Topic: Backing Up Data
Target Audience: All
Author: Oracle128
Written: 7 Mar 2006
Your data is important. Hundreds of documents, downloaded files, game saves. Contact lists, emails and appointments. Then your hard drive gets corrupted, or even worse, mechanical failure. Hard drives are delicate devices, after all. You try and try to get your data back, but you just keep denying the truth - you've lost it all. All that hard work, late nights, used-up download allowances, gone forever. Hard drives can and do fail like any mechanism, that's inevitable, and there's nothing you can do about it. What you CAN do is be prepared for it, by making a dead hard drive have only a minor impact on your PC operating routine, and the way to prepare yourself is by backing up.
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| Hard drives can store data well for long periods, and are the least likely of the discussed mediums to become obsolete. | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| Though data can occasionally become corrupt, hard drives keep data fairly reliably. | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| Partitions are only as good as the hard drive they're on; if the drive fails or is destroyed, you lose all it's partitions. | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| Hard drives are one of the largest capacity storage mediums, widely available (at the time of writing) in 160GB, 200GB, 250GB, 300GB or 400GB capacities. However, partitions merely separate the space, and don't provide any additional space on which to backup. | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| Moving data from one section of a hard disk's platter to another is about the fastest method of data transfer, and the backup partition is always available whenever the main partition is. | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| Partitions require no additional purchase, but at the price of using capacity from the primary partition. | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| Hard drives can store data well for long periods, and are the least likely of the discussed mediums to become obsolete. | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| Though data can occasionally become corrupt, hard drives keep data fairly reliably. | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| While an additional hard drive may protect against mechanical failure or (possibly) data corruption, events that effect the primary drive may affect additional drives due to close proximity. | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| Hard drives are one of the largest capacity storage mediums, widely available (at the time of writing) in 160GB, 200GB, 250GB, 300GB or 400GB capacities. | |||||
| Speed | X | Probably the next best thing to transferring data from one section of platter to another on a single drive (partitions) is transferring from one internal drive to another. The Serial ATA version 2 (SATA-II or SATA300) interface or later is preferred. The backup partition is always available whenever the main partition is. | |||
| Cost | X | ||||
| Hard drives provide one of the best cost/capacity ratios. | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| Hard drives can store data well for long periods, and are the least likely of the discussed mediums to become obsolete. | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| Though data can occasionally become corrupt, hard drives keep data fairly reliably. | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| Assuming the drive is kept well away from the PC when not in use (see "Where to store backups (Location)"), external hard drives allow for the best safety due to their portability. They are only let down by their fragility. | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| Hard drives are one of the largest capacity storage mediums, widely available (at the time of writing) in 160GB, 200GB, 250GB, 300GB or 400GB capacities. | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| While it depends on the connection interface used, external hard drives are generally slower to transfer than internal drives. Additionally, their accessibility when stored away from the PC makes them more inconvenient. | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| Hard drives provide one of the best cost/capacity ratios, and external enclosures are quite cheap. It's recommended to buy the drive and enclosure separately, rather than as one unit. This can save quite a lot of money, and ensures you get the combination of disk capacity and enclosure features required. | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| The longevity of burnt CDs has been under debate for quite some time. While some CD-R media is rated as lasting 100 years (roughly equal to commercially-produced CDs), rumours and speculation have suggest some brands of discs can last as little as 5-10 years. While CD-Rs will generally last longer than RWs, you should spend more money on better quality brands (such as Verbatim) to stay safe. With the low price of CD media, burning multiple copies of the same data is completely practical. | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| Burnt CDs are prone to errors, but usually the complex error correction of the CD format negates this. Higher burning speeds allow for more errors, so important data should be burnt at lower speeds, if not the lowest possible, to avoid them. One thing to note is that when copying/burning across several generations (ie. burning a copy of a copy), these errors can build up and potentially cause unreadable data. The One-to-One nature of digital data doesn't necessarily apply to CDs. Like above, multiple copies of the same data (in one generation) is practical. | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| The ability to store several copies across several locations, and the general durability of optical media, give CDs a high score in this category. | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| CDs are available in 650MB (70 minutes of CD Audio) or 700MB (80 minutes) capacities. While this was quite large when CDs (and eventually CD-R/RW) first entered the market, this becomes less practical in todays world of high-definition, high resolution, high bandwidth internet and higher expectations. | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| CD burning is limited by several factors, but mainly two things: the physical speed the disc can be spun before centrifugal forces start to warp, crack, and eventually shatter it; and the speed at which the laser can accurately burn data onto the disc. For this reason, CDs should be burnt at lower speeds, however even at higher burn speeds, data transfer from source to CD is among the slowest. Also, the effort it takes to arrange files to fit better on to the discs, and the manual process of burning the CD, insert another blank CD etc. is time consuming. | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| As mentioned, CD burners are one of the cheapest PC components you can buy, and the minimal cost of CD media is a big advantage. | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| Similar to CDs | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| Like CDs, DVDs can also get errors during the burn process, especially at high speeds. | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| For the same reasons as CD. | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| Next to hard drives, dual layer DVDs are one of the highest capacity media. | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| DVDs suffer the same physical and logistical issues as CDs (eg. burn process, swapping discs) | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| While standard DVD+/-R media are comparable in cost to CD-R, expect to pay several times more for dual layer discs or DVD-RAM. | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| Assuming the backup device uses hard drives | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| Assuming the backup device uses hard drives | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| There is a slightly higher risk involved, since data can be lost or corrupted during transfer. More dangerous over longer distances. Most times, the errant data is detected and sent again | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| Assuming the backup device uses hard drives | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| This depends highly on what kind of network is used for transfer. For a local, wired connection, the standard 100Mbps transfer is quite adequate, and would score a 'good'. However, the setup is more efficient if a wireless, or an internet connection is used. Either of these puts limits on the transfer speed, and this results in a slightly lower score | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| The cost of this setup includes the backup device (NAT or a second PC), the storage for that device, plus the cost of bandwidth (a major factor when transferring via internet) | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| This method is only for quick storage when there are no other options available. The data itself MAY be safe for many years, but this is a risk that should be avoided | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| You should only use this method for temporary storage when there are no other options. The low reliability is a result of the uncertainty involved in using this method | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| Since e-mail or web hosting are managed by a third party, there is a higher risk involved as this method is not being used for it's intended purpose (e-mail or web site storage). However, the more you pay for your web hosting, the safer it's likely to be | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| If you pay for web hosting, you probably have adequate storage space to store your files in an emergency. However, despite the larger inboxes of free e-mail/web hosting accounts these days, they aren't likely to be large enough | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| Backup must be done manually (ie. no automation), transfer over the internet is relatively slow (even with broadband), and there's a good possibility you'll have to split your files into smaller chunks due to account limitations | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| A web-based e-mail account, such as Google Mail, Hotmail or Yahoo! is free, and might be all that you need to conveniently backup a few files | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| RAID (usually) uses hard drives for storage, which provide the best longevity available. | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| With the possibility for multiple mirrored copies of data, most levels of RAID keep the data reliably. | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| Whilst RAID gives the best protection from drive failure or data corruption, it receives a lower score here because of the simple fact RAID is not designed to assist in storing data in a remote location, which would prevent from natural disasters. | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| Hard drives have the largest capacities available. Some RAID levels also provide methods for joining multiple drives together to form one logical disk, but this detracts from the 'mirroring' side of RAID. | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| Hard drives have the fastest read/write speed available. Some RAID levels also have features to space data out across multiple drives, reducing I/O time so the system spends less and less time waiting for the drive/s to deliver the data, bringing it closer to the speed in which the motherboard can deliver the data through the IDE/SATA connections, and the CPU can handle it. | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| Though hard drives provide the cheapest cost per capacity, the better RAID levels (level 0+1 and level 5) work best with more hard drives. Depending on the RAID schema used, you may also be allowed to only add a set number of drives at a time. | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Average | Bad | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longevity | X | ||||
| Flash drives are designed for portable, temporary storage, usually for simply transferring documents between different machines. While they can and will store data safely for several years, they are known to eventually corrupt data, or simply fail completely, whether it be internally, or in the USB interface mechanism. The USB interface itself is an open standard and widely popular, so is likely to be around for a long time - if not, easily enough replicated if needed assuming the specifications are still available. | |||||
| Reliability | X | ||||
| Over the short term, flash memory provides great stability. Marked down because of slight unreliability transferring data over the USB interface. | |||||
| Safety | X | ||||
| Great safety from disaster, only marked down because USB drives are too portable, making them easily lost, misplaced, forgotten or stolen. | |||||
| Capacity | X | ||||
| USB flash drives are these days available in sizes ranging from 256MB to 2GB. This places them at an average about equivalent to CD storage. | |||||
| Speed | X | ||||
| Whilst some older USB drives transfer at USB 1.1 speed, 12Mb/s, most drives support the USB 2.0 interface, running at 480Mb/s (theoretical maximum). It is likely the drive is limited to it's internal memory's read/write speed rather than the USB transfer limit, but this varies depending on the technology used. | |||||
| Cost | X | ||||
| Flash memory has one of the worst cost per capacity ratios of all storage mediums, only slightly better than system RAM. | |||||