Photo backup question.

[micky21]

I use Mozy, never had a problem with it.

 

[KmH]

The Internet basically uses telephone lines to move information around. Telephone lines have very limited bandwidth.

Those bandwidth limits are what makes online storage so - S L O W -, even if you have a DSL line.

I wonder how many people understand that information, like a web page, sent on the internet gets broken up into many, many packets. Not all of the packets take the same route to get from the starting point to the finishing point. Each packet is numbered so all the packets can be reassembled at the receiving end.

 

[IByte]

The Internet basically uses telephone lines to move information around. Telephone lines have very limited bandwidth.

Those bandwidth limits are what makes online storage so - S L O W -, even if you have a DSL line.

I wonder how many people understand that information, like a web page, sent on the internet gets broken up into many, many packets. Not all of the packets take the same route to get from the starting point to the finishing point. Each packet is numbered so all the packets can be reassembled at the receiving end.

Networking 101 like a chain assembly, with broadband and food just making the tunnel bigger.

Edit: Not food, but FIOS...stupid autocorrect.

 

[The_Traveler]

I use Mozy, never had a problem with it.

I have 500 gb of image files and often plop another 3-5 gb on it.
That would never catch up on an on-line service, not to mention my ISP would have a hemorrhage.

 

[Ramalakshmi]

You can try Mozy

 

[sovietdoc]

If you burn photos to any kind of media like CD/DVD or BRD, the photos will start going bad on you within 3 years. Within 10 years 30-50 % of those photos on the disc will no longer be readable.

I had some JPEGs I've burned to CD's in the early 2000's, in 2008 could not read over 50% of them because it just said "file is corrupt"

I used quality CD's too.



If you care about storage, just get a RAID 5 NAS. Not only it redundantly stores everything, it also lets others in your office access it with complex permissions and it lets you work with photos on the NAS and not care about shoveling photos here and there everytime.

I just picked up a NAS, hooked it up with 12T of storage and I am cruzin my workflow. I used to use a USB HDD hooked up to my home router and that gave me read /write speeds of 6.5 mb/s. Clearly, that wasn't redundant nor it was enough to let me work with my photos fast. Now that cameras have more megapixels and their filesizes are larger, you need speed to work efficiently. In the near future, with the expansion of intel's thunderbolt, you can get RAID 5 DAS and do the same thing, even faster than on the network.

Apple? No, thank you. Dual Xeon E5 PC with 64GB ram and 256Gigs of SSD storage barely keeps up with "small" files 5D 3 produces when you're working with 20-30 shot panoramas. Soon when most pro dslr's will be 40 megapixels plus, working speed with the photos will go down even more. If you shoot a lot (few thousand shots per shoot), every second you waste on the image load will be added to the rest, and in the end you could be spending hours of time just waiting for your photos to open. Obviously, in the end, you'll only keep 20 good shots out of 2000 but that doesn't mean you won't have to look at all of them to determine what to keep and what to work with.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like wasting time to wait for things to get done. I am sure not everyone might have this kind of cash, but if you got serious photographic gear, why not invest in your workflow to spend less time fiddling with Lightroom and more time doing what you like doing most - shooting.