How many backups is enough?
Jul 30, 2008 at 3:44 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 39

kloan

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Posts
1,166
Likes
13
Apparently at least one would've sufficed... my hard drive's PCB fried (common apparently with this particular Seagate drive).

Lost my entire collection. CDs were given/sold away a long time ago.. and a lot was acquired through other means, rare stuff impossible to find in stores, etc...

For now, it's sitting on a table... my search put on hold for now for a replacement PCB considering the rarity of it.


What do you guys do to make sure something like this never happens? RAID set ups? DVD backups? Other?
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 3:58 AM Post #2 of 39
Just get an external drive and drag and drop your collection onto it. Done.

Or you could set up a software backup system, where it scans for any changes in X drive and copies/duplicates those changes over to Y drive. Set it up to scan weekly.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 4:54 AM Post #3 of 39
RAID isn't the best idea for backups. It's more for high availability -- for systems that need to keep running through a drive failure (except RAID 0, which is purely to gain performance, and is actually riskier than a single drive). Of course it can protect your data from a drive failure too, but it can't protect your data from other types of corruption.

Personally, I back up to an external drive that is generally switched off when not in use, and I keep as much history as I can fit on the drive. For my Linux desktop, a small script takes care of this. For the MacBook, I just let Time Machine take care of it.

My desktop's media partition isn't backed up all that religiously though. Things will make it to DVD eventually, but I'm not ultra paranoid about it. After all, while it'll be annoying to re-rip my music (wouldn't be the first time), it is not irreplaceable. Eventually I'll still get a larger external drive, and then I'll have room to take care of my music as well.

Of course, a tornado will still be able to destroy my library... and probably the originals as well
frown.gif
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 5:41 AM Post #4 of 39
I run RAID 5 on the Linux box and Time Machine on a network drive for the MacBook. Anything really important also gets put on a portable drive and ripped to DVDs now and then. Mostly family photos and personal data; I don't worry too much about programs, music and such. I've got CD "backups" of my music, anyhow.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 6:02 AM Post #5 of 39
Not quite sure why RAID isn't the best idea for backing stuff up. At work we have a RAID 5 for all data collected, granted it costs much more than just an external. I think it's a direct counter, so to speak, to a single HDD failing for whatever reason. For most cases, have two copies of your files somewhere such as an external will suffice, but in my experiences, my externals tend to die quicker than my internal HDDs. How about a RAID1 external?
biggrin.gif


Just my two cents.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM Post #6 of 39
One (1) backup is enough, as long as its complete and recent.
An incremental backup, with version control, are even more helpful. As it allow you do get back a file you deleted weeks/months ago.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 6:35 AM Post #8 of 39
Quote:

Originally Posted by penger /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Not quite sure why RAID isn't the best idea for backing stuff up.


If your only threat is outright drive failure, then RAID is great. If you get a virus that damages your data, or a memory error trashes your files, and RAID is your only means of backup, you're screwed.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 6:49 AM Post #9 of 39
Quote:

Originally Posted by penger /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Not quite sure why RAID isn't the best idea for backing stuff up. At work we have a RAID 5 for all data collected, granted it costs much more than just an external.


As it has been mentioned before, RAID doesn't backup at all. All the drives are online all the time. Run an errant program or virus.. Poof, software failure as opposed to hardware.

Time Capsule FTW! (online only when it's backing up or restoring.)

edit: doh! beat me to it.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 9:20 AM Post #10 of 39
As already mentioned here, RAID is not a backup. RAID is for availability, not recovery.

My thinking is. If you have data that you really car about, take 1 backup copy and put it somewhere safe that's not in your house - a friend or relative is useful here. Label it clearly and put it somewhere reasonably safe. Take a second copy and store it in your own house.

You can do a full copy to these backups whenever you like - probably depending on how often and how much and how recoverable new data is.

Data backups - belt and braces - unless you can afford to lose it
normal_smile .gif
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 9:38 AM Post #11 of 39
I keep one complete clone of the external drive I keep my music on on another external drive that is otherwise switched off. I re-clone using a synchronizing process whenever I feel that my collection has grown in a way that would make it more inconvenient to restore the recently added files from backup No2: Original CDs.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 11:37 AM Post #12 of 39
I have time machine and a SuperDuper clone for my MacBook Pro. I reckon at least 2 full backups are required for critical data, as I've seen quite a few times a machine go down, taking all the drives in it. Ideally I'd do 3, the third to hard media, such as a BlueRay disk, but I'm waiting for the prices to drop a bit more before I do that.
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 12:33 PM Post #13 of 39
I'm disturbed by the amount of posters claiming that one backup is enough. It's a lot better than nothing but it's not safe. That's a pitfall of HD backups which needs to be adressed if you care about your data.

RAID is not a backup obviously but, for the same reason, a single HD or array can't be a backup. What happens when you update it? When your backup is on-line, it's vulnerable much the same threats as a RAID array.
Not only that: you need to think about restoring your backup. When you restore, it's vulnerable to the same threats again but, on the top of that, your only instance of your data is at that point on a single HD that's being stressed...

HD backups are really convenient but you need to figure the price of at least two drives or arrays when you budget them. With todays' prices that shouldn't be too much of a burden for most people. And you better have at least three, with at least one off site if the data is actually important.
This might seem arrogant, paranoid or whatever but please think about it...

Obviously, the above doesn't really apply if you're only talking about replaceable stuff like commercial music. But I figure most of you have valuable data that can't simply be re-downloaded, re-purchased, or re-ripped...
 
Jul 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM Post #15 of 39
Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm disturbed by the amount of posters claiming that one backup is enough. It's a lot better than nothing but it's not safe. That's a pitfall of HD backups which needs to be adressed if you care about your data.


Guess there are a difference between backup for a simple home user, and a Fortune 500 company.
For some a single offline backup is enough, while others have more crucial data and need multiple backups.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top