Not if the "failure" was caused by fire, flood, tornado or hurricane.
That's the reason for the third electronic copy. It's stored somewhere
else. Consequently, it may not always be perfectly up to date but the
vast majority is protected.
I also don't backup in parallel since I'm always concerned about some
sort of software induced error or corruption being transmitted from
drive to drive. If fact, that's probably more likely than any sort of
hardware failure. So I risk some short term loss by not backing up
right away in the hope I might detect some anomaly with the main image
drive before it gets copied elsewhere.
This is where CD/DVD storage has an advantage. Once properly written it
can't be electronically corrupted. Perhaps there's a role here for
cheap DVD's to provide short term (1-2 year) off-site storage until a
completely full hard drive is archived.
Anyone have thoughts on the drive-to-drive transmission of software or
data corruption?
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Chris Crawford <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Well I guess with triple copies they won't likely all fail at once so
>> you
>> can take a chance. I have my archives in duplicate because I cannot
>> afford 3
>> copies of everything, and I doubt I'll have a problem but I guess it is
>> possible both copies of one of my drives could die together (I have 6
>> 500GB
>> external drives, and each has a backup copy for a total of 12 drives).
>>
>
> ...and you can always go back to your negatives should all that electronic
> stuff fail !
>
>
> Wayne Harridge
>
> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|