I think redundancy is the key. Just have backup offsite. -----Original Message----- From: Shawn K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Implications for Film (storage opinions)
Hi mark, That sounds like a terrible situation, and you're right it can be a stressful thing coming up with the best storage option, the best a guy can hope for is to minimize the risk as much as possible. If I had 6-7 grand to burn and was going to build the top notch server to last a really long time, I would make it a Dual Opteron with a Tyan board. Tyan makes Dual SATA boards with each channel supporting a RAID setup. In this instance you could have 4 drives on each channel, or even just 2 drives on each channel (for raid 1). 4 drives per channel would be the best because then you would have 2 RAID 0-1 setups, which are the best performing, but by far the most expensive. Of course there are other more practical drawbacks to such a system like the power requirements... I know it seems absurd having 8 hard drives in a system but, I think it might be nearly foolproof, except for maybe a lighting bolt. I know there are instances where the system can let you down, but I still feel that on the whole, the most flexible and safe data storage option is hard drive based, backed up regularly with something like a tape drive, something I should have mentioned earlier as it crossed my mind. If the technology for optical media can be improved to make the data longer lasting then those would be an excellent addition to a good RAID setup as well. For me, it doesn't make sense to make backups of info if I can't access it quickly. Having to properly store dozens of optical disks is something of an annoyance, IMO, and optical media is also slower. Plus, imagine the situation where you aren't entirely sure where the data is you want. How many DVD's are you going to have to look through before you find it? And don't tell me you would index it all manually!! Imagine the pain of indexing those gigs of information, it's not like you can write 50,000 file names on the back of a CD case. Having it all accessible on the network is a huge boon and having an archive that is active, rather than, residing in your closet, gives more reason for archiving info at all. -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: Mark Stringer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Implications for Film (storage opinions) Remember Murphy's laws. Our server, fairly new, raid 5 scsi, multiple fans. Nice Gateway server about $7000. Raid controller failed, corrupted the data in the raid array, much of which wasn't recovered. But we had tape backups. Never think the system won't let you down. We use tape drive, external usb 160 gig drives that are stored off site as well as backup to remote computer in different part of the building. Obsessing over data storage can become a mental health problem. But there is a way for it to fail... and it is easier than your house burning down and destroying your photos. My digital stuff is stored at work and at home. I used to keep negagtives in a safe deposit box... -----Original Message----- From: Shawn K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Implications for Film (storage opinions) Storing data on multiple hard-drives is the best way to go IMO... Actually, having a networked computer working as a dedicated server with a RAID array is the best way to archive anything. Yes, it's expensive... ish.. I built a P3 950 from almost nothing for about 250 dollars and I have it networked right now. I need to spend about 400 more to get a nice RAID array for redundancy purposes and then I'll pretty much be set for 10 years or so... (I made some case modifications and added in some extra fans and it's the only computer I've ever had that actually cools down as it's left on, so heat problems won't end up killing my system and losing my info...) Who knows how long a computer can really last anyhow?? The hard-drive I have on my main system is guaranteed for 100,000 hours of use. That's about 11 and a half years of continuous use, guaranteed. So as a minimum I would say a quality hard drive can last 10 years, and as a maximum maybe 15-20. But who knows for sure? I have an old 500MB Conner hard-drive that still works perfectly even to this day and it's about a decade old. Of course, at 500MB it's not worth the space it takes up in my computer, so it doesn't get used, but about 2 years ago I got an old 486 running again and installed Linux onto that ancient hard-drive, it worked like a charm. The reason why people have hard drive trouble is because they buy cheap hard drives, and they are not properly cooling their systems. I've learned some lessons the hard way, with hard drives going bonkers on me every couple of years, then I decided I wasn't going to buy Best Buy's low quality crap anymore, I forked over the cash for a quality SCSI drive and haven't had a lick of trouble in over 2 years. Heat is a computers greatest enemy, do everything you can to eliminate it, within reason of course... Properly cooled, quality hard drives are extremely, extremely stable. -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Implications for Film May be old news to some... I found this Fuji white paper release interesting, especially it's implications for film in the future. This is just an excerpt of what is on www.fujifilm.com in an April report. Film use continues to decline. In 2004, 27% of digital camera users said that their film use has been completely replaced by digital, compared to 23% in 2002. Additionally, 43% of digital camera users believe that 100% of their photos will be captured digitally at some point in the future. As a result of the declining use of film, retail photofinishers need to build their photofinishing businesses effectively to respond to changing consumer needs. More users have been able to replace film technology with their digital cameras because they trust their digital cameras to capture important photos for keepsakes and memories. Just 42% of respondents indicated using their film camera instead of their digital camera for keepsake memories in 2004, down from 56% in 2001. This is good news for the industry because as digital camera users continue to capture more of their cherished memories with their digital cameras, they are more likely to want high-quality prints of these images. However, the fact that 72% of digital camera users also store their photos on their hard drive, means that they are at risk of losing some of their most important memories to a hard drive crash. Retailers and the digital imaging industry have a responsibility to educate digital camera users about the need to archive their digital photos. While CDs and DVDs are one way to archive digital photos, it is uncertain how long these formats will be available. Prints are a time-tested method of archiving photos, especially if they are stored correctly.
