Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Khurram on August 21, 2007, 12:29:04 pm
-
Up to know i've been burning my raw and processed jpeg files on DVD and then storing them. I found that too cumbersome trying to find the DVD for a particular batch later, so I just picked up a 500gig external hard drive to store my photos on, as my main computer is a macbook pro that only has a 120gig drive.
I have a couple of questions. Is it still recommended to backup by burning on DVD?
The other question i had is regarding the external hard drive. I was told that it is advisable to partition the external hard drive. I'd appreciate some advise on what the benefit of partioning is (i.e. what is done for)? Originally i though partitioning was having all files saved on two mirrored drives, but apperantly that is not the case. If partitioning is recommended, i'd also appreciate some advice on how to do this. Do I have to remove the files that i currently have on my external hard drive?
-
I spent 3+ years trying to find the most suitable backup method for my files. DVDs didn't work for me because the available software wasn't designed for large backups to DVD and the DVD writers in my iMacs were unreliable (at any speed other than the slowest; a fact I only discovered recently).
I now have two 750G external drives attached to my iMac. Retrospect backs up this iMac and another networked iMac to the drives each night in an alternating arrangement. I chose not to duplicate the first external drive to the second drive because that would automatically duplicate any problems that might develop on the first drive. After a few unexpected problems with the enclosures currently solved by a new Belkin Surge Protector power strip, the drives are running well and I can sleep at night knowing that I have 3 copies of my Aperture library and other various files.
Now to your question. Partitioning was recommended many years ago when the size of individual blocks on the formatted drive related directly to the size of the partition. For large partitions, the minimum block could be multi-megabytes and if you had small files, much of the partition was wasted (remembering that no two files can share the same block at any time). With modern formatting methods, this limitation no longer exists and partitioning is therefore not really necessary. I used to be an avid partitioner. I haven't partitioned my drives now for at least 8 years.
(fyi; generally speaking, partitioning will automatically erase any existing files on the drive although hard drive utilities used to exist many years ago that could optimise the drive first and then partition around the existing files. I'm not sure if these utilities exist any more.)
Mirroring is not a recommended backup method in my view because it duplicates all problems in the original copy of the data. Backing up the source data twice; once to drive A and then to drive B; is much more reliable. Incremental backups are better if you can automate them. Most backup software utilities these days can provide automated incremental backups.)
I sense a possible problem with your arrangement though. Your external drive is 500G while your MacBook Pro's drive is 120GB. I feel then that you plan on moving your images from the MacBook to the external drive and then deleting them from the MacBook to make room for new ones. If this is true, then your images will in essence not be backed up and I would strongly recommend that you either get a second external drive or that you backup the images from the external drive to DVD in addition to keeping them on the drive. At all times, you need at least two copies of the images to be reasonably insured.
regards,
Gregory
-
I spent 3+ years trying to find the most suitable backup method for my files. DVDs didn't work for me because the available software wasn't designed for large backups to DVD and the DVD writers in my iMacs were unreliable (at any speed other than the slowest; a fact I only discovered recently).
I now have two 750G external drives attached to my iMac. Retrospect backs up this iMac and another networked iMac to the drives each night in an alternating arrangement. I chose not to duplicate the first external drive to the second drive because that would automatically duplicate any problems that might develop on the first drive. After a few unexpected problems with the enclosures currently solved by a new Belkin Surge Protector power strip, the drives are running well and I can sleep at night knowing that I have 3 copies of my Aperture library and other various files.
Now to your question. Partitioning was recommended many years ago when the size of individual blocks on the formatted drive related directly to the size of the partition. For large partitions, the minimum block could be multi-megabytes and if you had small files, much of the partition was wasted (remembering that no two files can share the same block at any time). With modern formatting methods, this limitation no longer exists and partitioning is therefore not really necessary. I used to be an avid partitioner. I haven't partitioned my drives now for at least 8 years.
(fyi; generally speaking, partitioning will automatically erase any existing files on the drive although hard drive utilities used to exist many years ago that could optimise the drive first and then partition around the existing files. I'm not sure if these utilities exist any more.)
Mirroring is not a recommended backup method in my view because it duplicates all problems in the original copy of the data. Backing up the source data twice; once to drive A and then to drive B; is much more reliable. Incremental backups are better if you can automate them. Most backup software utilities these days can provide automated incremental backups.)
I sense a possible problem with your arrangement though. Your external drive is 500G while your MacBook Pro's drive is 120GB. I feel then that you plan on moving your images from the MacBook to the external drive and then deleting them from the MacBook to make room for new ones. If this is true, then your images will in essence not be backed up and I would strongly recommend that you either get a second external drive or that you backup the images from the external drive to DVD in addition to keeping them on the drive. At all times, you need at least two copies of the images to be reasonably insured.
regards,
Gregory
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the reply Gregory. Glad i don't need to worry about partitioning.
your assumption regarding how i was going to be using the exteranl drive is correct.
For now my plan is to move my files to the external drive once I am done processing them. I am also burning them on Delkin archival gold dvd's. I think i will pick up another external drive as well sometime this year and next year, i'd like to get myself a iMac pro.
One other question i did think of is whether or not you can still work with files on the external drive and save changes to those files (i.e. using either DPP and CS3 which are on my Macbook hard drive, access files on my external drive to make changes or process them, rather then work on files on my macbook drive.
Will it be much slower working on files on the external drive (connected via USB 2.0)??
-
Will it be much slower working on files on the external drive (connected via USB 2.0)??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134568\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
USB would not be my choice to transfer large amounts of data from one drive to the other. Even with an SATA internal drive with a transfer rate at 300 MB/sec it took a little over 30 minutes to move 70 gigs from one internal drive to another internal drive even at 300 MB/sec.
Firewire is a good alternative as it has a better data protocol than USB. All in all USB would work for smaller day to day file sizes. Test and see what works best for your needs.
Jim
-
I just came across this data storage device which looks intriguing. I'm still researching it but I may look at this (or something similar if it exists) for my external backup.
Check http://drobo.com (http://www.drobo.com)
You lose some of the total storage capacity to the data protection and expansion management but being able to swap in larger drives as needed beats piling up more and more external drives.
-
Re Dobro: Last weekend I attended a good seminar about digital image workflow at the Washington School of Photography in Bethesda, MD. The instructor (whose day job is software engineer) recommended Dobro as a better alternative to RAID.
My personal opinion? RAID or somethng like it (i.e. Dobro) is the next step up for people who already have external drives and a good backup strategy. And of course, for people with around 1,000 GB of data and/or people whose occupation depends on keeping the data.
For most of us (I guess amateurs with a strong interest) make sure you have 1 or more external drives, decent backup software, test your backups to be sure they are good and think things through is the first step.
Another point from the seminar: CDs or DVDs are generally flakey. Too many file formats, too many issues with drives. If you use DVDs or CDs, use 2 different types, from 2 different manufacturers for one backup because the failure rate is fairly high and is not predictable.
My own situation? 1 external drive with automated backup software which is SuperDuper shareware for the Mac. Next step? A second external drive, which comes home about once a week and which stays off site the rest of the time. That way a house fire may get my Mac and my external drive, but its not going to get the off site drive (unless its on a weekend). Greater levels of redundancy and safety are possible, but I'm satisfied with incremental improvements from a decent base line.
All the best.