| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/27/2007 01:14:32 AM · #1 |
I dunno if you're having the same trouble I am, but my hard drive space rapidly shrinks on a daily basis.
So yesterday I bought two of these, effectively giving me an extra 1Tb for just $220.
There is a faster version with 16mb of cache, but the lower price appealed to me more than the extra speed. (so says a guy with a Mark III, a 5D, two 20Ds and too many lenses in his possession)
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 01:34:54 AM · #2 |
How are you backing those bad boys up? Or are they your backup?
I'm just about to face the upgrade of my server again, it's just silly, 640kb should be enough for anyone! |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:10:28 AM · #3 |
I bought two because one will be a backup for the other.
I almost bought a raid setup. Almost. I backed out because I decided I had spent too much money lately.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 04:17:50 AM · #4 |
I went through HD hell last week. System drive (C:) getting full. Sony thought a 12GB partition for the system on a 120GB drive would be plenty. Tried disk imaging to restore to a new 300GB drive--- "You need to defrag" Tried to defrag: "you don't have enough room on the disk" Aaaaaaarrggghh. Even deleted many many cookies, application settings, temp files.
Solution: Partition Magic. Resized the partitions and now have some breathing room - hopefully til it's new computer time, which with the purchase of PS CS3 may come soon - it is quite slow compared to CS. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 06:02:28 AM · #5 |
with good workflow you should be able to work in some disk management when you put new work onto your system (the trouble comes when you have slow clients and you have work that stretches back a month because they can't decide which pictures they like best!)
i guess with HDD with the size they are and the cheap prices, people just buy bigger drives and when they run out of space they buy another.. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 06:46:40 AM · #6 |
interesting. I found CS3 to be faster than PS 7.0
Drooling over the 1TB drives there Dave. Your HD consumption rate scares the pickles out of me!
Only a little more than double the price of an 80GB WD 2.5 inch...
Speaking of which, I was looking at the possibility of using some manner of cable to try to run a 3.5 inch drive off my 2.5 inch slot in my computer. My 40Gb drive just plain blows. Only two high speed USB 2 slots and can't find anything around here that provides Firewire.
yeah, I bought a firewire enclosure, but it was a "Prolific" chipset device, so I ended up smashing it on my cement tile floor - and nobody will certify that their product does not include the same awful crap board. Don't understand why Taiwan hates firewire so much...
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 06:55:16. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 07:53:22 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
interesting. I found CS3 to be faster than PS 7.0
Drooling over the 1TB drives there Dave. Your HD consumption rate scares the pickles out of me!
Only a little more than double the price of an 80GB WD 2.5 inch...
Speaking of which, I was looking at the possibility of using some manner of cable to try to run a 3.5 inch drive off my 2.5 inch slot in my computer. My 40Gb drive just plain blows. Only two high speed USB 2 slots and can't find anything around here that provides Firewire. |
What about a USB 2.0 Hub? I had my external HD running through a hub and it worked okay. If there's nothing else intensive running on the hub at the same time, the transfer speeds are great. If it has to share the hub, it slows down some, but still worked well. And it might be easier than some sort of tricky cord deal.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:44:23 AM · #8 |
I think the never ending battle is not so much hard drive capacity, the number thereof, or the size of them; it is keeping up with archiving the data onto removable media (DVDs I suppose). If you look at the number of times you actually use the majority of the data, you might find you can archive 80% of the images, or at least the images older than 12 months. Disciplined archiving is the key to data safety and computer file storage efficiency.
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 08:45:02. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:50:03 AM · #9 |
What's the shelf life of a burned DVD?
Originally posted by pineapple:
I think the never ending battle is not so much hard drive capacity, the number thereof, or the size of them; it is keeping up with archiving the data onto removable media (DVDs I suppose). If you look at the number of times you actually use the majority of the data, you might find you can archive 80% of the images, or at least the images older than 12 months. Disciplined archiving is the key to data safety and computer file storage efficiency. |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:57:15 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by hopper:
What's the shelf life of a burned DVD?
Originally posted by pineapple:
I think the never ending battle is not so much hard drive capacity, the number thereof, or the size of them; it is keeping up with archiving the data onto removable media (DVDs I suppose). If you look at the number of times you actually use the majority of the data, you might find you can archive 80% of the images, or at least the images older than 12 months. Disciplined archiving is the key to data safety and computer file storage efficiency. |
|
That depends entirely on the quality of the media and how it is stored. Nice thing about DVDs is you can burn multiple copies and keep some "off site". |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:16:21 AM · #11 |
yep ... answered my own question
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by hopper:
What's the shelf life of a burned DVD?
Originally posted by pineapple:
I think the never ending battle is not so much hard drive capacity, the number thereof, or the size of them; it is keeping up with archiving the data onto removable media (DVDs I suppose). If you look at the number of times you actually use the majority of the data, you might find you can archive 80% of the images, or at least the images older than 12 months. Disciplined archiving is the key to data safety and computer file storage efficiency. |
|
That depends entirely on the quality of the media and how it is stored. Nice thing about DVDs is you can burn multiple copies and keep some "off site". |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 10:03:08 AM · #12 |
Eventually, these bad boys or their HD-DVD counterparts will come down to a reasonable price giving far more storage capacity per disc.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 10:05:45 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
I think the never ending battle is not so much hard drive capacity, the number thereof, or the size of them; it is keeping up with archiving the data onto removable media (DVDs I suppose). If you look at the number of times you actually use the majority of the data, you might find you can archive 80% of the images, or at least the images older than 12 months. Disciplined archiving is the key to data safety and computer file storage efficiency. |
I tried that route for awhile. I have 100 nicely stored and cataloged DVDs. The trouble with DVDs is the amount of time it takes to back them up first of all. But then, when the customer comes back a year later and asks for more prints, the time to restore (to work on) and then back them up again, got to be a real hassle.
So I've switched strategies.
When I feel I'm close to being done with a customer, I move the files off to an external hard drive. This hard drive is only turned on long enough to copy the files to it and then it is turned off and disconnected again. I'm hoping that this will greatly increase the shelf life of the hard drive.
The big advantage though is time saving. My weddings are averaging around 40Gb each right now. That's nearly 10 DVDs (and the time it takes to burn them all) versus a few minutes of copying from one hard drive to another.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 10:13:10 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
When I feel I'm close to being done with a customer, I move the files off to an external hard drive. This hard drive is only turned on long enough to copy the files to it and then it is turned off and disconnected again. I'm hoping that this will greatly increase the shelf life of the hard drive.
|
Don't bet on this. I had problems at work when we were doing this. I suggest get dual layer DVDs and burn your photos AND keep data on the hard drive.
I still use single layer DVDs and keep data on hard drive. With my 6mp images my system works well. Not sure what will happen when I upgrade to D300?.
Nick
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 10:22:45 AM · #15 |
You know im not so sure the shelf life of a hard drive can really be accuratly be determined and or helped.
1 - You would think having a motor running or electricty running through a controller will shorten its lifespan.
2 - More can happen to a drive thats on then one thats off, not to mention when its activley connected to a system that can put its data at risk.
In my experiences I have backupdrives that have been dropped and run for 24 hours a day for 3 to 5 years with no problems. I have maxtors linign a shelf mostly 512mb drives that neevr died and i have a habit of not throwing out working equipment.
The 3 drives I lost 2 Quantums 2 and 4 gb respectibly and a 250 GB WD drive thatf ailed during a backup.
I have two 80 and 120 GB drives that I use as active backup they were both in machines that ran 24 hours, both of them have ben dropepd in enclosure and both of them have run for 24 hours for a length of nearly 4 years.
However i do chose to shut down my drives these days, not sure if it does help but you would think it would. Im currently runnign a 500Gb as my internal and i need to get a 1TB drive as an external money does not permit yet.
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 10:23:16. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 10:26:37 AM · #16 |
I have a WD 80GB drive that I put in an external enclosure that had been running continuously, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week for nearly 3 years without a hitch. The only problem I've had recently was the enclosure gave out, the drive is fine since I tested it with another enclosure. My laptop's drive is another champ, it never gets shut off unless it's for short transport when it goes into standby and has been running for 2 years now without a single issue. Maybe I just got lucky?
Another question: Do you guys backup and store EVERYTHING that you shoot? Even the clearly blurry and out of focus ones, or even the ones that just simply suck?
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 10:36:01 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
I have a WD 80GB drive that I put in an external enclosure that had been running continuously, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week for nearly 3 years without a hitch. The only problem I've had recently was the enclosure gave out, the drive is fine since I tested it with another enclosure. My laptop's drive is another champ, it never gets shut off unless it's for short transport when it goes into standby and has been running for 2 years now without a single issue. Maybe I just got lucky?
Another question: Do you guys backup and store EVERYTHING that you shoot? Even the clearly blurry and out of focus ones, or even the ones that just simply suck? |
When i backup i do everythign that fits.
My normal Policy when dumping naming and sorting is to keep everything i shoot. Recently ive started to delete test shots and failures if i had a sucessful version of it. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 10:54:30 AM · #18 |
I used to backup everything but have now decided why? If the photo wasn't good enough the first time I will not change my mind later. Now I BU only the ones I originally used and a few of the 2nd choices. I see no reason to save stuff that didn't make the cut. If it's not the best why save it to sell.
.
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
I have a WD 80GB drive that I put in an external enclosure that had been running continuously, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week for nearly 3 years without a hitch. The only problem I've had recently was the enclosure gave out, the drive is fine since I tested it with another enclosure. My laptop's drive is another champ, it never gets shut off unless it's for short transport when it goes into standby and has been running for 2 years now without a single issue. Maybe I just got lucky?
Another question: Do you guys backup and store EVERYTHING that you shoot? Even the clearly blurry and out of focus ones, or even the ones that just simply suck? |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 11:00:14 AM · #19 |
| Backup everything and then go through every few months and purge. I find letting some time pass gives you a better sense of what is junk and what is worth keeping. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 11:12:36 AM · #20 |
I backup to DVD and I backup both original RAW and edited JPG at two stages. Export from RAW and Final edit.
The RAW contains all of them. I can't be bothered to sort down - time...
The JPG_1 contains only filter 2 and 3 images and final edit generally also contains 2 and 3 plus a few and minus a few that get sorted in the meantime.
In my first sort to JPG_1, I am mostly looking at sharpness and technical details. Final edit usually is filtered for content as well.
keeping all of the originals can be helpful in case someone wants to have a picture that didn't do anything or was particularly unphotogenic... or perhaps unphotophilic. If I can use that word?
Oh yeah, i will probably end up just getting a megadrive in a USB enclosure and merely plug in the burner for burns... I guess that will work in practice OK.
I am loathe to use a hub because many of them don't have very intelligent controller boards and when you plug in just one more peripheral, you can lose a lot more bandwidth than you think.
I read an article a while back that showed how many USB hubs will assign their bandwidth in quarters. Even if one of the devices is a keyboard, it will still give it 1/4 of 480 mbps. Sadly, this means that the HD also will get 1/4 of that because the mode of use has changed from straight through to shared hub.
So by plugging in a single other peripheral, your bandwidth for your primary device can drop to 1/4.
I use my 2 high speed ports for my photography stuff. First a HD with card readers (photo bank type device), then a burner, then an -as-yet-nonexistant mega drive.
I use a hub plugged into a PCMCIA slot for the others - printer, mouse, extra fans, etc.
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 11:19:57. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 05:41:03 AM EST.
