weeks). Still for a double disk failure in a RAID 5 array to cost them only 15 hours downtime is impressive. The 5 days' lost posts is less good.
For less critical stuff, like, err, storing pictures it's pretty good and quite cheap. £500 will get you 2TB of dedicated RAID server with gigabit ethernet running 0, 1, 5, or 10. Which isn't too bad.
But RAID 1 is still cool - and so's TimeMachine
BTW how lucky were you to find a post where yu could bring up DPR's "little problem".....?
Alan, XP will allow you to create a mirrored array without a dedicated raid card, it’s a little know feature, I have used it on one of my machines at home which had multiple SATA ports. It’s a software raid so it’s a bit slower than having a dedicated hardware card, but you are not after speed he, just protection. Yes two disc's in a RAID 5 array is unfortunate, but as Jonathan said running RAID 5 without a hot spare can be risky, but even with a hot spare if the second disc dies before the array has rebuilt itself then you are still screwed.
If you are running on Windows and are concerned about backups, then you could have a look at Windows Home Server, which will automatically backup up to 5 machines connected on the network, but if you are buying a ready built machine then its still not cheep as machine are around £600 to start.
I suspect that what happened at DPR is one drive fell over, they reported the problem, and before it was replaced, the other drive followed it. Or that the second failure occured as the array was rebuilding itself, as David suggested. The second scenario is at least free from human error, so no-one gets to stand before a firing squad.
There's a lot of commonality between the two OS today... both can run software-based RAID systems and the provision for backing up is improving at pace. Having a backup system built into the very architecture of the OS is an inherently good idea and both systems seem to be finally taking this to heart.
I think TimeMachine is a work of genius, though - and look forward to great things from TimeCapsule, too. Automated backup through AirPort sounds almost too good to be true for MB and MBP users.
Yes, I think we can all agree that you must have some form of backup, and what ever that is use it.
My personal preference is to copy the data to storage devices around my network. The possibility of four different pieces of kit spread across two locations failing all at the same time is quite low. I originally started to backup to CD then DVD, but reading the some of the horror stories about this media becoming unreadable after on 12 months, depending on storage condition made me re-think this. Especially after I had the recordable serface of a CR-R lift of the plastic of the disc.
I can share some of my experiences and views on converting RAW to DNG.
First of all - I shoot almost always on RAW mainly because if I want JPEGS I think I'll get better ones through my computer and because I often want to do a lot of post production work on many of my pictures. I try to take pictures which will last in Stock terms.
And - I've been annoyed and frustrated by the way that some of my favourite programmes haven't kept up with RAW - they either don't accept it at all or not the latest versions. Today I use a Canon 450D and a Canon Powershot G9 as my compact.
I found a number of my old programmes wouldn't work or needed complicated updating.
This means that an Open Standard seems attractive and indeed I started converting to DNG.
I've stopped now and here's why.
It's an extra step in the workflow even if you automate it.
It's and Adobe standard so assumes Adobe stay in business and keep it going (Wordperfect anyone?)
But my most important reasons are these.
The RAW > DNG conversion can be done anytime.
The software I'm using now will continue to work for the forseeable future.
And
Canon provide a comprehesive suite of good software - sometimes with uniqye features. For example my 450D software has a function to map dust spots and deal with them - I don't normally use the Canon software and I haven't tried this but it's not availabe in DNG.
For the moment I'm sticking to Canon RAW and leaving DNG for a later decision.
There's no doubt that backup and archiving really is crucial.
DNG is for the moment the nearest thing we get to an open standard for RAW files. And yes, your worries are shared by many. But it seems that companies are supplying legacy RAW support for previous generation cameras. So, hopefully, as long as Canon remains in business, the RAW conversion for your cameras images will be entailed within the latest version of the conversion program.
I hope this is a situation that lasts. And yes, for the moment I am playing a watching brief on RAW conversion.
