Replies

That's a neat deal, but the Apple Store is too far away. I'm sure not going to pay the shop to do it because sometimes they mess up things so I have to fix it when I get my computer back. Some of it is miscommunication, dunno.

Some of my files and data are messy and scattered. I hate file maintenance.

500 gb for $100 is pretty good, man I'm having to watch the outflow of my money pretty tight right now. It adds up so fast. Do I want a Time Machine? I like to have total control. But somehow some of my photo files got dropped when I backed them up onto the Passports then one time restored some back to my hd from those. I have to be very careful how I copy and keep my wits about me while doing that. Naturally being the control freak I am, I don't want to use the software that came with the Passports, just do it manually. Some of it doesn't matter now as a lot of my photos aren't worth keeping, but I hate that I did that and not sure how it happened. So I lost a couple of months somehow. If your backup is wrong and you restore that (which I have done), then you wipe out what you copy over.

What I need to know is if I can use the same photo file structure on the imac. I set it up myself on my pc although there are programs you can use. The only downside to my system is that I can only do limited searches, and after years of photographs, I forget which year and month and have to browse a lot to find them. See below where I tried to show in schematic form how it is set up. Some folders have other subfolders for one reason or another. That was a lot of verbiage but what I need to know is can I copy the master folder containing all the levels of subfolders onto the mac and will it use the same file structure and file names I set up? That's one thing holding me back.

As to copying, I can start it going and just let it run and do something else so speed isn't that big of a deal compared to the rest of it. I don't have a checksum or mechanical way to know if anything got dropped like pro software probably does. File sizes are meaningless because of the ways files are copied, they don't always take up exactly the same amount of room, this is copying back and forth on my pc. File counts probably work, read a discussion on dpreview about why but forget now.

Once I can get some understanding of how to browse on the mac, then I can check if all my files got transferred the way I wanted. I use windows explorer with a nifty little addon called Microsoft RAW Viewer and Thumbnailer rather than browse with PS, just handier and takes too long to open PS. That will let me see thumbnails of all my photos whether they are in .jpg or .CR2 file format, but I'll lose that if I upgrade to a new camera because it won't read the newer .CR2 files.

Maybe this will help. It's like a regular file tree. Here's an example for two months of this year:

Canon EOS-20D
xx2009
xxxx0901 January
xxxxxxxxJanuary 1 2009
xxxxxxxxJanuary 9 2009
xxxxxxxxJanuary 10 (and more days) 2009
xxxxxxxxWork File
xxxx0902 February
xxxxxxxxFebruary 12 2009
xxxxxxxxFebruary 28 2009
xxxxxxxxWork File

and back through the years

The x's are spaces for indents, I can't get the html to code right, and I wasted a heck of a lot of time on it, tried sp with < and > tags, didn't work.

And so on. Sometimes I have subfolders to Work Files depending on the project. 66.1 gb. Not that bad.

When I had my camera before that, all the files are organized the same way except the master file was named Olympus C4000Z. I can remember what I took with which camera. That one won't be 66.1 gb, had to offload it onto a Passport because the 2nd hd is full again, and don't feel like dragging it out right now, it will be smaller because it was just a 4 mp camera, and I think only 3 years' worth of photos with that. I'm up to 5 years now with the 20D.

If I get a new camera, I'll start a new master file and would like to continue the same system on the imac archaic though it may seem to some.

As to my Passports, I "virtually" partitioned those myself. I have a folder called "Backup C" and Backup E" for my two internal hard drives, then all the subfolders on each drive.

Sorry this is so long and I'm tired now, long day, probably makes no sense and not worth plowing through.

Canon EOS-20D xx2009
xxxx0901 January
xxxxxxxxJanuary 1 2009
xxxxxxxxJanuary 9 2009
xxxxxxxxJanuary 10 (and more days) 2009
xxxxxxxxWork File
xxxx0902 February
xxxxxxxxFebruary 12 2009
xxxxxxxxFebruary 28 2009
xxxxxxxxWork File

Hi ALiska, What you are attempting to do is labor intensive and can fail to properly keep your pictures in order. Try doing this instead, and your pictures will always be in date, numerical and alphabetic order.

2009 Photographs (folder/directory)

200901 January 2009 (folder/directory)

20090101 January 1, 2009 (folder/directory)

20090101-001 (picture file)
20090101-002 (picture file)
20090101-003 (picture file)
. . .
20090101-123 (continue picture files)
20090105 January 5, 2009 (folder/directory)
20090105-001 (picture file)
20090105-002 (picture file)
. . .
20090105-123 (continued picture files)
20090131 January 31, 2009 (folder/directory)
20090131-001 (picture file) . . .
20090131-123 (continued picture files)

200902 February 2009 (folder/directory)
20090202 Groundhogs Day (folder/directory)
20090202-001 (picture file)
. . .
20090202-123

This is how I teach people to keep all kinds of files. Obviously, the first thing is the date in a reverse format... YYYYMMDD

This creates file or folder names that are always in ascending numeric order by date of creation.

This Christmas would be 20091225

After that you can use the name of the file and within dates, it will be alphabetic.

If you’re dealing with your own files (like these original picture files) that you are using, or transferring to another drive or backing up to a second drive, you are probably concerned about their “safety” and having them stay intact once they are transferred or moved or backed up. And I like to have two separate hard drives that will have all the files, and keep them elsewhere. That is in addition to any “backup”, such as “Time Machine”

I don’t even like to use the Mac OS X copy (to another drive) when doing so with my picture files. I’ll use a program that I have called — “ChronoSync”

http://www.econtechnologies.com/site/pages/cs/chrono_overview.html

It has a lot of capabilities and can do a lot more than I use it for — but my primary concern was that each and every file (out of perhaps, let’s say 25,000 picture files) was perfectly intact, when the move or transfer or backup was complete. I didn’t quite feel like I had the time to examine 25,000 files... :-)

So, I won’t transfer or move files except through ChronoSync (i.e., those original picture files), to use it’s error checking and verification procedures, to make sure that the files are all intact.

You might consider that...

Also, another item I would recommend using, in order to keep you “up and running” in case of some catastrophic failure of your primary hard drive — is “SuperDuper”...

http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html

It’s gives you super-duper (LOL...) cloning capability of your primary hard drive, and allows you to be “up and running” in no time flat, in case something happens to your primary boot drive.

There are some others out there which can do that, and I think one or two may be free, too — but they don’t even come anywhere near being so “fool-proof” as this one as as easy as clicking a button and that’s it (nothing else to be concerned about or worry about). This one is generally fool-proof.

This is not quite the same thing as a “backup” though. Your “Time Machine” is great for backing up your hard drive and restoring something you’ve either accidently deleted or it got corrupted at a certain point in time, and for “generally” keeping things safe in an easy manner. But, it won’t get you back up and running *real quick* in the event of a major hard drive failure. SuperDuper will, though.

SuperDuper is simply taking a “snapshot” of your entire hard drive (or maybe just your home folder, alone, if you want) at a certain point in time. So, it’s not a “backup” really. It simply brings your entire hard drive back to operation *at that point in time* ...

It’s bootable and you can *immediately* run your backup, if you go down.

I would have that piece of software in your “arsenal” of tools, too... :-)

Another consideration for your "bag of tools" in taking care of your data and your computer and making sure you have everything "intact" and able to come back "up and running" again on a moment's notice -- is -- a device to hook up "bare hard drives" to your computer...

Bare hard drives (without any enclosure and no brackets and no hook-ups) are pretty cheap. I have a whole handful of bare hard drives to use like people used floppies in the past... LOL...

I'm looking at six bare hard drives right now, beside me. And those are just the ones I'm working with, at the moment. I use Wiebetech's hardware for this...

You can go to Wiebetech's website and look around there for these devices. They've got several different ones.

http://www.wiebetech.com

Here's an article from a Mac writer about it...

----------

WiebeTech FireWire and USB DriveDocks - Review
John Nemerovski
Columnist, Reviews Editor
Tuesday, 06/27/06

FireWire and USB DriveDocks (Fourth Generation) for SATA, IDE, and notebook drives
Company: WiebeTech
Price: $75 - 230 (see below for details)
http://www.wiebetech.com

Only ten percent of MyMac.com readers will ever need to use a DriveDock to mount a bare hard drive, but you know who you are, and I hope you're paying attention. WiebeTech DriveDocks allow you to connect any computer to an exposed drive, one that typically is outside of a case, enclosure, or other computer.

Why would some otherwise normal person want to do such a ridiculous thing? Techies and power users frequently need to retrieve data from hard disks that were in a previously-active computer. Geeks know that bare drives are not expensive, and they can get a huge bang for their buck when function is more important than form.

In my case, I often have to swap drives into and out of clients' computers, or transfer data from one hard drive to another, outside of any computer enclosure. WiebeTech DriveDocks are my geekware of choice, as they have been from the early days of this innovative Kansas techno-company.

To prepare for an evaluation and review of WiebeTech's new Fourth Generation Drive Docks, I read CEO James Wiebe's lengthy white papers relating to the topic. I find them to be mind-expanding reading, but you may want to make sure you've had an additional cup of coffee and walked a couple of extra miles before plowing through them, because you'll need all your brainpower and energy to maintain mental acuity throughout each lengthy treatise.

See: http://www.wiebetech.com/whitepapers.php

In correspondence with Bill Head, Support Manager for WiebeTech, I learned the following about bare drives versus encased drives, in response to James' latest 28-page PDF white paper on "Storage Enclosure Reliability."

See: http://www.wiebetech.com/whitepapers/Storage_Enclosure_Reliability.pdf

----------

There's also another review and link here: http://www.dansdata.com/combodock.htm

I've gotten great use from my Wiebetech Drive Dock, and haven't had to fiddle with enclosed hard drives for a long time now. I first saw this at a MacWorld Expo in San Francisco a number of years ago. And I got it, on the spot, while I was down there... :-)

A TidBITS article from Adam Engst on “Accessing Bare Hard Drives”....

Problem Solving | 30 Jul 2007
Accessing Bare Hard Drives
by Adam C. Engst

Most Macintosh hardware products do a good job of hiding the actual electronic parts inside sleekly designed cases, and for most people, that’s probably best. But if you want to go beyond the basics, to soup up a Mac past the stock configuration, or troubleshoot certain problems, sometimes you need to get down to bare metal.

Take hard drives. Cases provide physical protection, a certain level of useful industrial design, and conversion from the hard drive mechanism’s native power and interface connectors to standard power jacks and ports such as FireWire and USB 2.0. But making it possible to power a hard drive mechanism and connect it to a computer doesn’t require a case, just the connector conversions. Several new products now enable you to do just that - use a hard drive mechanism directly on a Mac or PC without a case.

Why would you want to? Perhaps a friend or client is switching from a dying PC to a Mac and needs to transfer content from the PC’s hard disk to a VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop installation on a new iMac. Maybe, working as a consultant or help desk support technician, you regularly encounter situations where you need to make backups of or recover data on disks installed in computers that are otherwise non-functional. Or perhaps, like me, you’ve had trouble with a FireWire drive case or drive bay used for regular backups. The problem isn’t with the drive mechanisms, but you’re still dead in the water unless you can get those drives to mount.

[ ... ]

http://db.tidbits.com/article/9089

He lists a cheap interface for hooking up bare hard drives in that article, in addition to the Wiebetech one...

When people are dealing with (today) a lot of music files that they have purchased, home video files from digital video recorders, and/or picture files from digital cameras, you’re talking about a lot of data and it’s very sensitive data. It can accumulate *really fast*, too...

So, *long term backup* — or your permanent *archive* — should be a real consideration, not just keeping them on your computer and some “backup” like Time Machine. I think, these days, *bare hard drives* are the best backup system that you can have, for the cost and effectiveness of the whole thing.

I spotted this article from a discussion having to do with storage and backup methodologies...

Re: Backup strategy for your SAN ?
by Eric Hansen on Jul 9, 2009 at 5:26:17 pm

Neil wrote: “With LTOs, my observation is they’re not like hard drives. You need to have the software that wrote it, just to read them. So, a Bru backup, needs Bru to restore. Retrospect needs retrospect and so on. Windows Backup (its a software built in to Windows) seems to be common across Windows systems.”

you can look back through my post history in the various COW forums and see that i have talked a lot about SDLT and LTO based archive (not backup) systems. i personally don’t believe in backing up a RAID-5 array such as Xsan. that’s why its RAID-5. have a few spare drives around to hot-swap if a drive fails. i’ve never lost media on a RAID-5 because someone was always around to hot-swap when needed. be sure to show your staff how to do this procedure.

at a former facility, we used the SDLT-600a, an ethernet-based SDLT drive. it was slow, but it worked great for archiving projects and was accessible to all computers on the office network. it used FTP and all the employees knew how to use FTP. i had researched LTO options using BRU and Retrospect with an attached LTO4 drive, but what stopped me from getting it is that it wasnt as easy as FTP (everyone needs to know how to use this system and there were definitely a few people that would never be able to learn a Retrospect or BRU-based system), and it was only available on one computer. another thing that became a huge concern was whenever the SDLT drive went down, we would lose access to our entire archive. the few times the drive broke were very critical. i would only recommend a tape-based system if you can afford 2 decks to minimize downtime. that former facility ended up getting an LTO4 system for archiving their RED footage and its been working great for them. but i know that my counterpart over there is the only one that knows the system, and personally that would drive me mad. my goal has always been to make it as easy as possible for an editor to access old footage when needed as quickly and easily as possible.

i now recommend to my clients a bare hard drive based system, where you archive your projects to 3 different drives - 2 in-house and 1 out of house that you rotate on a regular basis. a tape library should be done in the same way. hard drives are extremely cheap and getting cheaper at a faster rate than tape. then get a hard drive bay like Bob suggested above. i have been using eSATA “toasters” at a few facilities and they have been awesome. you load 2 hard drives in the top like a toaster, copy what you need, and eject.

regarding the “30 year shelf life” that Bob pointed out, i’m sure its true. but you need to keep those old decks around. tape companies advance their technology by creating new tape systems. when hard drives advance, they usually keep the same interface. look at the last 20 years and compare the different tape formats against the different hard drive interfaces. its definitely easier to hook up an old hard drive than an old tape. but you have to remember that hard drives don’t have the shelf life, so i recommend to my clients that they test their drives every 6 months and replace them when needed. thats why there are 3.

i’ve been talking about archive and not backup. for backup, i recommend that you have daily backups for your computer’s boot drive, which in many cases contains all your current projects. i would go with a cloning system like Carbon Copy Cloner (Mac) because you can get back running right away. in my experience, i have never needed an incremental backup system because no one every says to me “hey, i need a file i accidentally deleted 3 weeks ago.” its always been “crap, my hard drive died and i have to print this tape today and make FedEx.”

as for the SAN, since its RAID-5, i wouldnt worry about backing it up regularly. its more important to create a workflow for dealing with your media before loading to the SAN, and archiving after the edit is done.

e

Eric Hansen, The Audio Visual Plumber - http://www.avplumber.com/

Note these particular paragraphs...

i now recommend to my clients a bare hard drive based system, where you archive your projects to 3 different drives - 2 in-house and 1 out of house that you rotate on a regular basis. a tape library should be done in the same way. hard drives are extremely cheap and getting cheaper at a faster rate than tape. then get a hard drive bay like Bob suggested above.

[ ... ]

regarding the “30 year shelf life” that Bob pointed out, i’m sure its true. but you need to keep those old decks around. tape companies advance their technology by creating new tape systems. when hard drives advance, they usually keep the same interface. look at the last 20 years and compare the different tape formats against the different hard drive interfaces. its definitely easier to hook up an old hard drive than an old tape. but you have to remember that hard drives don’t have the shelf life, so i recommend to my clients that they test their drives every 6 months and replace them when needed. thats why there are 3.

[ ... ]

i’ve been talking about archive and not backup. for backup, i recommend that you have daily backups for your computer’s boot drive, which in many cases contains all your current projects. i would go with a cloning system like Carbon Copy Cloner (Mac) because you can get back running right away. in my experience, i have never needed an incremental backup system because no one every says to me “hey, i need a file i accidentally deleted 3 weeks ago.” its always been “crap, my hard drive died and i have to print this tape today and make FedEx.”

—

Of course, I’ve already mentioned the “SuperDuper” [Macintosh] program for super-ease-of-use for doing the job of what he refers to here... “Carbon Copy Cloner” (you could use that, too... but I prefer SuperDuper).