Failsafe Backup Of Pictures

In the past I have had my pictures backed up to a external harddrive and have come to realize that they can fail too. Other than coping everything to dvd is there a better solution to the problem? Would a solid state drive work better or could it fail sometime too? Thanks Michael

 

Any device can fail - and eventually will. The only "failsafe" backup solution is multiple backups, to include at least one off-site. And an off-site backup location is essential in case your house burns down, floods, it blown away by a hurricane or tornado, or a badguy breaks into your home and hauls everything away.

 

Irreplaceable files should be archived in 2 different places. I have photos burned to a data CD and also have them stored online.

 

Yeah, at least 2. BTW, the data on optical discs (CDs, DVDs, and Blue-rays) deteriorates over time - this degradation is often called "Disc rot". It can be caused by the obvious (mishandling and scratches) but also environmental conditions which might cause oxidation of the substrate layers or just normal chemical breakdown due to time.

The time varies greatly depending on the quality of the discs from the start, the quality of the "burn", handling and storage, exposure to light, heat, airborne chemicals and contaminants, and other environmental conditions.

Life expectancy and viability of the data stored has been reported to be anywhere from 5 years up to 100 or even 200 years! Not very helpful, huh?

There's a bit of a twist of fate when it comes to DVDs over CDs, and Blue-ray discs over DVDs. Each newer technology is more robust and under the most ideal burning and storage conditions, the data should remain viable significantly longer. However, because the data densities are much greater too (a lot more data in the same amount of space), the same amount of deterioration/damage can destroy a lot more data on the newer technology discs.

In most circles, 5 years is considered a myth, or extreme. But since the CD only came in 1982, 100 years is only a guess, and 200 years is a WAG! I think it would probably be a good idea to verify data integrity every 5 years, 10 at the most. And maybe even copy them to new, top quality discs just as a matter of routine.

There's another problem with long term storage of backups and that is format changes. Not just in file formats, but physical formats too. WordStar, for example, is an obsolete word processor and files created by it cannot be read by today's Microsoft Word. Converters are out there for now, but are they compatible with Windows 10? I note the last WordStar converter Microsoft included in their Office Converter Pack was with Office XP Converter Pack.

Tape drives are gone. Floppy disks are gone. Most new motherboards no longer support EIDE (PATA) hard drives. Will optical disc players still be around in 2025? Will they play CDs - assuming the CDs have not rotted, or will CD support be totally phased out by then - with DVD support on its way out.

Will SATA drives still be supported? What about USB?

And while I trust cloud/on-line storage will not "lose" my data, I do not trust those services to protect my data from hackers. So while I may put backups of family photos out there, I would not put copies of my tax returns or other sensitive data.

So we are back to my first sentence above. Keep at least 2 backup (archive) copies of your data. And I would suggest in two different formats (SSD and optical, for example). And periodically "refresh" it - "burn" or copy it to the latest storage technology.

BTW, thumb drives are not for backups. They are designed for things like taking a file to work. Thumb drives are too fragile, too easily dropped and stepped on, and can even easily be zapped by ESD when pulling it out of a pocket. Not to mention, they can easily be lost or stolen.

 

I'd stick with old hard drives, not SSD and create some parity files to recover data if needed. But having your files on your working hard drive and a backup removable / external hard drive you only use for backups (not attached and running all the time) is a good start. Offsite backups are the next level, but then you have to rotate them to make sure the data is getting updated. If you don't have a place to store them offsite, then use a backup service - dropbox, google drive...
How to make parity files: https://lifehacker.com/5120266/burn-more-reliable-discs-with-quickpar/
https://www.ghacks.net/2014/01/07/multipar-create-par-recovery-files-repair-damaged-archives/

 

Please explain why?

Hard drives are electro-mechanical devices. They have many moving parts creating friction and thus wear and tear. And because hard drives are mechanical in nature, they are also more prone to damage and failure due to accidental drops and bangs.

Most hard drives have warranty periods of just 2 - 3 years. Only a few have 5 year warranties. Many if not most SSD warranties are for 5 years with more and more offering SSDs with 10 year warranties like this Samsung 850 Pro or the SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs.

Of course a longer warranty does not guarantee a longer life. But it does indicate the company has greater confidence their products, and that means something - at least to me.

Plus, SSDs take up a lot less space in your bank safe deposit box, and are easier to shuttle back and forth to the bank in your shirt pocket.

If the data is so important it needs to be preserved for extended periods of time. So I say to store it on the media with the greater chance of surviving the longest.

Now if comes to having a backup or not having a backup, and the budget is the deciding factor, then by all means, go with what you can afford. But I note the prices for SSDs have come down significantly and when spread over 5+ years, is still pretty cheap.

That's true, "IF" the files are changing. Michael was talking about pictures. Image (photos and picture) files are typically considered "static" files. That is, they typically are never modified or updated. This is typically the same for songs and videos. New files may be added, but the old files remain the same. They just need to "remain".

Now, of course, other "document" files may be updated, and disc "image" files (backups of entire drives) and other local disc and file backups may change often. So those would need to be rotated on a regular basis too.

 

Old drives store data magnetically, so baring a EMP, you data is safe(r). These back up drives are not going to see the wear and tear of everyday use, so right there you are extending the life.

"How long an SSD can store data without power depends on a number of factors including the number of write cycles that have been used, the type of flash memory used in the drive, the storage conditions and so on. A white paper produced by Dell in 2011 (PDF link) stated that it could be as little as three months to as much as 10 years."
Ok, this was 2011, still in the scheme of things a spinning hard drive will usually let you know it is dying - you'll hear the thing make a noise - SSD - no moving, no noise, just dies one day.

I'm going to guess that they will create more files, so I would consider that a change.

 

Huh? Safe(r) than what? Not the data on SSDs, that's for sure. Magnetic charges fade and decay over time. They "bleed" into adjacent storage locations too.

True about wear or tear - but at the same time, what happens to many motors that sit still for extended periods? They seize. The lubricants can harden or pool too.

There are pros and cons with either format but if given a choice, I will still take and recommend a SSD every time. And yeah, that article is from 2011. SSD technologies have advanced a great deal in that time while hard drive technologies have not at all (except for densities). Except for access speeds and densities (drive capacities) hard drive technologies have not changed much in over 60 years!

Fair enough. But then that would totally defeat your concerns about storing a SSD without power for extended periods, wouldn't it?

Either way, as stated above, a single backup location is not a robust backup plan. A good plan involves multiple backups in multiple locations. None good if not kept current.

 

You can get a free account at Flickr.com and get 1TB of storage for photos and videos. Flickr is not misspelled that's how the site spells it.

 

Or, you could find a nice enterprise grade drive on the cheap, and use it for external use like programs you don't want to load on your SSD; Or, data too. They're quite durable.

 

The problem with Flickr is it is owned by Yahoo. I had quite a few pictures stored years before Yahoo owned it. Since Yahoo has been hacked several times, I got nervous. I want my pictures to be private. I don't want my Yahoo account hacked (so far so good) and pictures appearing on the internet.

Unfortunately YMail and Flickr use the same username and password. I try to keep all sites with different passwords so I wasn't happy that I had to use the same log in for both.

 

Yes, there is a down side to every good thing. You can however set your photos to private and to be undownloadable. Private photos aren't visible in search engines or at least they're not suppose to be.

 

If it aint broke, right? 60 years is a good track record is all I'm going to say.
IMHO SSDs are for speed not 'mass' storage. I may be a little biased because I have lost a few systems on SSD, it comes from being an early adopter I guess.

 

I guess it depends on what you define as "mass" storage. I could easily define 500GB and larger as mass storage and Newegg has over 90 fitting that category starting as low as $129.

Admitting biases is good - letting them cloud your judgement is not - especially when it comes to rapidly advancing and improving technologies and your biases are based in the early generation of those technologies. For example, the problem of limited writes of first generation SSDs are long gone yet you still see people complaining and worrying about it, and citing using that extinct problem as a con against today's SSDs. That's just wrong.

 

The more you share your photos (among friends and family), the more sources you have to retrieve them if things go south.

 

And the more chances you have of them being distributed to unknown and unwanted destinations. Be careful what you share.

 

Not if they can't open it.

 

Here is an idea. Save photos on CDs and send them to family members. They never have to go online and as fankieh said you'll have several sources to get them back.

 

Huh? That makes no sense. If you share a photo with your friends and family so they can view it, it is safe to assume you provided them the key to open and view that photo, right? At that point, there is nothing stopping your friends and family from sharing the photo with others.

Burning to a CD or DVD will work, but it should be noted many computers these days don't come with optical drives anymore.

 

Sharing doesn't have to mean viewing, it can mean having a copy.

 

The OP is talking about storage and backing them up. So a CD or two would probably be the safest bet.

 

dr.moriarty is right, that is not sharing. Now there is nothing wrong with having a trusted friend or relative "store" of copy of your important files to provide a "off-site" storage location (in fact, I encourage that). But again, that is not the same as "sharing".