Losing a whole year

[otter]

My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
- for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4

[Val Hallah]

I load the fotos up to Flickr and do not resize them, giving me an
online backup backup

[otter]

I have most of my good JPEGs on flickr, but not the DNGs.
Once I get what I can restored, I will probably start using a service
like Carbonite, and back up to the cloud.

[sna...@mailinator.com]

It won't help, but I believe important stuff should be backed up a minimum of 3 times. I
use 2 hard drives, one of which is stored at a friend's place, and rewriteable Blu Ray
disks. Every four years I replace the hard drives. The old ones, still working perfectly,
are stored.

[NotMe]

"otter" <bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ab5951e-6132-4933...@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio for
a while and not one lasted over 9 months.

As to back up best to have multiples and off site.

[otter]

On Feb 7, 6:10 pm, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "otter" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Yeah, I think I finally learned the lesson about backing up.

The SSD is so much fun, it is worth it, even if it crashes.

[David J Taylor]

"NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jgseii$3aj$1...@dont-email.me...
[]

> Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio
> for
> a while and not one lasted over 9 months.
>
> As to back up best to have multiples and off site.

Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger, Resource
Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a 120
GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
and programs).

Cheers,
David

[nospam]

In article
<0ab5951e-6132-4933...@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
> upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
> recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
> - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
> but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:

always test your backups.

[nospam]

In article <jgseii$3aj$1...@dont-email.me>, NotMe <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio for
> a while and not one lasted over 9 months.

then yours were defective. nothing is perfect, but ssds are extremely
reliable.

> As to back up best to have multiples and off site.

no matter what storage system is used.

[nospam]

In article <jgtek4$t3$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
> put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger, Resource
> Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
> activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
hard drive.

> I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
> writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a 120
> GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
> and programs).

that's also a bad idea.

[David J Taylor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:080220121017234903%nos...@nospam.invalid...

It's the writes which kill an SSD. I am running applications with a daily
throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
than putting that data there. Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes or
files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but keep
writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system & programs
on the SSD, and data on the HD.

Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks is
much greater.

Cheers,
David

[nospam]

In article <jgu8up$gfj$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> >> Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
> >> put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
> >> Resource Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
> >> activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.
> >
> > that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
> > there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
> > especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
> > the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
> > hard drive.
> >
> >> I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
> >> writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a
> >> 120 GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
> >> and programs).
> >
> > that's also a bad idea.
>
> It's the writes which kill an SSD.

true, but the number of writes needed to kill it is quite high. even if
you hammer it, it will still last a long time.

> I am running applications with a daily
> throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
> than putting that data there.

that may be an edge case. most people will find ssd to be a *huge*
gain, and an easy way to boost an aging computer. everyone i know with
ssd says they'll never go back to a hard drive, the difference is that
dramatic.

> Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
> talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
> most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes or
> files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but keep
> writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system & programs
> on the SSD, and data on the HD.

i'm suggesting frequently accessed files go on the faster ssd, which
typically means the system and apps. it could mean documents too.

for less frequently used files, such as songs and photos, it will
probably take longer to decide which one to use than it does to
actually load the file, so any speed gain on ssd is lost.

> Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
> more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks is
> much greater.

you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.

however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get. :)

[David J Taylor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:080220121158520245%nos...@nospam.invalid...

A portion of the gain people see will be due simply to re-installing the
OS, and getting rid of unwanted "helpers".

Obviously individual usage patterns will differ, but if you have a system
where a lot of disk writes are done, it may pay you to be aware of just
where those writes are going, and organise your disks accordingly. We
both agree that a mixture of SSD and HDD is likely to be better than an
SSD alone, particularly where large amounts of data are to be stored,
That's just what I have in one of my PCs.

I think you need to revisit the over-sizing issue, though, as having a
very full disk is never a good idea, and there are drawbacks to having a
very full SSD. I don't have time to point you at particular documents
right now.

One technology which I felt was promising, but haven't had time to check,
are those HDDs with a built-in small SSD cache. Have you ever looked at
those?

Oh, and the biggest productivity gain I made was likely buying a second
display. <G>

Cheers,
David

[nospam]

In article <jguc3l$43n$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> >> Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
> >> more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks
> >> is much greater.
> >
> > you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
> > get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.
> >
> > however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
> > have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get. :)
>
> A portion of the gain people see will be due simply to re-installing the
> OS, and getting rid of unwanted "helpers".

no need to reinstall. just clone the existing drive to an ssd and swap
the ssd into its place. the difference is huge.

> Obviously individual usage patterns will differ, but if you have a system
> where a lot of disk writes are done, it may pay you to be aware of just
> where those writes are going, and organise your disks accordingly.

agreed.

> We both agree that a mixture of SSD and HDD is likely to be better than an
> SSD alone, particularly where large amounts of data are to be stored,
> That's just what I have in one of my PCs.

a ssd/hd combo is a good solution for those with huge amounts of data
because high capacity ssd is not exactly cheap. pure ssd is a good
solution for less demanding needs, such as in a 2 pound ultrabook.
there is no one size fits all.

> I think you need to revisit the over-sizing issue, though, as having a
> very full disk is never a good idea, and there are drawbacks to having a
> very full SSD. I don't have time to point you at particular documents
> right now.

full disks are rarely a problem unless it's the main drive and swap
space suddenly fills it to capacity, when things start to go very
wrong.

> One technology which I felt was promising, but haven't had time to check,
> are those HDDs with a built-in small SSD cache. Have you ever looked at
> those?

yes and it's a nice compromise.

> Oh, and the biggest productivity gain I made was likely buying a second
> display. <G>

for your ipad? :)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> writes:

> My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
> upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
> recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
> - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,

A friend of mine made this discovery about the backup tapes on a
mainframe computer he wsa running for his employer once. Must have been
kind of a nasty shock.

I *think* I'm testing my backups adequately (one big benefit of my
scheme is I can access the backup volume as its own filesystem and just
go look at random things).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.

People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.

> Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it
> costs more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare
> blocks is much greater.

Sure, that's a clear win.

[David J Taylor]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message news:ylfksjij...@dd-b.net...
[]

> You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
> they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
> home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.
>
> People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
> reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.

[]

> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

Not weird, but unusual. Data coming in at 60 GB/day, which is compressed
and expands to perhaps 80 GB/day. So even if the compressed data is held
transiently in RAMdisk, that's still 80 GB/day being written to the SSD.
That data is processed by my software, and results in a further write rate
for the processed data of, say, 2 GB/day. Plus the writes for deleting
the raw data, and regular deletes of the processed data - which may be
some tens of thousands of files per day.

What life expectancy for an SSD with this usage?

Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O you
have, and organise your disks accordingly.

Cheers,
David

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message news:ylfksjij...@dd-b.net...
> []
>> You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
>> they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
>> home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.
>>
>> People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
>> reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.

> Not weird, but unusual. Data coming in at 60 GB/day, which is
> compressed and expands to perhaps 80 GB/day. So even if the
> compressed data is held transiently in RAMdisk, that's still 80 GB/day
> being written to the SSD. That data is processed by my software, and
> results in a further write rate for the processed data of, say, 2
> GB/day. Plus the writes for deleting the raw data, and regular
> deletes of the processed data - which may be some tens of thousands of
> files per day.
>
> What life expectancy for an SSD with this usage?

What's the spec, 10k writes to a cell? So the naive number for a 120GB
drive is 1200TB total writes (that assumes perfect wear leveling).
Realistic numbers would be considerably lower, but better than half I
think. So taking .5 efficiency, that's 1200TB / 2 / 82GB = 7492 days.

> Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O
> you have, and organise your disks accordingly.

Always a good idea, and especially a good idea when you're moving into a
realm you're not so familiar with (like when first moving from rotating
disk to SSD).

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[David J Taylor]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfk7gzu...@dd-b.net...
[]

> What's the spec, 10k writes to a cell? So the naive number for a 120GB
> drive is 1200TB total writes (that assumes perfect wear leveling).
> Realistic numbers would be considerably lower, but better than half I
> think. So taking .5 efficiency, that's 1200TB / 2 / 82GB = 7492 days.
>
>> Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O
>> you have, and organise your disks accordingly.
>
> Always a good idea, and especially a good idea when you're moving into a
> realm you're not so familiar with (like when first moving from rotating
> disk to SSD).
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

You might be right if every write were just one event, but it's not.
Unless the file size is /exactly/ a certain size depending on the drive,
and on /exactly/ the correct boundary, writing will be split across more
than one block of cells. Don't forget all the directory writes as well -
at create, when my software sets the file modification date, and at erase.

I recall read (but please don't ask where) that a life of a few years
could be expected from and SSD in a read-mostly file server application.
I won't be recommending my users to go SSD for an application writing and
deleting tens of thousands of files per day with an 80 GB daily
throughput. As folk like to store the weather data for a few days at
least, they will have to go to something like one or more 2 TB HDDs in any
case.

I don't know whether SSDs deserve their reputation for poor reliability,
or whether its just that we only hear about the failures, or whether some
folk use them in completely inappropriate ways.

Cheers,
David

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:ylfk7gzu...@dd-b.net...
> []
>> What's the spec, 10k writes to a cell? So the naive number for a 120GB
>> drive is 1200TB total writes (that assumes perfect wear leveling).
>> Realistic numbers would be considerably lower, but better than half I
>> think. So taking .5 efficiency, that's 1200TB / 2 / 82GB = 7492 days.
>>
>>> Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O
>>> you have, and organise your disks accordingly.
>>
>> Always a good idea, and especially a good idea when you're moving into a
>> realm you're not so familiar with (like when first moving from rotating
>> disk to SSD).
>

> You might be right if every write were just one event, but it's
> not. Unless the file size is /exactly/ a certain size depending on the
> drive, and on /exactly/ the correct boundary, writing will be split
> across more than one block of cells. Don't forget all the directory
> writes as well -
> at create, when my software sets the file modification date, and at erase.

Except for the block alignment issue, the rest of those are included in
an accurate statement of the amount of data written. If they weren't in
your number, then I'd need to know the average file size to estimate
them. If the files were small enough (as in a Usenet server for
example) that meta-data overhead might even dominate. If the files are
large enough, they're pretty much irrelevant. (One block per meta-data
update.)

> I recall read (but please don't ask where) that a life of a few years
> could be expected from and SSD in a read-mostly file server
> application. I won't be recommending my users to go SSD for an
> application writing and deleting tens of thousands of files per day
> with an 80 GB daily throughput. As folk like to store the weather
> data for a few days at least, they will have to go to something like
> one or more 2 TB HDDs in any case.

Well, there's part of your answer; they need amounts of data that would
be expensive on SSD.

> I don't know whether SSDs deserve their reputation for poor
> reliability, or whether its just that we only hear about the failures,
> or whether some folk use them in completely inappropriate ways.

The reputation I hear is that they're much more reliable. You're the
first person I know talking about failures of them.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[nospam]

In article <jh3j39$584$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > What's the spec, 10k writes to a cell? So the naive number for a 120GB
> > drive is 1200TB total writes (that assumes perfect wear leveling).
> > Realistic numbers would be considerably lower, but better than half I
> > think. So taking .5 efficiency, that's 1200TB / 2 / 82GB = 7492 days.
> >
> >> Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O
> >> you have, and organise your disks accordingly.
> >
> > Always a good idea, and especially a good idea when you're moving into a
> > realm you're not so familiar with (like when first moving from rotating
> > disk to SSD).
>

> You might be right if every write were just one event, but it's not.
> Unless the file size is /exactly/ a certain size depending on the drive,
> and on /exactly/ the correct boundary, writing will be split across more
> than one block of cells. Don't forget all the directory writes as well -
> at create, when my software sets the file modification date, and at erase.

7492 days is over 20 years. a lot of what you describe is cached (such
as the directory info), so there won't be as many additional writes as
you suggest, but even assuming there was, an ssd is still very likely
to outlive the product in which it's installed. if it does fail, simply
replace it and restore from a backup, just as you would with a hard
drive failure. ssd only needs to be more reliable than what it's
replacing.

> I recall read (but please don't ask where) that a life of a few years
> could be expected from and SSD in a read-mostly file server application.
> I won't be recommending my users to go SSD for an application writing and
> deleting tens of thousands of files per day with an 80 GB daily
> throughput. As folk like to store the weather data for a few days at
> least, they will have to go to something like one or more 2 TB HDDs in any
> case.

2tb is not cost effective for ssd at this time. that will eventually
change, but for now, hd is better suited for your needs.

> I don't know whether SSDs deserve their reputation for poor reliability,
> or whether its just that we only hear about the failures, or whether some
> folk use them in completely inappropriate ways.

like a lot of things, you mostly hear about the failures. there are
shitloads of hard drive failures too. it's rare someone posts that they
bought a new product and it works great without any problems.

[David J Taylor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:100220121410299079%nos...@nospam.invalid...
[]

> like a lot of things, you mostly hear about the failures. there are
> shitloads of hard drive failures too. it's rare someone posts that they
> bought a new product and it works great without any problems.

Yes, that's true. You and David D-B might be interested in this page,
though:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html

"[A friend] purchased eight SSDs over the last two years . and all of them
failed."

Cheers,
David

[nospam]

In article <jh3uqj$d3h$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > like a lot of things, you mostly hear about the failures. there are
> > shitloads of hard drive failures too. it's rare someone posts that they
> > bought a new product and it works great without any problems.
>
> Yes, that's true. You and David D-B might be interested in this page,
> though:
>
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.
> html
>
> "[A friend] purchased eight SSDs over the last two years . and all of them
> failed."

similar horror stories exist for hard drives. just ask those who had
the 'deathstar' drives from a decade ago or seagates from a few years
ago.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:

I've only purchased three, but none have failed yet. The oldest is
considerably over two years old.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
> upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
> recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
> - for about a year!

Always check your backup is working.

Additionally, you don't want (just) backup for your photos, you
want archival for your shots & co. Conecptually a completely
different thing, and most backup systems don't handle that task
well, even for non-company uses (companies need to archive data
e.g. for legal purposes, and need to be able to efficiently search
that data when e.g. litigated, checked for tax compliance etc.).

Archival needs to be long-term (decades at least, better centuries)
--- HDs aren't very good, they die, aren't shockproof, etc.
At best you'd need multiple copies that are copied onto new HDs
every couple of years.

Archival should probably available on a second location (bank
vault, the cloud, a friend's house) as well as local to survive
local disasters --- fire, flood, theft.

Archival needs to have a low TCO --- not only in money, but
also in work. (Copying to new media, temperature and humidity
controlled, space you need for it if that's a premium (e.g. in
your bank vault), ...)

Archival should be unalterable and hard to damage. (HDs, magnetic
tapes, rewritable DVDs/BlueRays aren't. Far too many hazards.)

OTOH, archival doesn't need to be a speed demon. It's not going
over your whole HD every night, or copying everything new every
5 minutes (at *worst* it only needs to copy specific things in
real time: emails or new photos or new documents. Usually you
don't even need that.)

Efficient retrival (e.g. with a database of files/objects/
etc. showing which medium to use) is needed, but worst case can
be rebuild from the archive itself.

-Wolfgang

[David J Taylor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:100220121541487810%nos...@nospam.invalid...
[]

> similar horror stories exist for hard drives. just ask those who had
> the 'deathstar' drives from a decade ago or seagates from a few years
> ago.

Yes, I had some of those IBM HDs and, yes, they failed.

David

[David J Taylor]

>>
>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html
>>
>> "[A friend] purchased eight SSDs over the last two years . and all of
>> them failed."
>
> I've only purchased three, but none have failed yet. The oldest is
> considerably over two years old.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

I'm hoping that will be my experience as well - I have one just over a
year old. But I have been careful to minimise the number of writes to the
SSD and that is the problem area for them.

Cheers,
David

[GMAN]

In article <jh5971$dlk$1...@dont-email.me>, "David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:100220121541487810%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>[]
>> similar horror stories exist for hard drives. just ask those who had
>> the 'deathstar' drives from a decade ago or seagates from a few years
>> ago.
>

Seagate did free data recovery, or more to the point, they unlocked the locked
drives firmware and updated the firmware then sent back the drives for free.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <0ab5951e-6132-4933-afee-3f407eaf0c06
@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, otter says...

> My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
> upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
> recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working

> - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,

> but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4

The RAID array I'm using was able to recover the data when one of its
drives failed.

Later the RAID array failed, after I replaced the power supply unit in
the PC and forgot to connect the power supply of one of the drives.
After I connected the power supply of the drive something had happened
and the RAID array could not be restored.
Luckily I had backed up the entire RAID array on an external HDD which
was working fine.

If even that had failed, I still had two copies of the data on DVDs and
Bluray disks, although it would have been some effort to restore the
data, because I have by now a large number of disks.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:50:28 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
: sna...@mailinator.com wrote:
:
: > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:46:25 -0800 (PST), otter
: > <bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to

: > > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went
: > > to recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been
: > > working - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery
: > > options, but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:
: > >
: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4

: >
: > It won't help, but I believe important stuff should be backed up a
: > minimum of 3 times. I use 2 hard drives, one of which is stored at a
: > friend's place, and rewriteable Blu Ray disks. Every four years I
: > replace the hard drives. The old ones, still working perfectly, are
: > stored.
:
:
: Agreed. If your photographs are important to you, one backup is just
: asking for trouble.

Can't we allow poor Otter some time to grieve for his lost data before we
start telling him what he should have done? He knows well enough that his
backups weren't in order, and you can bet important money that he won't let
that happen again anytime soon.

I'm lucky not to be walking in Otter's shoes, or worse. I'm responsible for
our backups at work. Three weeks ago, we had a rare double failure of a RAID-1
disk array and lost our backup catalog, which tells where everything lives on
disk and tape. The catalog itself was properly backed up (on a separate RAID
array and on tape), but to use those backups to reconstruct the catalog
requires a magic file that we had allowed to be stored only on the zapped RAID
array. <ulp!!>

Fortunately, we had scheduled an expert on the backup system to come in the
next day to help with a system upgrade. We repurposed his mission, and he and
I spent three days on the phone with the vendor's support group figuring out
how to get our catalog back. We finally managed to rebuild the magic file and
successfully dodged the bullet. But it's gonna be a long time before I throw
stones at somebody else's glass house!

Bob

[nospam]

In article <JNpZq.65911$rV3....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com>, GMAN

<Winnie...@100acrewoods.net> wrote:

> >> similar horror stories exist for hard drives. just ask those who had
> >> the 'deathstar' drives from a decade ago or seagates from a few years
> >> ago.
>
> Seagate did free data recovery, or more to the point, they unlocked the locked
> drives firmware and updated the firmware then sent back the drives for free.

those were the ones with the buggy firmware. that was annoying and very
sloppy on seagate's part, but relatively minor.

i was thinking of seagate's laptop drives from around 5 years ago where
the r/w head had a much higher than normal likelihood of breaking off
from the armature and putting a gouge into the platter, which means the
drive is history.

you *might* be able to have a cleanroom recovery on the non-gouged
portions but that won't be cheap and you will have lost whatever was on
the gouged part.

or, you just grab one of the backups and swap it in.

[Robert Coe]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:59:56 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
: nospam wrote:
:

: > In article <jgseii$3aj$1...@dont-email.me>, NotMe <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
: >
: > > Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our
: > > studio for a while and not one lasted over 9 months.
: >
: > then yours were defective. nothing is perfect, but ssds are extremely
: > reliable.

:
:
: At first they were unreliable but, indeed, they are now as reliable as
: any storage media.

At work we've now got a fair number of Lenovo laptops with SSDs. I don't think
we've ever had a problem.

Bob

[Bruce]

I've been watching this thread with interest because I am about to
replace my Apple MacBook and Windows Netbook. Among other things, I
had been considering a MacBook Air and a Google Chromebook, both of
which rely on SSD.

I would be surprised if Apple and Google were marketing technology
that was remotely as unreliable as some here have suggested. I know a
couple of people who have used a MacBook Air each for a little over a
year without any problems of the kind suggested.

As usual, there are several people who appear to want to dismiss a
particular technology as unreliable. But is it? Would Apple continue
using it if it couldn't be relied on? Would Google adopt if for the
Chromebook if it didn't work?

There's a lot of noise but you have to wonder what the signal is. ;-)

[David J Taylor]

> I've been watching this thread with interest because I am about to
> replace my Apple MacBook and Windows Netbook. Among other things, I
> had been considering a MacBook Air and a Google Chromebook, both of
> which rely on SSD.
>
> I would be surprised if Apple and Google were marketing technology
> that was remotely as unreliable as some here have suggested. I know a
> couple of people who have used a MacBook Air each for a little over a
> year without any problems of the kind suggested.
>
> As usual, there are several people who appear to want to dismiss a
> particular technology as unreliable. But is it? Would Apple continue
> using it if it couldn't be relied on? Would Google adopt if for the
> Chromebook if it didn't work?
>
> There's a lot of noise but you have to wonder what the signal is. ;-)

Bruce,

It's up to you to make your own judgment. Googling "Apple SSD failure"
produces some 2.8 million results! The failures I've read about were
mostly to do with self-installed disks on PCs.

I have an SSD in my most recent PC, and in my iPad. The iPad is backed up
via iTunes and I've successfully used that backup to recover. On the PC,
I have Windows and programs installed on the SSD, and all the data is on a
separate HD, partially for throughput reasons (keeping writes off the SSD
as far as reasonably possible), and partially for cost reasons (2 TB of
SSD isn't cheap).

Briefly - if you have an application which is /very/ disk write intensive,
think carefully about disk configuration. Still photos would likely be
less disk intensive than editing movies.

Cheers,
David

[RichA]

On Feb 6, 7:35 pm, otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:19 am, Val Hallah <michaelnewp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 5, 9:46 pm, otter <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
> > > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy.  However, when I went to
> > > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
> > > - for about a year!  Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
> > > but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4
>

> > I load the fotos up to Flickr and do not resize them, giving me an
> > online backup backup
>
> I have most of my good JPEGs on flickr, but not the DNGs.
> Once I get what I can restored, I will probably start using a service
> like Carbonite, and back up to the cloud.

Like that scheme has never failed when the host company went down the
tubes. Why don't people just back up to archival DVD's? Cost??

[David J Taylor]

"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30643e35-26d5-439a...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
[]

> Like that scheme has never failed when the host company went down the
> tubes. Why don't people just back up to archival DVD's? Cost??

.. and time and effort and convenience. You can get (for sake of
argument) the capacity of 100 DVDs on a 2.5-inch portable HD, and buy
several HDs so that you can keep them in different places. It's possible,
although unlikely, that I might archive odd stuff to DVDs, but I am much
more likely to do routine backup to portable HDs these days.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this approach.

David

[Bruce]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>> I've been watching this thread with interest because I am about to
>> replace my Apple MacBook and Windows Netbook. Among other things, I
>> had been considering a MacBook Air and a Google Chromebook, both of
>> which rely on SSD.
>>
>> I would be surprised if Apple and Google were marketing technology
>> that was remotely as unreliable as some here have suggested. I know a
>> couple of people who have used a MacBook Air each for a little over a
>> year without any problems of the kind suggested.
>>
>> As usual, there are several people who appear to want to dismiss a
>> particular technology as unreliable. But is it? Would Apple continue
>> using it if it couldn't be relied on? Would Google adopt if for the
>> Chromebook if it didn't work?
>>
>> There's a lot of noise but you have to wonder what the signal is. ;-)
>
>Bruce,
>
>It's up to you to make your own judgment.

I think what you are really saying is that I should accept the
judgement of others, some of whom may be grinding axes.

>Googling "Apple SSD failure" produces some 2.8 million results!

Sounds bad. :-(

>The failures I've read about were mostly to do with self-installed disks on PCs.

Doesn't sound quite so bad. :-)

>I have an SSD in my most recent PC, and in my iPad. The iPad is backed up
>via iTunes and I've successfully used that backup to recover. On the PC,
>I have Windows and programs installed on the SSD, and all the data is on a
>separate HD, partially for throughput reasons (keeping writes off the SSD
>as far as reasonably possible), and partially for cost reasons (2 TB of
>SSD isn't cheap).
>
>Briefly - if you have an application which is /very/ disk write intensive,
>think carefully about disk configuration. Still photos would likely be
>less disk intensive than editing movies.

I could carry a USB hard drive with me, but that would ruin the whole
idea. I might as well buy another MacBook Pro. The netbook
replacement with a Chromebook would be easier because most of my data
and applications would be in the Cloud.

When making decisions like this, I feel I need to be able to access
knowledge and advice that is orders of magnitude better than is
available on Usenet and public forums. That's no disrespect to anyone
here, and certainly not you, but the difficulty is translating the
personal experiences and prejudices of a small number of opinionated
people into some kind of overall evaluation of the risk to my data and
my ability to do my job.

I suppose what I need is an authoritative article on the subject by an
expert journalist published in a respected journal. If anyone can
suggest such an article, a URL would be very welcome.

[Bruce]

Hassle and fire. It's a lot of hassle backing up to and archiving CDs
or DVDs, systematically copying them every now and then and making
sure that you can quickly find the exact one you want. If you have a
fire, your data collection is gone. I have a fire-resistant safe I
bought for a fraction of its new price in a bankruptcy sale, but it is
too small to house all my requirements. So the Cloud is a very good
option.

I don't know of any instance of data being lost when a hosting company
went bust. I am aware that several hosting companies have gone bust,
but the stored data was not lost to its owners.

[David J Taylor]

"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cuadj755m16lsmn02...@4ax.com...
[]

> I think what you are really saying is that I should accept the
> judgement of others, some of whom may be grinding axes.

So you need to judge how authoritative or otherwise that report is.

> I could carry a USB hard drive with me, but that would ruin the whole
> idea. I might as well buy another MacBook Pro.

If you need more storage, you don't have a choice, but if it's for backup
then a drive back at base is all that's needed.

> The netbook
> replacement with a Chromebook would be easier because most of my data
> and applications would be in the Cloud.

Yes, and that can be an advantage, and a drawback if you don't have a
cloud connection....

> When making decisions like this, I feel I need to be able to access
> knowledge and advice that is orders of magnitude better than is
> available on Usenet and public forums. That's no disrespect to anyone
> here, and certainly not you, but the difficulty is translating the
> personal experiences and prejudices of a small number of opinionated
> people into some kind of overall evaluation of the risk to my data and
> my ability to do my job.

Sounds just like cameras! Whilst the experience of many is that SSDs are
OK, a friend of mine who provides IT services to a whole company, and
whose opinion I value, e-mailed me recently to enquire after the health of
my SSD, as he had seen more than the expected number of failures.

> I suppose what I need is an authoritative article on the subject by an
> expert journalist published in a respected journal. If anyone can
> suggest such an article, a URL would be very welcome.

If it's a respectable journal with peer review, you can bet the article
will be out of date by the time you read it! I think your gut instinct
about Apple is likely true (although not all their products are the height
of perfection), but just as with any PC make sure there's a backup
strategy there.

Do any of these articles help?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/ssds-are-fast-but-do-they-last/3621
http://www.3dot5.net/blog/ssd-failure-rate-first-data-on-ssd-reliability/
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/back-office-10012454/are-ssds-all-theyre-cracked-up-to-be-10024981/

Cheers,
David

[Alfred Molon]

In article <jh6a42$rfg$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...

I backup to DVD and Bluray and to HDD as well. HDD alone is a bit too
volatile for my tastes. It's too easy to delete things and when a drive
breaks you lose Terabytes of data and not just 4/8/25/50GB as with an
optical disk.

[Ray Fischer]

A 2TB drive would require about 500 DVDs for a complete backup and
take three and a half days (nonstop) to complete. And it's not three
and a half days of waiting for the computer to finish. It's three and
a half days of sitting by the computer swapping disks every ten
minutes and labelling the growing stack.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Savageduck]

I have found Other World Computing (OWC) to be one of the best
providers of reliable storage, HD SSD, and various RAID offerings. I
have yet to suffer a failure with any of the 7 drives I have purchased
from them over the years. Their customer support is second to none,
even to the point of being preemptive. Six months after I purchased one
of their "Mercury Elite-AL Pro" 2TB RAID 1 drives, without action on my
part, they shipped me a replacement fan with simple to follow
instructions, as they had received reports of failures of the original
installed fan.
I have yet to here of serious chronic SSD failures with the current
offerings from Apple or OWC.
I am considering an SSD RAID 1 setup.

I will always recommending perusing their offerings when seeking a
storage solution.
< http://eshop.macsales.com/ >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article
<30643e35-26d5-439a...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I have most of my good JPEGs on flickr, but not the DNGs.
> > Once I get what I can restored, I will probably start using a service
> > like Carbonite, and back up to the cloud.
>
> Like that scheme has never failed when the host company went down the
> tubes.

anything can fail. online services do a *much* better job maintaining
data integrity than most people do. more importantly, nobody is
suggesting that would be the *only* backup. if they go down the tubes
without warning, you subscribe to a new service.

> Why don't people just back up to archival DVD's? Cost??

like that scheme has never failed when the building in which the dvds
are kept burns down.

plus, dvds aren't archival and they're a royal pain in the ass if you
need more than 1 or 2 to store data.

[PeterN]

On 2/11/2012 4:39 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article
> <30643e35-26d5-439a...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have most of my good JPEGs on flickr, but not the DNGs.
>>> Once I get what I can restored, I will probably start using a service
>>> like Carbonite, and back up to the cloud.
>>
>> Like that scheme has never failed when the host company went down the
>> tubes.
>
> anything can fail. online services do a *much* better job maintaining
> data integrity than most people do. more importantly, nobody is
> suggesting that would be the *only* backup. if they go down the tubes
> without warning, you subscribe to a new service.
>

True. And what happens to the old archives?


--
Peter

[nospam]

In article <4f36e366$0$18695$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> >>> I have most of my good JPEGs on flickr, but not the DNGs.
> >>> Once I get what I can restored, I will probably start using a service
> >>> like Carbonite, and back up to the cloud.
> >>
> >> Like that scheme has never failed when the host company went down the
> >> tubes.
> >
> > anything can fail. online services do a *much* better job maintaining
> > data integrity than most people do. more importantly, nobody is
> > suggesting that would be the *only* backup. if they go down the tubes
> > without warning, you subscribe to a new service.
>
> True. And what happens to the old archives?

good question. some services offer encryption and others don't. it's
something to think about before subscribing to a service. people post
photos to flickr, pbase, facebook, etc. for public consumption, so
encryption is not something that everyone wants.

[Savageduck]

Along with my HD "Farm" I also have my personal "cloud" via Pogoplug.
Pogoplug gives me 5GB of free space on their server and I can add any
number of drives SSD and/or HD, USB memory stick, or SDHC or my
Pogoplug device which sits next to my router. I currently have a 1TB
SATA drive attached.
I can access all stored files on my desktop iMac, my Macbook Pro, my
iPhone, or via any browser on any other computer, Mac or PC.
< https://pogoplug.com/ >

I can share links to individual files or collections of files, RAW or
JPEG, to those who would care to look. They can have the option of
viewing and/or downloading that particular file all without the
limitation on file size imposed by an ISP.
So this is going to be my regular method of sharing once Apple kills
off the part of iDisc I use at the end of June....
< http://ppl.ug/yNvac8cxbUg/ >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:48:21 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Re archival DVDs, see
http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/2006/10/30/how-to-choose-cddvd-archival-media

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Alfred Molon]

In article <4f36c7fb$0$12045$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
says...

> A 2TB drive would require about 500 DVDs for a complete backup and
> take three and a half days (nonstop) to complete. And it's not three
> and a half days of waiting for the computer to finish. It's three and
> a half days of sitting by the computer swapping disks every ten
> minutes and labelling the growing stack.

I'm using 25GB Bluray disks and am waiting for the 50GB units to drop in
price. In theory there are also 100GB disks, but they are prohibitively
expensive.

[Ray Fischer]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <4f36c7fb$0$12045$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>says...
>> A 2TB drive would require about 500 DVDs for a complete backup and
>> take three and a half days (nonstop) to complete. And it's not three
>> and a half days of waiting for the computer to finish. It's three and
>> a half days of sitting by the computer swapping disks every ten
>> minutes and labelling the growing stack.
>
>I'm using 25GB Bluray disks and am waiting for the 50GB units to drop in
>price. In theory there are also 100GB disks, but they are prohibitively
>expensive.

At over $1 per disk one backup would run about $80 and take a little
less than day. It would also be less reliable than a 2TB disk drive
(about $130).

[Alfred Molon]

In article <4f36ee70$0$11961$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
says...

> >I'm using 25GB Bluray disks and am waiting for the 50GB units to drop in
> >price. In theory there are also 100GB disks, but they are prohibitively
> >expensive.
>
> At over $1 per disk one backup would run about $80 and take a little
> less than day. It would also be less reliable than a 2TB disk drive
> (about $130).

Actually I'm creating two Bluray copies + the copies on HDD.

Can't comment on reliability, but if a 2TB HDD fails you lose 2TB of
data vs only 25GB for a Bluray disk.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Can't comment on reliability, but if a 2TB HDD fails you lose 2TB of
> data vs only 25GB for a Bluray disk.

If one of my three backups fails, I lose *nothing* ... unless it manages
to fail at the same time as my fileserver has some kind of major failure.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:35:30 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Can't comment on reliability, but if a 2TB HDD fails you lose 2TB of
>> data vs only 25GB for a Bluray disk.
>
>If one of my three backups fails, I lose *nothing* ... unless it manages
>to fail at the same time as my fileserver has some kind of major failure.

I have a setup where my computer is backed up to my wife's computerand
her computer is backed up to mine. The both are backed up to and
external HDD. I feel fairly safe unless the house burns down.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Two of my three backups are in a fire safe UL-rated for 2 hours. The
third is in a desk drawer at work.

So, even if the house burns down, my digital photos will be fine. My
film photos are gone, though (except the ones I've scanned). Similarly
for the paper books going and the ebooks surviving.

[Robert Coe]

There was a case described extensively in these newsgrou;s a few years ago.
The cloud storage company went broke, and receivers came in and pounced on the
equipment. They allowed some time for customers to get their data off, but not
nearly enough. Then they shut the servers down and hauled them away.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:22:57 -0500, I <b...@1776.COM> wrote:

: On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:14:54 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
: : I don't know of any instance of data being lost when a hosting company
: : went bust. I am aware that several hosting companies have gone bust,
: : but the stored data was not lost to its owners.
:
: There was a case described extensively in these newsgrou;s a few years
: ago. The cloud storage company went broke, and receivers came in and
: pounced on the equipment. They allowed some time for customers to get
: their data off, but not nearly enough. Then they shut the servers down
: and hauled them away.

The company was called "Digital Railroad", and its demise occurred in October
of 2008. Information about the incident can still be found via Google.

Bob

[nospam]

In article <ftbej7pj6boop237d...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : I don't know of any instance of data being lost when a hosting company
> : went bust. I am aware that several hosting companies have gone bust,
> : but the stored data was not lost to its owners.
>
> There was a case described extensively in these newsgrou;s a few years ago.
> The cloud storage company went broke, and receivers came in and pounced on the
> equipment. They allowed some time for customers to get their data off, but not
> nearly enough. Then they shut the servers down and hauled them away.

once again, nobody is saying the cloud is the *only* place for your
data. it's one component of a backup strategy, namely an offsite backup
that's easily updated, much more so than a hard drive in a bank vault.

if a cloud storage company goes away, even suddenly with no warning,
you still have your original data on your local hard drive as well as
at least one (hopefully more) backups.

so if they really do suddenly go poof, you just sign up with another
service and sync your files there.

[Ray Fischer]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ray Fischer

>
>> >I'm using 25GB Bluray disks and am waiting for the 50GB units to drop in
>> >price. In theory there are also 100GB disks, but they are prohibitively
>> >expensive.
>>
>> At over $1 per disk one backup would run about $80 and take a little
>> less than day. It would also be less reliable than a 2TB disk drive
>> (about $130).
>
>Actually I'm creating two Bluray copies + the copies on HDD.
>
>Can't comment on reliability, but if a 2TB HDD fails you lose 2TB of
>data vs only 25GB for a Bluray disk.

Suit yourself. I have no interest in maintaining a library of
hundreds of optical disks. I will continue to rely on multiple hard
disk backups.

By the way, how long has it been since you verified that your BluRay
disks are readable?

[Ray Fischer]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <4f36ee70$0$11961$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>says...
>
>> >I'm using 25GB Bluray disks and am waiting for the 50GB units to drop in
>> >price. In theory there are also 100GB disks, but they are prohibitively
>> >expensive.
>>
>> At over $1 per disk one backup would run about $80 and take a little
>> less than day. It would also be less reliable than a 2TB disk drive
>> (about $130).
>
>Actually I'm creating two Bluray copies + the copies on HDD.
>
>Can't comment on reliability, but if a 2TB HDD fails you lose 2TB of
>data vs only 25GB for a Bluray disk.

One last thing: Pne of the most important things about any backup
system is that it be easy and cheap. Backups that are hard and/or
expensive tend not to be done, and a backup that isn't done is
worthless.

My hourly backups require no attention whatever from me. The computer
does them automatically. Once a month I can get my 2nd drive out of
the safe and make an archival backup.

[otter]

On Feb 11, 9:05 am, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:50:28 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
> : snap...@mailinator.com wrote:
>
> :

> : > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:46:25 -0800 (PST),  otter: > <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : > > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
> : > > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy.  However, when I went
> : > > to recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been
> : > > working - for about a year!  Of course, I am pursuing all recovery
> : > > options, but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:
> : > >
> : > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4
> : >

> : > It won't help, but I believe important stuff should be backed up a
> : > minimum of 3 times.  I use 2 hard drives, one of which is stored at a
> : > friend's place, and rewriteable Blu Ray disks. Every four years I
> : > replace the hard drives.  The old ones, still working perfectly, are
> : > stored.
> :
> :
> : Agreed.  If your photographs are important to you, one backup is just
> : asking for trouble.
>
> Can't we allow poor Otter some time to grieve for his lost data before we
> start telling him what he should have done? He knows well enough that his
> backups weren't in order, and you can bet important money that he won't let
> that happen again anytime soon.

No problem, I expect and deserve some criticism. I had set up a
backup, and thought it was working, but really hadn't checked up on it
as I should have.

As for the SSD reliability vs hard disks, this is the second hard
drive I've had crash in about 3 years. Neither hard drive lasted 2
years. So if my SSD lasts that long, I'll consider it an
improvement. Obviously, I'm not going to trust storage of any kind.
I'll probably go with Carbonite, or something like that, and back up
to the cloud.

Love the SSD. Never going back.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <4f3768fe$0$11965$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
says...

> By the way, how long has it been since you verified that your BluRay
> disks are readable?

Actually I almost never use them. It's a huge pile of disks, most DVD,
the newer ones are Bluray. I can only tell you that in the rare
instances I pick out a DVD or Bluray it works. So far I've only had one
DVD fail (out of dozens) and then I created a new copy.

Let's say I don't like the idea of relying only on HDDs, because they
are too volatile. It's too easy to delete things. A virus, a HDD crash
and you lose everything. I use HDDs for backup (a RAID array and an
external drive), but don't rely only on them.

[Bruce]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Thanks David. Yes, they help with the overall picture, but they are
not specifically relevant to my purchasing decision.

I got some useful info from an Apple Centre I used to buy from. The
owner is a personal friend. He told me that Apple's SSDs are sourced
from only two suppliers and both are far more reliable than the
average. He gave me some data on comparisons between brands and also
pointed out that SSDs are, on average, much more reliable than hard
disk drives . However, to this you have to add the troublesome fact
that an SSD failure is usually total and all data is lost, whereas
some HDD data can usually be retrieved.

I have had several HDD failures which is why I back up regularly to an
external HDD RAID array as well as the Cloud, via a service that is
not publicly available but is run by a client of mine mainly for
government departments including the security services and their
contractors.

I have not had great success recovering from HDD failures; the worst
was when a Jobo 20GB device suffered HDD failure and I lost a
significant proportion of images from a shoot. I had to re-shoot
them, which delayed completion of the job; the re-shooting involved an
additional 540-mile round trip, plus two extra nights in a hotel for
me and an assistant, and an unhappy client who wanted a reduction in
price because the job was late. That's an experience I never want to
repeat.

The two SSD suppliers used by Apple are Toshiba and Samsung. One of
the two companies making Chromebooks is Samsung (the other being
Acer). So my decision is now much easier; buy the MacBook Air and a
Samsung Chromebook, because it will obviously use a Samsung SSD, and
back up, back up, back up!

Apparently an Air with a Samsung SSD is significantly faster than one
with a Toshiba SSD. I need to find out if it is possible to choose
one with the Samsung component, otherwise it is pot luck.

I may have to delay my purchase for a few weeks as I failed to prevent
myself buying two Leica M bodies today; an M4-P in EXC+ condition and
an M3 beautifully refinished in black paint, with photographic
evidence of the work done including stripping the chrome back to
brass. Perhaps I have my priorities wrong. ;-)

[David J Taylor]

I know the things I would be tempted to buy if I had the money, but this I
think - what a waste, as I would never use them! But perhaps you will use
the Leicas.

I trust that you will be duly skeptical of Apple's claims about their SSDs
being "far more reliable" than average. I mean, they are hardly going to
say the opposite, are they? Claims about one brand of SSD being faster
than the other may well be true under stringent test conditions (pixel
peeping if you like), but I suspect that any differences will be more
difficult to detect during actual use. It depends on whether what you are
doing is CPU-limited, disk-limited or network limited.

When I'm away (and it's mostly holiday, not assignments) I take enough
cards to last the trip. If I'm being pedantic I backup onto the iPad
and/or a portable PC or netbook. If something happens during the day then
I've lost the photos until I discover the problem, and then I can change
cards. Fortunately the consequences for me are different - your loss was
obviously a real pain in the back side!

Cheers,
David

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:05:39 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
: In article <ftbej7pj6boop237d...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

You're absolutely right, of course, given your assumptions about how the cloud
service is used. But some cloud services tell you, "You can safely trust your
files to us, because we back them up continuously and store offsite copies
inside a mountain surrounded by three fences and guarded by tanks, etc., etc."
If you let yourself get fooled by that yarn, you can be in serious trouble if
the company goes up in smoke or (as in New Orleans) both the company's servers
and the "mountain" happen to be in the same flood plain. None of us can
imagine getting sucked into something so dangerous, but in the Digital
Railroad case many otherwise sensible photographers apparently did.

At least we live in a digital world. As a practical matter, there's really no
such thing as a "backup" of a negative.

Bob

[Bruce]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>I know the things I would be tempted to buy if I had the money, but this I
>think - what a waste, as I would never use them! But perhaps you will use
>the Leicas.

They will get a lot of use. However, I only needed to buy one, as a
second M mount body. I don't need a third, but the black paint M3 was
too good to pass up; a rare opportunity to own a thing of beauty.

Some people buy exotic cars, others have expensive tastes in homes,
vacations and (dare I say it?) their partners. All are high
maintenance. I don't see buying a good camera in anything like the
same league.

I could spend 20 times more on a car that I don't need and no-one
would blink. But spend a low four figure sum on a Leica body and
people are shocked. There's no logic to that, none at all. ;-)

>I trust that you will be duly skeptical of Apple's claims about their SSDs
>being "far more reliable" than average. I mean, they are hardly going to
>say the opposite, are they?

They aren't Apple's claims. They are from someone who sells Apple
equipment but also modifies it for clients. He has sold, serviced and
upgraded Macs since 1987 and knows the equipment inside out.

When upgrading Macs for clients he can use any brand of SSD he wants;
he is not tied to Apple products. He has data on every almost
available brand of SSD with failure rates, and those of some brands
are ten times more unreliable than the two Apple uses. But even the
worst is *several times more reliable* than some of the best HDDs.

>Claims about one brand of SSD being faster
>than the other may well be true under stringent test conditions (pixel
>peeping if you like), but I suspect that any differences will be more
>difficult to detect during actual use. It depends on whether what you are
>doing is CPU-limited, disk-limited or network limited.

The reality is the other way around. Users have detected significant
performance differences but the test data shows them to be close.
There's obviously more to it than the test data shows. I'll trust the
users before I will trust test data.

>When I'm away (and it's mostly holiday, not assignments) I take enough
>cards to last the trip. If I'm being pedantic I backup onto the iPad
>and/or a portable PC or netbook. If something happens during the day then
>I've lost the photos until I discover the problem, and then I can change
>cards. Fortunately the consequences for me are different - your loss was
>obviously a real pain in the back side!

It hurt me financially because the client cancelled a follow-on shoot
and there was a good chance of further business. I won't allow that
to happen again, ever. At least 70% of my work is follow-on or repeat
business and much of the rest comes from recommendations, so you upset
a client at your peril. ;-)

[Bruce]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:

<snip lots of good stuff>

>At least we live in a digital world. As a practical matter, there's really no
>such thing as a "backup" of a negative.

But a 6000 dpi drum scan comes very, very close. ;-)

[David J Taylor]

"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:naifj7pi0kj6g7ogi...@4ax.com...

> "David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>I know the things I would be tempted to buy if I had the money, but this
>>I
>>think - what a waste, as I would never use them! But perhaps you will
>>use
>>the Leicas.
>
>
> They will get a lot of use. However, I only needed to buy one, as a
> second M mount body. I don't need a third, but the black paint M3 was
> too good to pass up; a rare opportunity to own a thing of beauty.
>
> Some people buy exotic cars, others have expensive tastes in homes,
> vacations and (dare I say it?) their partners. All are high
> maintenance. I don't see buying a good camera in anything like the
> same league.

Agreed!

> I could spend 20 times more on a car that I don't need and no-one
> would blink. But spend a low four figure sum on a Leica body and
> people are shocked. There's no logic to that, none at all. ;-)

I was lucky enough to be able to give up the car ... but I always bought
down to a price which did the job. Nothing more.

>>I trust that you will be duly skeptical of Apple's claims about their
>>SSDs
>>being "far more reliable" than average. I mean, they are hardly going
>>to
>>say the opposite, are they?
>
>
> They aren't Apple's claims. They are from someone who sells Apple
> equipment but also modifies it for clients. He has sold, serviced and
> upgraded Macs since 1987 and knows the equipment inside out.
>
> When upgrading Macs for clients he can use any brand of SSD he wants;
> he is not tied to Apple products. He has data on every almost
> available brand of SSD with failure rates, and those of some brands
> are ten times more unreliable than the two Apple uses. But even the
> worst is *several times more reliable* than some of the best HDDs.

That's better, then.

>>Claims about one brand of SSD being faster
>>than the other may well be true under stringent test conditions (pixel
>>peeping if you like), but I suspect that any differences will be more
>>difficult to detect during actual use. It depends on whether what you
>>are
>>doing is CPU-limited, disk-limited or network limited.
>
>
> The reality is the other way around. Users have detected significant
> performance differences but the test data shows them to be close.
> There's obviously more to it than the test data shows. I'll trust the
> users before I will trust test data.

Usage patterns, block size etc. If there's a noticeable difference, it
makes sense to go for the faster.

>>When I'm away (and it's mostly holiday, not assignments) I take enough
>>cards to last the trip. If I'm being pedantic I backup onto the iPad
>>and/or a portable PC or netbook. If something happens during the day
>>then
>>I've lost the photos until I discover the problem, and then I can change
>>cards. Fortunately the consequences for me are different - your loss
>>was
>>obviously a real pain in the back side!
>
>
> It hurt me financially because the client cancelled a follow-on shoot
> and there was a good chance of further business. I won't allow that
> to happen again, ever. At least 70% of my work is follow-on or repeat
> business and much of the rest comes from recommendations, so you upset
> a client at your peril. ;-)

Same in my line - much is repeat business, although I can think of one or
two customers I wish I'd never met!

Cheers,
David

[nospam]

In article <dugfj714k24o3o9ss...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : > : I don't know of any instance of data being lost when a hosting company
> : > : went bust. I am aware that several hosting companies have gone bust,
> : > : but the stored data was not lost to its owners.
> : >
> : > There was a case described extensively in these newsgrou;s a few years ago.
> : > The cloud storage company went broke, and receivers came in and pounced on
> : > the equipment. They allowed some time for customers to get their data off,
> : > but not nearly enough. Then they shut the servers down and hauled them
> : > away.
> :
> : once again, nobody is saying the cloud is the *only* place for your
> : data. it's one component of a backup strategy, namely an offsite backup
> : that's easily updated, much more so than a hard drive in a bank vault.
> :
> : if a cloud storage company goes away, even suddenly with no warning,
> : you still have your original data on your local hard drive as well as
> : at least one (hopefully more) backups.
> :
> : so if they really do suddenly go poof, you just sign up with another
> : service and sync your files there.
>
> You're absolutely right, of course, given your assumptions about how the cloud
> service is used. But some cloud services tell you, "You can safely trust your
> files to us, because we back them up continuously and store offsite copies
> inside a mountain surrounded by three fences and guarded by tanks, etc., etc."

that's a lot more than most people do on their own.

> If you let yourself get fooled by that yarn, you can be in serious trouble if
> the company goes up in smoke or (as in New Orleans) both the company's servers
> and the "mountain" happen to be in the same flood plain. None of us can
> imagine getting sucked into something so dangerous, but in the Digital
> Railroad case many otherwise sensible photographers apparently did.

since it's a *backup*, you still have the originals. nothing is lost.

you will be in far more serious trouble if your backup is sitting right
next to your computer with the originals and *both* are lost to fire,
flood, thugs stealing it, etc.

nothing is perfect. that's why you have multiple backups with at least
one offsite.

> At least we live in a digital world. As a practical matter, there's really no
> such thing as a "backup" of a negative.

true. one of the best things about digital is that you can have
unlimited perfect copies distributed anywhere in the world.

[nospam]

In article <askfj75vvsguiadrv...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >At least we live in a digital world. As a practical matter, there's really no
> >such thing as a "backup" of a negative.
>
> But a 6000 dpi drum scan comes very, very close. ;-)

not really and it's very time consuming to do, which means it isn't
likely to be done at all.

multiple digital backups can happen automatically without any effort
from the user.

[Bruce]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>I trust that you will be duly skeptical of Apple's claims about their
>>>SSDs being "far more reliable" than average. I mean, they are hardly going
>>>to say the opposite, are they?
>>
>>
>> They aren't Apple's claims. They are from someone who sells Apple
>> equipment but also modifies it for clients. He has sold, serviced and
>> upgraded Macs since 1987 and knows the equipment inside out.
>>
>> When upgrading Macs for clients he can use any brand of SSD he wants;
>> he is not tied to Apple products. He has data on every almost
>> available brand of SSD with failure rates, and those of some brands
>> are ten times more unreliable than the two Apple uses. But even the
>> worst is *several times more reliable* than some of the best HDDs.
>
>That's better, then.

Yes, but I have to keep reminding myself that SSD data loss will be
total, where HDD data might be at least partially recoverable.

>> It hurt me financially because the client cancelled a follow-on shoot
>> and there was a good chance of further business. I won't allow that
>> to happen again, ever. At least 70% of my work is follow-on or repeat
>> business and much of the rest comes from recommendations, so you upset
>> a client at your peril. ;-)
>
>Same in my line - much is repeat business, although I can think of one or
>two customers I wish I'd never met!

Me too. But as long as they pay, etc., etc.

I am glad to be losing one customer at the end of next month - a real
estate agent who insisted on medium format digital. He confided in me
that the only reason he specified it was so he could buy the equipment
for a nominal sum at the end of the contract. He hasn't given me
anywhere near as much work as the contract specified, but he still
expects to get a Hasselblad H3D-39 and three lenses for a quid.

I hate the camera. I will be glad to see it go.

[nospam]

In article <t6ofj7tslguki065g...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>I trust that you will be duly skeptical of Apple's claims about their
> >>>SSDs being "far more reliable" than average. I mean, they are hardly
> >>>going to say the opposite, are they?
> >>
> >> They aren't Apple's claims. They are from someone who sells Apple
> >> equipment but also modifies it for clients. He has sold, serviced and
> >> upgraded Macs since 1987 and knows the equipment inside out.
> >>
> >> When upgrading Macs for clients he can use any brand of SSD he wants;
> >> he is not tied to Apple products. He has data on every almost
> >> available brand of SSD with failure rates, and those of some brands
> >> are ten times more unreliable than the two Apple uses. But even the
> >> worst is *several times more reliable* than some of the best HDDs.
> >
> >That's better, then.
>
> Yes, but I have to keep reminding myself that SSD data loss will be
> total, where HDD data might be at least partially recoverable.

wrong. hd failures are often total loss, such as with a head crash. ssd
could easily be a localized failure affecting only one file.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-12 11:42 , nospam wrote:

> hd failures are often total loss, such as with a head crash. ssd
> could easily be a localized failure affecting only one file.

Wrong. Even a head crashed disk can be recovered by specialized
companies. It is not cheap but it is affordable if the data is worth it.

An SSD that fails in the control circuits puts the data out of reach -
theoretically one could "get in there", isolate the memory from the
control portion and emulate that externally to recover. This would take
quite a lab to do.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:03:31 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
: When I'm away (and it's mostly holiday, not assignments) I take enough

: cards to last the trip. If I'm being pedantic I backup onto the iPad
: and/or a portable PC or netbook. If something happens during the day then
: I've lost the photos until I discover the problem, and then I can change
: cards. Fortunately the consequences for me are different - your loss was
: obviously a real pain in the back side!

I'm with you. I never erase a card until I have its contents on at least two
geographically separated computers. And sometimes I'm more conservative than
that, since images can get grunched or inadvertently deleted in
post-processing. You *can* be too careful, but it isn't easy.

Bob

[nospam]

In article <kMadnZUIMYTkbarS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > hd failures are often total loss, such as with a head crash. ssd
> > could easily be a localized failure affecting only one file.
>
> Wrong. Even a head crashed disk can be recovered by specialized
> companies. It is not cheap but it is affordable if the data is worth it.

right, it's not cheap, which means most people will just toss the
drive, making it a total loss.

> An SSD that fails in the control circuits puts the data out of reach -
> theoretically one could "get in there", isolate the memory from the
> control portion and emulate that externally to recover. This would take
> quite a lab to do.

in other words, you can send it to a specialized company just like for
hard drives. if the failure isn't in the control circuits, then the
loss is not going to be the entire ssd and you probably won't have to
send it out.

the point is that an ssd failure is not a guaranteed total loss, as was
initially claimed.

[Savageduck]

That is why I use my Colorspace UDMA as part of my travel back-up
protocol. It is always in my bag, and with it I can make quick
incremental backups between shooting moments.
< http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive-COLORSPACE-UDMA-s/64.htm >

So I capture on CF or SDHC, and make an initial backup to the
Colorspace UDMA in the field, add to MacBook Pro HD & one of my OWC
OntheGo Firewire pocket HD's as soon as possible. This gives me a
triple redundant backup on the road, plus the cards which might or
might not be reused. Only then do I consider cleaning a CF or SDHC for
reuse. However, because I travel with plenty of extra CF cards I
usually don't have a need to erase until after I have saved those files
to my home backup HD farm.

...and now I have my personal 1TB Pogoplug "Cloud" which I could
utilize, but I have yet to try on a trip.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alfred Molon]

In article <120220121313363943%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...

> right, it's not cheap, which means most people will just toss the
> drive, making it a total loss.

It's prohibitively expensive. We are in the region of thousands of Euro.
It only makes sense in very special cases.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-12 13:13 , nospam wrote:
> In article<kMadnZUIMYTkbarS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> hd failures are often total loss, such as with a head crash. ssd
>>> could easily be a localized failure affecting only one file.
>>
>> Wrong. Even a head crashed disk can be recovered by specialized
>> companies. It is not cheap but it is affordable if the data is worth it.
>
> right, it's not cheap, which means most people will just toss the
> drive, making it a total loss.

Those who can afford it usually practice backups in a diligent manner.
But even they will get data extracted if required.

"most people" who toss a drive either have backups or are more likely
doing things too mundane to be worth the cost.

>> An SSD that fails in the control circuits puts the data out of reach -
>> theoretically one could "get in there", isolate the memory from the
>> control portion and emulate that externally to recover. This would take
>> quite a lab to do.
>
> in other words, you can send it to a specialized company just like for
> hard drives.

None that I know of. Such a recovery is very non-trivial.

> if the failure isn't in the control circuits, then the
> loss is not going to be the entire ssd and you probably won't have to
> send it out.

Failures at a chip level tend to be catastrophic. On a multi chip
memory device, there may be a chance depending on how the data is written.

> the point is that an ssd failure is not a guaranteed total loss, as was
> initially claimed.

If it results in a read issue from the control logic, it is total in all
practical terms.

In the CF cards I've had, I've had a single card fail - hard - on its
first day of service (infant mortality in electronics reliability
terms). I've had many disk drives fail after a few years of service and
in every case I could take most data off the disk as it died. Not
required, however, as I do backup data regularly.

[nospam]

In article <T6-dnb0kt-LZvaXS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>> hd failures are often total loss, such as with a head crash. ssd
> >>> could easily be a localized failure affecting only one file.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Even a head crashed disk can be recovered by specialized
> >> companies. It is not cheap but it is affordable if the data is worth it.
> >
> > right, it's not cheap, which means most people will just toss the
> > drive, making it a total loss.
>
> Those who can afford it usually practice backups in a diligent manner.
> But even they will get data extracted if required.
>
> "most people" who toss a drive either have backups or are more likely
> doing things too mundane to be worth the cost.

doesn't matter whether it's mundane or not. most people won't pay a few
thousand dollars to a drive recovery service, so a head crash means
losing the whole drive. a business might, if what's on the drive is
worth more than the cost of recovery.

> >> An SSD that fails in the control circuits puts the data out of reach -
> >> theoretically one could "get in there", isolate the memory from the
> >> control portion and emulate that externally to recover. This would take
> >> quite a lab to do.
> >
> > in other words, you can send it to a specialized company just like for
> > hard drives.
>
> None that I know of. Such a recovery is very non-trivial.

one of the best drive recovery companies around does ssd:
<http://www.drivesaversdatarecovery.com/devices-supported/ssd-data-recov
ery/>

> > if the failure isn't in the control circuits, then the
> > loss is not going to be the entire ssd and you probably won't have to
> > send it out.
>
> Failures at a chip level tend to be catastrophic. On a multi chip
> memory device, there may be a chance depending on how the data is written.

right. sometimes it's a total loss and other times it isn't. the
original claim was that ssd was always a total loss. that's false.

> > the point is that an ssd failure is not a guaranteed total loss, as was
> > initially claimed.
>
> If it results in a read issue from the control logic, it is total in all
> practical terms.
>
> In the CF cards I've had, I've had a single card fail - hard - on its
> first day of service (infant mortality in electronics reliability
> terms). I've had many disk drives fail after a few years of service and
> in every case I could take most data off the disk as it died. Not
> required, however, as I do backup data regularly.

i had a cf card fail long ago. i started to notice the occasional
corrupted photo, which i later determined to be a defective card. it
took a while to isolate it.

i had a laptop drive that crashed so hard that the computer in which it
was installed would not boot until it was physically disconnected. i
put it in an external enclosure and not surprisingly, it could not be
seen. i've also had a couple of other drives fail with a head crash.
they were all total losses. fortunately, everything was backed up so no
data was lost.

usually my drive failures are due to excessive bad blocks, which means
i lose a couple of files.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It's really VERY good, sure.

Kind of expensive and large, though; I have only half a dozen drum scans
of various bits of film I really thought I needed them for.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:21:38 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
wrote:
: On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:35:30 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
: wrote:
:
: >Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:
: >
: >> Can't comment on reliability, but if a 2TB HDD fails you lose 2TB of

: >> data vs only 25GB for a Bluray disk.

: >
: >If one of my three backups fails, I lose *nothing* ... unless it manages
: >to fail at the same time as my fileserver has some kind of major failure.
:
: I have a setup where my computer is backed up to my wife's computerand
: her computer is backed up to mine. The both are backed up to and
: external HDD. I feel fairly safe unless the house burns down.

If the house does burn down, that will be bad enough. Loss of your computer
data is an additional headache you won't want to have to face. At least throw
a copy of each backup in the trunk of your car.

I've told this story before, but it's a classic worth repeating. A
professional photographer in a town west of Boston had a small studio in a
renovated former factory. Most of his business consisted of selling stock
photographs from a vast collection he had accumulated over a long career. He
kept his backups current, but didn't store any of them offsite. One night a
few years ago his building burned to the ground, and he lost everything. Some
of his customers were able to send him copies of pictures they had bought from
him in the past, but it was a drop in a bucket. For all practical purposes, he
was wiped out.

Bob

[Whisky-dave]

On Feb 13, 1:00 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:21:38 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz>
> wrote:
> : On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:35:30 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net>: wrote:
>
> :

> : >Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> writes:
> : >
> : >> Can't comment on reliability, but if a 2TB HDD fails you lose 2TB of
> : >> data vs only 25GB for a Bluray disk.
> : >
> : >If one of my three backups fails, I lose *nothing* ... unless it manages
> : >to fail at the same time as my fileserver has some kind of major failure.
> :
> : I have a setup where my computer is backed up to my wife's computerand
> : her computer is backed up to mine. The both are backed up to and
> : external HDD. I feel fairly safe unless the house burns down.
>
> If the house does burn down, that will be bad enough. Loss of your computer
> data is an additional headache you won't want to have to face. At least throw
> a copy of each backup in the trunk of your car.
>
> I've told this story before, but it's a classic worth repeating. A
> professional photographer in a town west of Boston had a small studio in a
> renovated former factory. Most of his business consisted of selling stock
> photographs from a vast collection he had accumulated over a long career. He
> kept his backups current, but didn't store any of them offsite. One night a
> few years ago his building burned to the ground, and he lost everything. Some
> of his customers were able to send him copies of pictures they had bought from
> him in the past, but it was a drop in a bucket. For all practical purposes, he
> was wiped out.
>
> Bob

Had a student about 15 years ago that stored all his work (Phd Thesis
IIRC).on 3 1/4 floopies as the were then.
he had a backup copy which he carried with him, both sets got stolen
from his bag, one set
was found and teh disk reformated and sold on, he lost nealry 2 years
work.
Like my front door key I keep backup at my parents house.

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:32:05 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And when I travel out-of-town alone (anywhere that's too far for my wife to
come and rescue me), I carry a spare car key.

The older I get, the more risk-averse I get. Just growing old is risky enough.

Bob

[Bruce]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:

>The older I get, the more risk-averse I get. Just growing old is risky enough.

Statistically, the risk of death increases as you get older.

Or so they say. ;-)

[Chris Malcolm]

Until around age 93, when the increase in risk tends to stop.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Savageduck]

Why 93? My English great-grandmother, "Granny Harriet Woodhams" only
moved out of her semi-detached, upstair Wimbledon home when she turned
106.
Then she lived on to 114 at a retirement home in Wimbledon, and only
died after she slipped and fell on an icy pavement and broke her hip.
Pneumonia took her 6 days after her fall.

I guess her risky activity was going out to walk in an icy Winter.

The same thing happened to my American grandfather, but under different
circumstances. He was 68 and was sneaking to the corner liquor store
for his bottle and didn't make it of the back steps before he slipped
on the ice and broke his hip. ...and it was pneumonia that took him.

Damn! There is even a risk to staying in bed.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

One of my great-grandmothers died at 102...in a fire from smoke
inhalation. He son dropped a lit cigar in a couch. He died a few
months later.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Chris Malcolm]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-13 12:37:51 -0800, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> said:

>> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>> The older I get, the more risk-averse I get. Just growing old is risky enough.
>>
>>> Statistically, the risk of death increases as you get older.
>>
>>> Or so they say. ;-)
>>
>> Until around age 93, when the increase in risk tends to stop.

> Why 93?

Nobody knows. It's an observation from mortality statistics. There are
some animals that don't even seem to have a specific lifespan, just a
constant ongoing low death risk. Which means that a very small number
of them live on in good health to indefinitely long lives. IIRC
they're all aquatic, which means size and weight related problems are
much reduced, i.e. you can keep on growing.

Unfortunately most of us are not in particularly good health by the
time we get into our 90s.

--
Chris Malcolm