I have recently started converting my music collection to FLAC, and now I'm trying to figure out how I should store my FLAC files. I have a DVD burner, but I'm not sure if that would be a good way to store the files. I have thought about another hardrive, but if that drive fails there goes all the music. Also, is there a way I can check to see if my FLAC files are corrupted (sort of like using md5, or maybe using that program). Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Using the search function I found following threads on same topic in a few minutes:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=25841&hl=
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=23014&hl=

Do they not cover what you are asking?
Have you already searched and did not find what you were looking for?

Your searching skills are obviously superior to my own.

I just searched for "backup"....
And looked thru the first 5 pages or so.

I recently picked up a 200 GB hard drive since I decided to go with Monkey's Audio (good compression and features). I used to have a 160 GB but moved it out of my computer and into my wife's PC. Both these drives are not used as the primary drive, but instead as a secondary backup drive. All my music and photos are mirrored between both PC's, and I keep them synched with a program called CopyTo Synchronizer. Same goes for True Image backups of each system. By doing this, backups of the primary drives (which is the only backing up needed) on both PC's is very fast since all that multimedia doesn't have to be backed up every time I do one. Plus I get total redundancy should something happen to one PC (her's is off most of the time). I figure this solution should be good for a year, maybe two depending on how long it takes to fill those drives with APE files. Finished my entire collection recently (and some) and still have 80 GB of free space on the 200 GB one, so even with lossless it's turning out to be not so easy to fill up as I had feared originally. When the time comes I'll most likely pull those two drives and create a RAID0 array on each PC instead, using two 400 GB hard drives for each. That will give me around 800 GB of backup and music storage on each PC. Overboard? Perhaps. Expensive? Definitely. But hopefully prices will have come down a fair bit by the time I actually need better storage capacity. Does this help the original poster at all? Probably not, but I figured I might as well throw it out there as one possible storage/backup concept.

Almost certain to lose all your data? Indubitably.

Really now, what are the chances of two separate RAID0 arrays, on two completely different PC's, both containing duplicate files of each other, failing at exactly the same time? FWIW, I've been running a RAID0 array as my primary Windows XP partition for a really long time now with two 60GB Maxtor drives, which gets frequently backed up to a backup drive as explained in my previous post. I know all drives fail eventually whether in a RAID config or not, but so far I have no complaints to speak of. The whole point of my setup revolves around redundancy. The FUD of RAID0 arrays is overblown IMHO.

If you're looking for redundancy, why the %$^#$@#$ are you using raid 0? You do realize that Raid 0 provides no redundancy at all, and is actually more dangerous for your data? It's simple math. By using a raid 0 setup, you are *halving* the expected lifetime of your data.

Looking for redundancy, do raid 1 or take 3 of the drives and make a raid 5 out of them.

Since hard drives fail at completely random times, how can you say it's simple math? Sure, maybe your twice as likely to have a failure because you are using two hard drives instead of one (which is what I think you were trying to say), but I honestly don't consider it as big of a problem as everyone tries ot make it out to be based on my own experience. I had thought about doing RAID1 at one point, but if you screw something up on one drive it will be mirrored to the other. And that's permanent! RAID5 is interesting but goes beyond my needs.

I think I was pretty clear before on the set up I outlined, but it seems to be confusing people. So I'll try to outline it a bit better:

PC1:
Primary drive = Windows XP (single drive)
Secondary drive = Backup & Multimedia (two large drives in RAID0)

PC2:
Primary drive = Windows XP (single drive)
Secondary drive = Backup & Multimedia (two large drives in RAID0)

A regular backup of the primary drive (Windows XP) on each PC is made to the backup drive on each PC, and is done regularily using True Image. Multimedia is also kept on the backup drive and mirrored between PC1 & PC2 using CopyTo Synchronizer, which allows me to have complete control over all changes when doing a sync. Plus having all that multimedia off the primary drive it doesn't get backed up over and over, which would normally slow my backups down considerably when I did them (all my music is Monkey's Audio, plus I'm into digital photography). The backups that are saved on the backup drives are also mirrored between PC1 & PC2. Since PC2 is off most of the time, and is segregated from PC1 expect for the LAN cable, I feel that redundacy is about as good as I can get while at the same time allowing for the largest capacity as possible to store all those backups and media files. Please, this is so very easy to grasp. Heck, my wife gets it and she's not even PC literate.

Anyways, this is the set up I'm already using right now, except that the backup drives are currently only single drives, and the primary drive on PC1 is a smallish RAID0 array. Some day, when I run out of space, I will replace those single drives being used for backup/multimedia with very large RAID0 arrays as outlined above, and I won't have a worry in the world because my mirroring/backup scheme will keep it all safe just fine. About the only thing I have to worry about is a fire or natural disaster (well protected from lightening and using battery backup), and I just don't feel those are truly huge worries where I live. Perhaps when recordable Blu-Ray gets here (or something similar with very big capacities) and is affordable I may implement it into my scheme and store those off site.

Maybe this image may help some:



Edit: A few spell fixes.

Why the hell don't you just back-up to DVD-R?

Are you kidding? My way is much faster and way more conveniant. Also much less expensive in the long run too as the cost of all those DVD-R's would quickly add up (I backup the primary partitions on both PC's quite often). I'd probably be willing to consider something like Blu-Ray though, if the drives and media were affordable and widely supported. By the way, both cases are Lian Li and the drive cage is super easy to pop out (only takes about 10 seconds, no tools needed). If I'm going to be away for any extended length of time (rare) then I'll take one of the cages out and store it off site (like at my parents or something).

Edit: Added some text.

I think your idea is a bad one this is my opinion why,

• The back up copy of your data should be stored in different place to your original data in case of fire, electrical surge, theft & so many other reasons I think this is common sense
  
• HDD's have mechanical parts which makes it more likely to fail with time
  
  
• If your gonna use a hard disc it should at least be off-line to prevent corruption from viruses, software etc.

You can find may burners which can write reliably at 10MB/s which is only a about 8 minutes for a full DVD.


100 DVD-R's = 438GB's @ around $1 each DVD-R is only $100.

If you have good reasons for backing up with a RAID0 set up please list them I'm very curious,

I'm not worried about fire or theft because I'm always stuck at home. I'm also well protected from surges (tried and true, power service sucks here) and I also have battery backup. I like to be able to listen to all those lossless files I created without having to dig out either the DVD they're on or the original CD. Everything is at my finger tips always. Two clicks and everything is synced between the two PC's, how easy is that? And I'm not constantly throwing money in the trash can everytime I have burn a new DVD set because of a new backup or because I added a few new songs to my collection. And frankly, DVD's aren't any more perfect than a hard drive to be honest. It's proven that they can fail too, whether it be from a flawed disc, an error during writing, or simply age. Nothing worse than going to use a backup only to find it's broken (on hard drive I keep multiple full backups... See? redundancy again). A very long time ago I used to backup to CDRW's and learned the hard way that I shouldn't trust them, or anything for that matter, blindly or just because someone else says so. First hand experience is the only way to know the truth. Now, years later, when I'm dealing with 100's of gigabytes of data, I find it's just easier to use hard drives in the manner that I outlined above. They're faster, more conveniant, and as I said, not nearly as bad as everyone makes them out to be. With my set up, should something bad happen to one PC, I'll always have the other to fall back on. And like I said, the second PC (which is my wife's, though I built and maintain both) is off most of the time. I've been doing things this way for a really long time now and it works for me. Just because it's not the norm doesn't make it instantly wrong, just different. Besides, I might as well put these hard drives that end up lying around, every time I build a new PC or upgrade, to good use. Oh, and regarding costs good DVD-R's aren't super cheap here. A couple of spindles and you've spent enough money to buy a decent hard drive (works out to about $1.50 to $2 per DVD here for good ones). And don't forget, they can be used externally too which is considered completely normal.

Now please stop picking on me! I never expected anyone to think my way is better or that they should use it instead of theirs. And I don't think it's the perfect solution any more than people think DVD's are. I just wanted to throw one unique idea out there. That's all. As the saying goes, don't knock it until you've tried it.

No, I'm open to new ideas just need to know a situation where the back-up method is useful that's all, not interested on a ego war.

The reason is that so may people ask this & so far no one has a clear answer what to use for backing up data most people use tape or HD's or CD or DVD-R media I'm interested in well thought out reasons why.

You could still set-up a network with only your primary drives & have your back-up drives in safe storage I think.

I think half of it is sitting down thinking out logically what your exact needs are and then taking the proper steps to meet them. However, I think the other half of it is very subjective. Everyone has as different comfort level as to what makes them feel "safe". Obviously, in most peoples eyes, I probably seem to sacrifice that safety factor some what in the name of conveniance. I'm fully aware that what works for one person may not work for another of course and have no interest in shoving my methods down someone elses's throat, but my method is what works for me. YMMV of course. When you think about it, it's a tough decision actually. Very much like trying to pick just the right codec to use (and that's where I am paranoid, only lossless for me hehe).

problem is that we don't know how much DVD-Rs last ... we already had a lot of problems with CD-Rs ... if i had the money i would definetively go for a RAIDx solution anytime: faster, safer, easier.

where do you got that from? if that was true, do you think it would have been developed? how is the chance of having two hard dreives fail at the same time on you?

I've seen this logic before regarding RAID0. Since you have two drives, and it only takes one of them failing to bring both down, your thus twice as likely to suffer a failure. However, if a drive has a 500,000 MTBF and you use both of them, your not suddnely stuck with something that has half the life span (250,000 MTBF). If using two identical drives, both drives are still expected to last as long as only using one by itself. The MTBF doesn't actually change. Just your odds. To be honest I think chaos theory is what applies here really, or at least it does more so the closer to the MTBF you get. And in that case it doesn't really matter how many drives you use since all will fail at random times eventually.

two things ... regarding the failure, no matter what MTBF you have, it is much less likelly that 2 hard drives fail at the same time than that one ... i'm not a probability expert, but it is common sence ... what are the probabilities of your PC1 hd failing? and what are the probabilities of your pc1 and pc2 hds failing at the same time? ... second what i was thinking about was RAID1: DISKS MIRRORS ... RAID0 is a performance hack

som info i got:

Consider a hypothetical server that uses n = 3 SCSI disks each with a capacity of 36GB with a warranty period of w = 60 months (5 years). The system is checked once each t = 1 months. The probability of failure is summarized in Table 1.



from here (too much math for me )

Hey, cool site you found there. Did the math for my system, got the following. Probability of failure = 0.054783951 and that doesn't take into account the mirroring I do from one PC to the other.

This is kind of like that scene in Pulp Fiction where Quentin Tarantino finally says to John Travolta (paraphrasing) "Do you think there are any words you can say that will convince me I don't love my wife?"

In this case it's more like "Do you think there are any words you can say that will convince someone whose livelihood depends on not losing data that RAID is a plausible backup solution?"

You are absolutely right, Digisurfer, that the method you use for your own personal "backup" strategy is no ones business but your own, and as long as you feel comfortable with it, it's perfect for you.

But you will never in 100 years convince someone that has enough storage under their purview that statistics begin to come into play that RAID is in any way, shape or form a backup strategy. Facts of life.

The MTBF of a RAID 0 array is approximately at the point where 30% of the drives have failed (because .7^2 = .5), as opposed to the MTBF of a single drive, which is where 50% of drives have failed. I don't know what the normal distribution for hard drive failure times looks like, so I can't pin down an actual number.

Hard disk's fail too their just safer to use, use a reliable drive with quality media, check with K-Probe or CD Speed or Plextools to verify the data if all is OK there is no reason to think media like TY or Mitsubishi won't last.

The disadvantages of CD/DVD-R media is it's more fragile & there is a lot of varying quality with burners & media which means you need to take more care this may be a reason for some to use other forms of back-up but I have little doubt they can last longer than HD's & don't see any logical reason to think otherwise.

Digisurfer,

I am confused partly by the statement above. RAID5 is not more interesting than RAID1 with respect to human errors (such as deletion) RAID1 and RAID5 are protections against HD failure with different degree. They are not remedy against human error or virus. In fact in that respect they are equal. Backup is against human error.

Another thing is that RAID0 is only for performance. For games and such. If one HD fails you loose all your data. If you just want a very big partition you could use the so-called linear mode, when two HD are effectively chained up. You stand better chance to recover. Or even better having two partition (one for each drive). I know that you have backup, but even better if you have to rely on them less so. So unless performance is not paramount RAID0 is not the best choice.

Triza

Seems like people are using some pretty fancy back up plans. Off site backup, fire and electric protection. All this seems pretty cool if your a big company, but really, for most of my life I have only ever had one copy (the original CD) and never had any trouble. Now mind you that I take good care of my stuff and have never had a (pressed) CD go bad on me. At any rate, atleast if there is ever a nuclear holocaust, I suppose that some of us here will atleast have redundent archives of our culture for future generations of scientists to study.

RAID0 is obsolete and has no useful role in today's environments.

Why nobody mentions DVD-RAM? I can't believe that this format is so unpopular. The only bad thing that comes to my mind about it is speed - currently the fastest DVD-RAM media is 5x, but this is going to change soon (16x media is told to be available in few months). The good things are capacity (9.4GB on double-sided discs), native rewrite support (can be used like a huge floppy disc, without any packet-writing software), reliability (can be written like 100000 times with on-the-fly verification and last for over 100 years, especially the cardridged version), and all this for 9$ (100$ = over 100GB of rewritable and everlasting data). In terms of back-ups it's superior to any DVD-+R/RW.

Not in my setup.

By the way, I have a bunch of PS1 backups, most of which were done on Fuji CDR's about three plus years ago. I ran a few of them though K-Probe a while back and was surprised at the amount of errors. And all they've been doing is sitting in dark storage. Definitely wouldn't trust current recordable media for long term storage of anything important (such as digital photos).

Sure I don't need to use RAID0 when I go to replace my current backup drives (a Maxtor 200GB in PC1 and a Maxtor 160GB in PC2 currently), and only time will tell what I end up doing. After all, it's going to take some time to exceed the capacity of these current drives (I figure about a year at the rate I'm currently buying CD's) and the storage landscape may have changed by then, especially with Blu-Ray and the like coming. But to be honest I'm not deathly afraid to use RAID0 like most people are because of my setup. Plus I'm not a business or anything. This is all personal use, so it's not like my job, my life, and my soul depend on it. It works, I'm happy. That's all that matters. If I ever regret it some day, which is doubtful, I'll happily come here and let you all say to me "I told you so".

Oh... I love these estimates. Always wondered how they produce them. Obviously some sort of model and then extrapolate in the future. But how confident are you that your model is correct?

Is it so hard to write a disc several thousand times? Takes some time, but surely easy to test and the results can be considered as nearly 100% confident.
As for how-long-they-last, there are special chambers which simulate aging process (extreme temperatures, UV radiation and stuff). In this case there obviously is some error margin, but still predictable.

Uhm.. 100 000 times 10 min each = Two years. Possible to do, but real world usage will never go anywhere near that number of re-writes. The disk will die from other causes before that... Anyway, it's the life time estimate I think is funnier. How many of your cd-r from 8 years back work today? They were also supposed to last for 100 years and I guess put through the same kind of tests. Now destroyed by chemicals in fingerprints, fungi and x other things they didn't take into account. How long do you really think the DVD:s will last? Enough for your backup requirements I hope...

My point wasn't about DVD backups being superior to any other backup solutions, but about DVD-RAM being superior to DVD-R/RW & DVD+R/RW in terms of backups. DVD-RAM is designed to last longer, whether you believe the estimations or not.

i'm interested in DVD-RAM, but i doubt your claims, wher you got that info?

There's a lot of resources, just google. You can start at DVD FAQ.

Hi,

Would RAID 1+0 (also known as RAID 10 (ten)) be a viable solution?
I use this in my AV server and it seems very reliable.
It gives the security of RAID1 combined with similar speed enhancements to RAID0.
Provided that spare drives are available (buy five> instead of four when you build the RAID, in case they go obsolete before you upgrade) I should think that this is quite a robust setup.
Probably overkill, but useful if your storing/serving video as well as audio.

RAID5 is even more over the top (security wise) but is dog slow unless a cache'd controller is used.

The server is also regularly backed up to a 36/72Gig DLT drive... Just
in case :-)

I also think DVD-RAM may be a good idea if you will be constantly accessing & changing your back-up data. Armor Plated DVD's are also an option.

Too bad the concept of armor plated media wasn't thought of right from the beginning. After ripping my entire collection, I've discovered just how delicate CD's can be when it comes to even minor scratches if they're placed just right. I certainly handle them with a lot more care now.

This has gotten a bit far off-topic, but anyway. I'm using four Western Digital 200gb drives in RAID-5 array using a Promise FastTrak S150 SX4 with 256mb of cache. I then back up all my music to DVD's and store them at a friends house. That might be called pedantic, but it's not really that hard or time consumming.