Using Misled Facts As Scare Tactics

[Michelle Celio]

Originally Posted by Adam Shapiro

An article was published in the New York Times today on the benefits of backing up your data in case of emergency. It focused on the losses by victims of Hurricane Katrina, namely one couple – Mike and Janet England. The article, for the most part, was intended to reach out to the average computer user who, in most cases, does not back up his or her data (at least not frequently enough). It recommended a large variety of different backup methods from readily-available CD/DVD systems, to now less-common tape backup systems, to in-home network fileservers (though I don't really see how a fileserver would help you against disasters like Katrina), to the more expensive high-capacity remote storage (i.e. big web storage).

Disclaimer: this is somewhat of a technical rant, though I find it important to say.

I feel this is a very important topic to cover, as I see it all the time when I am home (I work at an Apple Store where, upon hearing we needed to reformat the machine, the general user gives the response "BUT THIS IS AN APPLE!"). However, I disagree with some of the recommendations given in the article. The author, Kate Murphy, first proposes CD/DVD storage as an inexpensive solution. She states, however, that they are "good choices if you only want to save a lot of documents." As I believe many of us know here on Delphi, this is simply not true. With DVD storage you can store most, if not all, of the files you will ever need to save on a few DVDs, especially if you have a dual-layer burner capable of holding close to 9GB on one disc.

She goes on to give an example of a user who, having "a modest music library of 50 songs, a dozen movies, five years of tax returns, several sets of vacation pictures — plus a lot of documents," according to her, would have a need for backup capacity of "more than 100 gigabytes of data." I don't know where exactly she got this estimate but it seems very far-fetched to me. I'll do a quick back-of-the-envelope (with a few average sizes - please correct me if I'm wrong on any of them):

(50 songs)(4MB/song)+(12 movies)(650MB/movie)+(5 sets)(50 pictures)(100KB/picture)+(500 documents)(50KB/document)=8.1GB (approx.)

This amount of data could be stored on 1 dual-layer DVD! Think of what you could store on 2! Now add to this the fact that the average user who has "a modest" 50 songs on his or her computer is most likely not going to have the knowledge to download 12 compressed movies (let alone uncompressed..). This certainly does not constitute a need for an external hard drive storage system that would be both more difficult to carry in an emergency, and more susceptible to water damage in the case of a flood.

Murphy states as one of the downfalls of optical disc storage the fact that the discs "can be easily scratched and warped." While this is true, this kind of physical damage can be avoided by using a protective case for the disc. Not only that, optical data storage is a very resilient system.

First of all, the refraction of the laser due to the polycarbonate layer allows for a good deal of scratching before damage is done. One should note that the CD's data layer is near the top of the disc and therefore scratches on the top actually do [/i]a lot[/i] more damage than those on the bottom which are normally attributed to skipping discs – never write on a CD with anything other than felt-tipped marker. The DVD's data is stationed in the middle of the disc which decreases the effect of the refraction on scratching, but it is still very much a present quality.

Second, the data on a CD is interleaved using a CIRC – Cross-Interleaved Reed-Solomon Code – scheme as part of error correction (I was unable to find a good image to help explain CIRC so please post one if you can find it). This means that data is essentially scattered all around the disc. Because of this, a scratch or error of some sort in a single location will only hurt a small chunk of a frame of music, rather than risking the whole frame. The damaged data can often be revived by using the second (RC - Reed-Solomon Code) part to reconstruct the original signal through a system of parity and modulo-2 arithmetic. Because of the CIRC encoding on a CD a person could theoretically (and yes, I did do this) drill up to an 1/8" hole in a disc before experiencing noticeable errors in playback. Again, note that this flexibility is lessened in the case of a DVD, but is not non-existent.

In all, while it is very important to educate the average computer user as to the many dangers lurking out there and the importance of redundant storage of data, it is also important to give them the true facts. CD/DVD backup systems are very inexpensive, more portable, more-readily cross-platform, and less susceptible to most damage than hard-disk based systems. I would certainly recommend optical storage to the average user before a decidedly more expensive, and more fragile disk drive.

Comments?

What you've stated is very true, people do need to preform backups. But there's more to a computer than just Documents. Lets take the unfortunate event of Hurricane Katrina. Now, let says you have someone who is an avid computer graphic artist and they have all sorts of programs like Photoshop and Paintshop for example, which both come on CD's (or is it DVD now?) now if people are telling you to get out your house so when it floods you aren't out to harm, are you going to think to grab the CD's for each and every one of your programs? This is why I'm a fan of Hot Swappable Hard Drive, in case of an emergency, just pull it out. But yeah, back to the back ups, most people have allot of programs that they would need to back up, and at the end possibly wouldn't fit on one or two DVDs. I my self have a 30 GB HDD with 27GB being used. Only 8.89GB is documents.

I myself have had the unfortunate event of droping my laptop only to boot to a blue screen and wasn't able to fix it and have all my data lost because I didn't back it up. (Not that I could back it up any way, my dell didn't come with the Windows back up utility, and I can't really download one myself since it would be pirated software (I think?) and I would lose my A+ Certification.)

Ok so far, this post seems to be really confusing, even to me and I apologise, I just don't think CDs/DVDs are the best bet for a back up. I believe that no matter how hard you try there is never going to be a 100% guarantee that you're data is going to be safe.

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Fruity Pebbles

Now, let says you have someone who is an avid computer graphic artist and they have all sorts of programs like Photoshop and Paintshop for example, which both come on CD's (or is it DVD now?) now if people are telling you to get out your house so when it floods you aren't out to harm, are you going to think to grab the CD's for each and every one of your programs?

I definitely agree with you on this. There is no simple way to backup a program itself onto optical storage (that is, not until holographic storage comes down in price). The article however focused mainly on the need for the average user to back up his or her data, making mention of Christmas card lists and tax returns. While the more knowledgable computer user would have a much greater need for backing up large amounts of data and programs, the so-called "average" user probably wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Fruity Pebbles

Ok so far, this post seems to be really confusing, even to me and I apologise, I just don't think CDs/DVDs are the best bet for a back up.

I was worried that it might end up sounding a bit confusing. I initially started with the intention of just calling the misleading data calculation to people's attention. Once I got into that I just couldn't help myself and had to continue...

Originally Posted by Fruity Pebbles

I believe that no matter how hard you try there is never going to be a 100% guarantee that you're data is going to be safe.

I agree, and I think you could probably say that about just about everything. Unfortunately, there's no way of ensuring that this won't happen either

[Michelle Celio]

Originally Posted by Adam Shapiro

I
I agree, and I think you could probably say that about just about everything. Unfortunately, there's no way of ensuring that this won't happen either

Ok this is a little off topic, but I thought it would give everyone a good laugh. When I clicked that link, It was giving me problems loading and I accidentally click on the next thumbnail, which would be the rasterbated picture of Matt Krass and I thought to my self, Why would anyone not want to have Matt Krass Happen? and then I realized what I did.

[Ryan Dognaux]

For me it's a matter of convenience. I agree, backing up files onto CD/DVD is a great idea - you never know what's going to happen to your computer.

However, for much of the music and video that I watch, I prefer to keep it on a hard drive for easy access. They both run smoother when being read off the hard drive vs. a CD or DVD. Also, I don't want to go through a case of CD's or DVD's just to find a video or program.

I agree, her example is kind of wrong. 100GB to store what she suggested was overkill.

My view is that for backing up files, burning them to disc is great. However, I'm not a fan of doing that to files that I might want to access multiple times.

The argument of a hard drive being more fragile than a CD or DVD... well I'm not so sure about that. A hard drive is pretty solid, I've never had a problem with one. But a CD/DVD is more portable, unless you have external drives like myself.

Like I said, I think it's all just a matter of personal preference.

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

However, for much of the music and video that I watch, I prefer to keep it on a hard drive for easy access. They both run smoother when being read off the hard drive vs. a CD or DVD. Also, I don't want to go through a case of CD's or DVD's just to find a video or program.
...
My view is that for backing up files, burning them to disc is great. However, I'm not a fan of doing that to files that I might want to access multiple times.

I agree with that. Actually, I don't backup my own system to optical, I do it all on additional hard drives; I guess that makes my argument somewhat hypocritical. Still, from my experience a large percentage of computer users has little idea of what is going on with their computer, and does not have any need for large backup formats. It is annoying to backup the same file multiple times on non-rewritable media, especially if you edit that file often, but for the frequency with which most users backup their systems that becomes less of a problem.

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

The argument of a hard drive being more fragile than a CD or DVD... well I'm not so sure about that. A hard drive is pretty solid, I've never had a problem with one. But a CD/DVD is more portable, unless you have external drives like myself.

I would say that a hard-drive is certainly less fragile if you will not be moving the backup around, but I it's not a grab-and-go type of system for emergency backups like the article suggests. You certainly wouldn't want to throw a hard drive in a bag with other things you wish to save before running out into a flood.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Fruity Pebbles

What you've stated is very true, people do need to perform backups.

Anyone who doesn't back up their data regularly - which might be a timeframe from daily to quarterly depending on circumstances - is a disaster waiting to happen. Those people will learn, the easy way or the hard way, but they'll learn. That seems to be the gist of the article, but sometimes we all need a good scare to spur action.

Originally Posted by Fruity Pebbles

I just don't think CDs/DVDs are the best bet for a back up. I believe that no matter how hard you try there is never going to be a 100% guarantee that your data is going to be safe.

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

The argument of a hard drive being more fragile than a CD or DVD... well I'm not so sure about that.

CDs/DVDs are a good choice for backups, but they carry risks, such as heat sensitivity and poor long-term (10+ years) data retention. No storage system is 100% perfect, but using a variety of media can mitigate the risks inherent in a single type. A Hard disk, properly cared for and not constantly powered, can retain data for over 100 years, much like a stamped DVD or CD.

Originally Posted by Adam Shapiro

There is no simple way to backup a program itself onto optical storage

Actually, you can use Norton Ghost to do this. Admittedly, it backs up the entire hard drive, not a particular program, but do it only once and the program itself can then be restored after a catastrophe.

Personally, I use three different backup routines: I have a network drive (actually an old pentium with a few hard drives) that I backup to frequently (as often as daily), but only some document-type files go there, eventually to be removed to a DVD. On a weekly basis, I create an incremental backup to DVD, and on a monthly basis (more or less) I create a complete backup to a 120 GB USB external drive (cost under $100), which is connected (and powered) only for the backup process - 99.9% of the time, it's sitting unpowered in a safe place.

Naturally, I don't have anything soooo important that I need to keep offsite backups, but if I did, a set of DVDs left at Mom's house, at work, in the safe deposit box, (or maybe in the school locker?) or even in the trunk of the car, would help protect against perils such as fire.

Even if Windows Backup isn't there, the DVD drive probably has a backup routine, or just buy one, there are many at a reasonable cost. For free, just Copy the files to a CD or DVD - better than nothing.

The backups are just that - backups. You shouldn't have to access them, ever (do test them once in a while though), so keep the data on the Hard Disk.

At risk of repetition: Backups good, data loss bad.

Don

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

Anyone who doesn't back up their data regularly - which might be a timeframe from daily to quarterly depending on circumstances - is a disaster waiting to happen. Those people will learn, the easy way or the hard way, but they'll learn.

Unfortunately this is the case way too many times. I see it almost every day when I'm working. Sometimes it is possible to retrieve data from a crashed system but it's not always easy and it's not always cheap. We always tell people when they purchase new machines (especially students purchasing computers before leaving for college) that it's extremely important to keep a backup, even if all you do is email yourself the most important documents.

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

A Hard disk, properly cared for and not constantly powered, can retain data for over 100 years, much like a stamped DVD or CD.
...
The backups are just that - backups. You shouldn't have to access them, ever (do test them once in a while though), so keep the data on the Hard Disk.

The one thing that people often don't understand (which you did point out) is that the backup hard disk is not just another hard disk. A number of people (though probably relatively small compared to the total number using hard drive backups) have a tendency to leave their backup drives on so along with the machine. On top of that, people tend to access backup systems repeatedly, turning the backup into just another storage area. The truth of the matter is hard drives wear out over time. While it is possible for your particular drive to outlast its usefulness, constant use can certainly damage it to the point of failure. This is also a very good reason not to leave your computer on all day and night without any form of hibernation, as even though you may not be there the computer might still be accessing the drive.

In all the message is clear: backup your data, then remove it to a safe area until it is needed again.

[Andrew Blair]

Hmmm... I see one major issue wiith the DVD backup arguement. People should backup their data frequently. A DVD must be written, then erased again should data need to be changed. Should you have important important files, they are typically also changed often or added to often. Unless you compile an entire folder of important files, then burn them, you'll end up with many different disks: an un-organized, inconvenient backup system. Not to mention the fact the time it takes for you to compile the folder, leaving those file not backed up. (And I HATE having to use that little CD tray... It's sooo...mechanical...)

I will agree with you however that a DVD is likely more survivable in a flood disaster. Wet DVD vs. wet hard-drive? Probably the DVD will stand a better chance.

A more conservative and easier thing to do would be to use a backup hard drive often, then backup really important files every month or two or twelve on a DVD. That way, you retain an extremely convenient way to backup files, (hard drive, flash, etc.), while also occasionally doubly insuring your really important files. Cause DVD's are pretty resilient. (DVD vs. truck, hard drive vs. truck?)

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

A more conservative and easier thing to do would be to use a backup hard drive often, then backup really important files every month or two or twelve on a DVD. That way, you retain an extremely convenient way to backup files, (hard drive, flash, etc.), while also occasionally doubly insuring your really important files. Cause DVD's are pretty resilient. (DVD vs. truck, hard drive vs. truck?)

I agree. I definitely wouldn't recommend using a DVD for continuous backup, but rather for more periodic backup (however periodic is very relative and depends on the type of user as well). I'm not sure about the last part though. I think in either case something sized on the order of a DVD or hard drive would likely not survive a fight with a truck.

[Andrew Blair]

Eh, if it was flat...

[Bill_Hancoc]

I dont back up very often...since i dont have files that if i lost would be worth the time to back up...(school essays and ~100+ car pics from the internet) but i recently bought an 80gb hdd from compusa for (brace urself) $9.99 yes $9.99....right now i have more invested in an enclosure for it but it works great and i have had no problems...right now all my music resides on it for ease of partability but if anybody has quibbles about hdd's being expensive that is my story.

Originally Posted by Fruity Pebbles

I myself have had the unfortunate event of droping my laptop only to boot to a blue screen and wasn't able to fix it and have all my data lost because I didn't back it up. (Not that I could back it up any way, my dell didn't come with the Windows back up utility, and I can't really download one myself since it would be pirated software (I think?) and I would lose my A+ Certification.)

If you have an xp disk lying around you can install it from there....microsoft xp home has it on the disk but for some reason removed it from the install list...google for further instructions.

[Adam Shapiro]

Originally Posted by Bill_Hancoc

I dont back up very often...since i dont have files that if i lost would be worth the time to back up...(school essays and ~100+ car pics from the internet)

I would think school files would be worth saving. I suppose an old history essay from freshman year of high school might not be important to you in 10 years or so, but you might change your tune in college. I keep two continuous backups of all of college work, as well as a third on my desktop that I leave at home. Even if you don't necessarily need those files later they're always useful as reference.

Originally Posted by Bill-Hancoc

I recently bought an 80gb hdd from compusa for (brace urself) $9.99 yes $9.99

It's really great how cheap storage space is nowadays. I got a 200GB drive from CompUSA about 2 months ago for $60 after rebates. Granted it's not as cheap as 80GB for $10 but it's still pretty great! I just stuffed it into an aluminum USB 2.0/Firewire enclosure I got for $40 and it was up and running. Works perfectly.