What's the best way to store over 400 GB of digital photos?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3












My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    3 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3












My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    3 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago













up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
3






3





My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











My Mom has over 400GB of photos on a quickly dying 2011 IMac. We are getting her a new computer but I am hoping to set up some system where she can safely store all these files in an easy to access format. Currently her photos are scattered throughout her computer in files and applications like the defunct iPhoto and the new Photos. She also has some 200GB of photos on an external disk.



My parents don't want to store the photos only on the machine as they are afraid of losing the machine and not having a backup. My idea was to hook them up with a google drive which would sync the computer in the background, how do other photographers solve this problem?



TL;DR




  • I need a user friendly way to store and backup over 400GB of photos

  • How should I move over 400GB of photos from an old dying computer to a new one?







digital storage file-transfer






share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









Dan Barkhorn

191




191




New contributor




Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    3 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
    – null
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
    – xiota
    3 hours ago








  • 1




    Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
    – Fábio Dias
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    @Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
    – Hueco
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
    – WClarke
    2 hours ago








1




1




What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
– null
4 hours ago




What prevents you from putting all photos on the existing external disk?
– null
4 hours ago




1




1




Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
– xiota
3 hours ago






Problem with Google is limited storage unless you pay for a subscription or let Google mangle/recompress photos using lower quality setttings. Don't Macs have a built-in backup solution that can sync files to the external drive?
– xiota
3 hours ago






1




1




Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
– Fábio Dias
3 hours ago




Sync software like google drive should be used carefully. If the version on the local hd gets damaged (like bit rot), that damage is synced to the online version as well.
– Fábio Dias
3 hours ago




1




1




@Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
– Hueco
3 hours ago




@Rafael I don't disagree, but we've a ton of backup questions already. I fail to see how this one is any different than the others...?
– Hueco
3 hours ago




1




1




It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
– WClarke
2 hours ago




It’s also worth noting that, if I remember correctly, Google Drive further compresses JPGs after uploading
– WClarke
2 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






share|improve this answer























  • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
    – Fábio Dias
    2 hours ago










  • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
    – twalberg
    2 hours ago










  • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
    – xenoid
    2 hours ago












  • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
    – Fábio Dias
    1 hour ago










  • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
    – Nobody
    1 hour ago


















up vote
2
down vote













The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



Both methods have pros and cons.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



    https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



      All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



      If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



      With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



      Hope this helps.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 2




        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
        – R..
        1 hour ago












      • @R.., I have a NAS configured as a RAID on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my old photos (and all the rest of my data as well.)
        – CramerTV
        36 secs ago













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "61"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103412%2fwhats-the-best-way-to-store-over-400-gb-of-digital-photos%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



      I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



      Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



      For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






      share|improve this answer























      • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago










      • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
        – twalberg
        2 hours ago










      • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
        – xenoid
        2 hours ago












      • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
        – Fábio Dias
        1 hour ago










      • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
        – Nobody
        1 hour ago















      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



      I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



      Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



      For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






      share|improve this answer























      • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago










      • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
        – twalberg
        2 hours ago










      • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
        – xenoid
        2 hours ago












      • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
        – Fábio Dias
        1 hour ago










      • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
        – Nobody
        1 hour ago













      up vote
      5
      down vote










      up vote
      5
      down vote









      Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



      I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



      Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



      For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.






      share|improve this answer














      Perhaps I'm a bit old-school in this way, but I personally avoid storing my stuff on "somebody else's computer" (a.k.a. the "cloud").



      I would just buy (at least) two external drives of sufficient capacity - storage is cheap these days. Back up all your images onto one, and then make a copy of that drive on the other, so you have two copies. Generate a cryptographic hash of each file (MD5, SHA1 or something similar). Periodically test each drive by reading every file and comparing hashes, so that you know when you start to experience bit rot or the drive starts failing (bad sectors, etc.) and have time to acquire another drive which you can seed from the other still-working drive.



      Depending on your platform, there's various software to assist with this (e.g. rsync or unison on Linux, both of which I'm pretty sure are available in some form for either Mac or Windows as well).



      For best protection, keep one of these drives offsite - safe deposit box or have a friend or family member keep it for you. That will greatly reduce the risk of losing both drives at once.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 2 hours ago









      Philip Kendall

      16.4k44881




      16.4k44881










      answered 3 hours ago









      twalberg

      2,120511




      2,120511












      • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago










      • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
        – twalberg
        2 hours ago










      • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
        – xenoid
        2 hours ago












      • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
        – Fábio Dias
        1 hour ago










      • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
        – Nobody
        1 hour ago


















      • And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
        – Fábio Dias
        2 hours ago










      • @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
        – twalberg
        2 hours ago










      • Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
        – xenoid
        2 hours ago












      • @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
        – Fábio Dias
        1 hour ago










      • This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
        – Nobody
        1 hour ago
















      And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
      – Fábio Dias
      2 hours ago




      And this doesn't easily protect you from bit rot...
      – Fábio Dias
      2 hours ago












      @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
      – twalberg
      2 hours ago




      @FábioDias expanded on the definition of "test each drive" to address this.
      – twalberg
      2 hours ago












      Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
      – xenoid
      2 hours ago






      Worth reading: pcworlda.com/article/2984597/storage/…
      – xenoid
      2 hours ago














      @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
      – Fábio Dias
      1 hour ago




      @twalberg As I said, not easily. It might be useful to consider a NAS with ZFS for instance... But on that level of knowledge, backblaze B2 starts to be an option too, and it is really cheap.
      – Fábio Dias
      1 hour ago












      This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
      – Nobody
      1 hour ago




      This suggestion is great, except it's probably completely useless to the type of person who currently stores photos in random places over the directory structure and several photo organization programs which happened to be preinstalled and who ask their child for advice on replacing said computer.
      – Nobody
      1 hour ago












      up vote
      2
      down vote













      The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



      You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



      The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



      Both methods have pros and cons.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



        You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



        The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



        Both methods have pros and cons.






        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



          You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



          The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



          Both methods have pros and cons.






          share|improve this answer












          The easiest and faster way to backup is an external drive. 400 Gb is not that much and 1 Tb hard drives are pretty cheap.



          You could backup on two external hard drives and store one in a different place like a family member, in case (let's hope not) something happens like a burglar.



          The other option is online storage, but 400 Gb is too much for a free account so you are probably forced to buy... like 50 years of storage. But remember to have a decently strong password.



          Both methods have pros and cons.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 3 hours ago









          Rafael

          13.3k12141




          13.3k12141






















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



              https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                up vote
                0
                down vote













                With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



                https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



                  https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  With Amazon Prime you can store an unlimited amount of Photos incl. Raw Files!



                  https://www.amazon.de/b?ie=UTF8&node=12153288031







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 3 hours ago









                  Mathias

                  1




                  1




                  New contributor




                  Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Mathias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                      All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                      If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                      With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                      Hope this helps.






                      share|improve this answer

















                      • 2




                        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                        – R..
                        1 hour ago












                      • @R.., I have a NAS configured as a RAID on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my old photos (and all the rest of my data as well.)
                        – CramerTV
                        36 secs ago

















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                      All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                      If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                      With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                      Hope this helps.






                      share|improve this answer

















                      • 2




                        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                        – R..
                        1 hour ago












                      • @R.., I have a NAS configured as a RAID on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my old photos (and all the rest of my data as well.)
                        – CramerTV
                        36 secs ago















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote









                      For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                      All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                      If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                      With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                      Hope this helps.






                      share|improve this answer












                      For storing amounts of data that large, especially in the realm of photography and video, RAID drives (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) are a reliable choice, albeit more expensive.



                      All RAID arrays consist of multiple drives that spread out your data across multiple disks, either to increase performance, provide data redundancy, or both. If you are just storing the files and are not constantly reading and writing the data to and from the disk, setting it up in RAID 1 is optimal data redundancy, meaning if one drive fails, you have a backup on the second drive. There are several other configurations, the other main popular one being RAID 0, which splits data into multiple parts over several disks to increase read and write speed.



                      If you’re looking for a cheaper solution, a simple external hard drive will work fine, but doesn’t protect your data if the drive fails.



                      With that much data, online storage likely isn’t optimal, especially if you’re needing to upload and download data constantly. It also doesn’t fit well into typical photography workflows through Lightroom and Photoshop (though I’m not sure what cloud storage options Adobe is offering these days, but with 400gb I bet it would be well more expensive and troublesome than getting a RAID).



                      Hope this helps.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 2 hours ago









                      WClarke

                      1665




                      1665








                      • 2




                        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                        – R..
                        1 hour ago












                      • @R.., I have a NAS configured as a RAID on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my old photos (and all the rest of my data as well.)
                        – CramerTV
                        36 secs ago
















                      • 2




                        RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                        – R..
                        1 hour ago












                      • @R.., I have a NAS configured as a RAID on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my old photos (and all the rest of my data as well.)
                        – CramerTV
                        36 secs ago










                      2




                      2




                      RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                      – R..
                      1 hour ago






                      RAID is really not useful at all for this application. It makes sense when you want realtime/online redundancy for data that's continuously updated, to minimize or eliminate downtime when hardware fails. It does not serve as a backup, which is what OP needs.
                      – R..
                      1 hour ago














                      @R.., I have a NAS configured as a RAID on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my old photos (and all the rest of my data as well.)
                      – CramerTV
                      36 secs ago






                      @R.., I have a NAS configured as a RAID on which my computers periodically back up their hard drives. If one of my computers goes belly up or, as has happened in the past, I've replaced a computer, I simply restore the backup to the new computer thus backing up my old photos (and all the rest of my data as well.)
                      – CramerTV
                      36 secs ago












                      Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Dan Barkhorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103412%2fwhats-the-best-way-to-store-over-400-gb-of-digital-photos%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

                      How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

                      TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'