Reliable Photo Storage Drive

Question

Photo

Hello.
Tell me, which lines and which brands to look for when looking for a drive for storing photos “in a single copy”?
Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

It is enough to buy any two identical disks and put them in the mirror. Thus, the probability of losing something is squared and becomes completely invisible.

Answer 2

Take a simple two-disk NAS and do mirroring

Answer 3

Hard drives from such reliable and popular brands as Seagate and Westen Digital are not particularly different and are equally likely to break at the most inopportune moment. Be sure to make a backup! Do not store anything in a single copy.
For example, buy a WD and SG of equal size and store your photos on the WD, sometimes making a copy on the SG.

Answer 4

I advise picasa , 20 GB for 5 bucks a year, 80 GB for 20 bucks, which satisfies me quite well and I am sure that they are safe and available from everywhere.

Answer 5

There is nothing more reliable than punched cards in a fireproof cabinet :-)

Answer 6

And why keep a large number of photographs in a single copy? I myself used to shoot 1000-2000 photos for one event. Stored RAW. And then I realized that I was not interested in storing trash. I shoot in parallel Jpeg / Raw, and the jeeps are small. I try to get into the WB right away. Then I must watch it on the device, I kill unsuccessful takes. The second raid is already on the computer. As a result, I learned to take 100-150 photos instead of 1000-2000, and the number of successful shots increased. Experience suggests that it’s really more interesting to have 12-36 cool photos from an event, carefully color-corrected from RAW and carefully cleaned in Photoshop, than a bunch of gray-green shit. Who, when, why will watch these dull, dull attempts?
I keep those RAWs that I haven't cleaned yet. And those that are so unrealistically cool that I'm ready to send them to offset printing, to big muzzles or to print the subway in two on canvas. This is what I keep. This is not enough. This doesn't happen much.
As a result: there are two file servers from different manufacturers, at home and at work. And there lies the archive. There are three folders in each photo shoot folder: all the good little uncleaned jpgs minus the cleaned ones, the cleaned jpgs and the remaining raw ones.
The same photos that are not ashamed to show, that is, cleaned jpg, are duplicated so many times ... On macbook, ipad, sony playstation, flikr, facebook. And once a year I unsubscribe DVD. Fits for 1-2 years. CD-Rs recorded in 1998 are still readable, not a single disc has died.
It seems to me that the problem described by the author of the post is by no means “iron”, but philosophical. We need to clean up the archives. You need to put things in order in your head. The problem with storing files will be solved by itself. I recommend printing 100 photos annually in a format of at least 10x15 and putting them in an album. Completely different feeling!
I do not claim to be the ultimate truth. This is solely my own personal experience.

Answer 7

The most reliable way is to store on CD/DVD.

Answer 8

Store in the cloud, encrypt and distribute to different services, for example. If it's that scary.

Answer 9

No matter how reliable the disk is, nothing will save it, for example, from a flood, a fire, or just a power surge, at worst.
It seems to me that the best option is to buy a disk, plus make a reservation somewhere in the cloud. In this case, you will have access to photos from anywhere and exclude the possibility of data loss from physical damage to the disk.

Answer 10

why do that?
no matter how reliable the drive is, sooner or later it will fail.

Answer 11

I have an external 120GB Transcend. I wrote down something on it and put it in the box. I got it in two years - it is not readable.

Answer 12

I use 2 wd elements. Both have the same information. I sync once a month. IMHO it's a good choice.

Answer 13

Here is another interesting topic habrahabr.ru/blogs/services/115247/
The bottom line is that you buy a screw for how many gigs you need. let's say 500. You hang it on a computer that is online all the time, and the service gives you a similar amount of space in their cloud. For free!

Answer 14

None.
I recently got a new disk off the shelf (start/stop count = ~10), 80 GB, sata, 4 years old. It crunches, wheezes, blocks fall. Generally thrown away.

Answer 15

The topic is slippery, but I chose Hitachi 500GB 5200rpm. There is also the Seagate 500GB NS series, which also seems to be not bad.
I trusted the conclusions of the Integra service center:
integra.tomsk.ru/comparison-of-reliability-of-hdd/

Answer 16

Store photos in Yandex Photos or Picasso, everything will be more reliable.

Answer 17

dropbox
flickr

Answer 18

NAS to help you, for example this one.

Answer 19

I didn’t really understand the meaning of the criterion “in a single copy” . Keep it in triplicate, but protect your drives with TrueCrypt . From personal experience I advise, because. I also once kept a single copy: the stupid habit of backing up once a month let me down - in exactly one month and lost all the photos ...

Answer 20

There are simply no reliable digital sources, if you don’t have them for a couple of years, but rather for a long time. Store everything you need on cloud services, preferably several. The most dear to the heart needs to be printed out and transferred to a regular (photo) film, its lifespan is higher than that of optical discs or flash drives. It is technically difficult to do this, but it is quite possible. I just took pictures from the monitor to a film camera, in the dark and with a tripod, the quality is not so hot for professional images, but I didn’t find the best way to store memorable photos at home - there are live films 30 years ago at home, because somehow I trust them.
But if you still need the photos to be in digital form and at home, then probably these are magneto-optical media - in my opinion, they are not more reliable, if you do not take magnetic film into account. The prices are relatively reasonable (From $200 including delivery to infinity), and of the advantages, only long-term preservation of information, the most significant disadvantages are the lack of uniform standardization and low prevalence. Well, the price for capacious drives and drives, of course.
And if you believe ebay, then you can meet at least 150:
shop.ebay.com/i.html?rt=nc&LH_BIN=1&_nkw=Magneto+Optical+Drive&_dmpt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&_trksid=p3286.c0.m301

Answer 21

either at home in RAID1 or somewhere online. Somewhere out of 5-7 discs, usually one crashes in a couple of months. WD is of course more or less reliable, but it's better to use it in a mirror, there was a case that a disk crashed.

Answer 22

It seems to me that the cloud is the safest option, but I’m kind of paranoid and I wouldn’t want to trust my photos to someone, what if I become president, then they will definitely dig everything out from all the clouds)
The second option is, of course, a mirror, but its main drawback is possible cataclysms, suddenly something happens in your apartment (tfu-tfu-tfu): fire, earthquake, flood, the system unit will explode. Of course, the chance is not great, but after such an incident, someone will be most offended precisely for the pictures, and not for other property, and we have hell for that who will pay the insurance.

Answer 23

First, you have chosen the wrong strategy.
What does "in a single copy" mean?
in my opinion, it looks like “get lost and take off the figs”
those, in order for the photo-video-text-anything to stay with you / your family as long as possible, it is worth multiplying and storing it in different places.
at home: (required!) soft RAID5 on 2TB WD preferably black, of course, but I have green
clouds: Wuala, here I share my 200GB and get about 150GB of guaranteed space in the cloud
. money for a lot
, and finally, take pictures on paper, make DVDs with copies,
if you really care about pictures, buy a streamer and write on reels.
reels, of course, in the safe.
safe in the bunker ... well, etc., etc.

Answer 24

Personally, I have a dedicated section on WD My Book for this, and I also duplicate all the pictures on DVD discs that are in the closet.

Answer 25

If the data is really important, and there is a budget, then take a closer look at tape drives.

Answer 26

take 2 Hitachi or WD, ideally Raid edition, create Raid 1 (Mirror) from them and store your photos there. It is better to do the raid itself either in software or on an external controller, but you should refuse FakeRaid built into mothers - it sometimes even fails on the mirror and data is out of sync.
Don't take Seagate, Toshiba, Transcend, etc. You can take Samsung, but first, you can search online for reviews on a specific model - they have buggy batches, but most modern models are quite reliable.