External Hard Drives

[Whiskeyman]

One minor comment if I may.....the subtle comment from the first posters' response indicating "Raid" drives is significant. Some many years ago I backed up files for my day job onto a single usb external drive....one day I was swapping out a new computer, and the drive (with my only copy) due to the computer swap failed, and we had to pay a data recovery company almost $2000 to get my files back. So...knowing physical drives DO FAIL, a device that is really multiple drives in a raid configuration minimizes such an event. In theory, depending on brand/Issue at hand, a single drive failure in a raid system should allow the drive to be replaced, and the raid device to then rebuild everything with no loss of files/content.

Not just any RAID configuration will do, as some do not save backup files. IMO, this video gives a good beginners level explination of the different levels of RAID configuration: RAID Explanation Video It is important to know the differences in the levels of RAID, and that your IT tech or sales rep is knowledgeable, as well.

 

[eaj101]

Not just any RAID configuration will do, as some do not save backup files. IMO, this video gives a good beginners level explination of the different levels of RAID configuration: RAID Explanation Video It is important to know the differences in the levels of RAID, and that your IT tech or sales rep is knowledgeable, as well.

Like most things, there's a three-way tradeoff between cost, reliability, and speed. Pick any two (Well, capacity goes in there somewhere.)

 

[Ralph]

Ok would this work? All I really want is to have a backup so I don’t loose all my pix. I have swallowed up the 2 external backups I have. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...wctb2srt16_0s_thunderbay_4_16tb_72_4_bay.html

That system seems a little pricy and possibly overkill. This one https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC...MIsd3vmLuB8gIVCJfICh1gjgMoEAQYBSABEgIR3PD_BwE has 2 drive bays and you can use it as a Raid setup or as individual drive. You can also use 3/12 inch drives or 2.5 inch drives. I’m using two 8 tb drives for a total of 16tb. But you can go much larger or smaller. And the enclosure only cost $150. It also include

• (1) USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C Port up to 10Gb/s (1250MB/s) - USB 2.0/3.0 backwards compatible
• (2) USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A Ports up to 10Gb/s (1250MB/s) - USB 2.0/3.0 backwards compatible

It’s worth a look.

 

[emschmitt]

OWC ThunderBay 4 24TB 4-Bay Thunderbolt 2 RAID Array (4 x 6TB, RAID 5 Edition) I think this is what I settled on will you pros give me your blessing?

 

[eaj101]

OWC ThunderBay 4 24TB 4-Bay Thunderbolt 2 RAID Array (4 x 6TB, RAID 5 Edition) I think this is what I settled on will you pros give me your blessing?

For storage it's great. RAID 5 is what's called 'striping + distributed parity', which means that it your data will survive any single drive failure. If a drive fails, you replace the drive and start a rather slow process called 're-silvering' to restore the RAID set to full health (I hope OWC documents the process on their box). The performance with Lightroom will be good, I think.

You should probably still think about a backup policy, like dumping everything to a couple of offboard drives or NAS every so often. What do you do if a meteorite hits your office?

p.s. since RAID has overhead you're not going to get 24Tb of actual data storage. You're probably going to get @18Tb of actual data storage.

 

[emschmitt]

For storage it's great. RAID 5 is what's called 'striping + distributed parity', which means that it your data will survive any single drive failure. If a drive fails, you replace the drive and start a rather slow process called 're-silvering' to restore the RAID set to full health (I hope OWC documents the process on their box). The performance with Lightroom will be good, I think.

You should probably still think about a backup policy, like dumping everything to a couple of offboard drives or NAS every so often. What do you do if a meteorite hits your office?

p.s. since RAID has overhead you're not going to get 24Tb of actual data storage. You're probably going to get @18Tb of actual data storage.

There is another one that seemed to fit what I was looking for https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1123961-REG/buffalo_drivestation_quad_hd_qh24tu3r5_das.html tell me which one you think would be better.

 

[Abinoone]

I've found this thread to be very informative and enlightening - thanks everyone for posting! Your comments have given me much food for thought, as my current backup "strategy" is very simplistic and probably not robust enough.

Currently, I simply import my images onto my 1TB SSD Windows laptop, edit in PS and other software, then store JPEG and RAW keepers. Every week, I copy any new images from the prior week onto a Western Digital 8TB hard drive. Both are in my condo (nothing offsite). Because I only open and turn on my laptop when importing new images, the 8TB drive typically isn't connected, unless I'm doing my weekly backup.

From the comments and suggestions made in this thread, at the very least I think I should get another 8TB external drive to keep offsite. If I kept the two 8TB drives in sync, would this be sufficient, or should I invest in a RAID drive? I looked into cloud storage but my Internet upload speed is only 2mbps, so that's not really a viable option. I am not a professional photographer, only a amateur enthusiast, so there's no real monetary value to my photos - only a nostalgic one.

 

[SandyW]

At a minimum I would have copies of any important (to me) files on 2 different devices/drives/whatever. Hard drives do fail. Computers fail. There are many different ways of doing this. I use a Synology NAS, but the NAS really isn't necessary, just convenient. I also have drives offsite that get exchanged when I think about it (fire is a real concern here). Upload speeds preclude the cloud for me too. I learned the backup lesson the hard way with my first Atari 800 computer when I lost my "financial" files to a bad disk.

 

[sh1209]

I've found this thread to be very informative and enlightening - thanks everyone for posting! Your comments have given me much food for thought, as my current backup "strategy" is very simplistic and probably not robust enough.

Currently, I simply import my images onto my 1TB SSD Windows laptop, edit in PS and other software, then store JPEG and RAW keepers. Every week, I copy any new images from the prior week onto a Western Digital 8TB hard drive. Both are in my condo (nothing offsite). Because I only open and turn on my laptop when importing new images, the 8TB drive typically isn't connected, unless I'm doing my weekly backup.

From the comments and suggestions made in this thread, at the very least I think I should get another 8TB external drive to keep offsite. If I kept the two 8TB drives in sync, would this be sufficient, or should I invest in a RAID drive? I looked into cloud storage but my Internet upload speed is only 2mbps, so that's not really a viable option. I am not a professional photographer, only a amateur enthusiast, so there's no real monetary value to my photos - only a nostalgic one.

I do something similar to you. Every couple years I offload images onto external drives. We recently purchased a 27” iMac and customized it with 64GB of ram and 4TB internal drive. I don’t like using a external hard drive, as I’ve never found one as fast as the internal drives. Having the images internal just makes for a smoother workflow without the extra step of plugging in a external drive. I’m selective with what images I keep so 4TB will give me quiet a bit of time before ever having to offload any images. I also do two time machine backups a week as well. I have about a TB of images that were uploaded thru the Lightroom mobile app which are also backed up in the cloud. I have the time machine backup and keep one copy in a gun safe as well as my copy’s of the original images. I also keep a cheap WD passport drive of a time machine backup in a weatherproof box in the basement since we live in tornado country. I typically clone my drives thru carbon copy cloner except for time machine backups, which that program won’t clone. I feel I have enough redundancy for any situation. I can’t justify buying a 8TB ssd drive for $1500 just to do what my internal disk will do. Perhaps down the road I’ll change my mind but I continue to keep my backups on spinning discs. FWIW I did briefly use a OWC hdd for storing originals on my MacBook Pro and the lag in loading images was annoying to say the least.

 

[eaj101]

There is another one that seemed to fit what I was looking for https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1123961-REG/buffalo_drivestation_quad_hd_qh24tu3r5_das.html tell me which one you think would be better.

Hard to tell. OWC and Buffalo both has reasonable reputations, I think.

 

[RichF]

I've found this thread to be very informative and enlightening - thanks everyone for posting! Your comments have given me much food for thought, as my current backup "strategy" is very simplistic and probably not robust enough.

Currently, I simply import my images onto my 1TB SSD Windows laptop, edit in PS and other software, then store JPEG and RAW keepers. Every week, I copy any new images from the prior week onto a Western Digital 8TB hard drive. Both are in my condo (nothing offsite). Because I only open and turn on my laptop when importing new images, the 8TB drive typically isn't connected, unless I'm doing my weekly backup.

From the comments and suggestions made in this thread, at the very least I think I should get another 8TB external drive to keep offsite. If I kept the two 8TB drives in sync, would this be sufficient, or should I invest in a RAID drive? I looked into cloud storage but my Internet upload speed is only 2mbps, so that's not really a viable option. I am not a professional photographer, only a amateur enthusiast, so there's no real monetary value to my photos - only a nostalgic one.

Basics of backup are 3-2-1.

1 master / primary copy. Imagine if you had two master copies that got out of sync. NIGHTMARE

2. Two locations, two copies on site, one live and one off line (unplugged) except when you need it. This protects against lightning strikes, viruses, and other nasty PC bugs. Some recommendations go as far as to suggest 2 different technologies, probably more important if you use cloud, raid, etc where a systemic failure could render all our copies useless,

3. Three copies. 2 on site and 1 off site

My system is:

Download card to my SSD on my Mac desktop (or Macbook when traveling). after I download all the cards I import them into LR. Eventually I use Photomechanics to cull/sort images because i find LR too slow, especially with 47 MP raw files from D850 or Z7. After every trip or event I connect backup system (identical raid) and update my backup drive. Also will do this weekly or monthly if only editing. Meaning, because I am super cautious about backing up (I have lost some important info in the past) I have backblaze running in the background so I have cloud backup. Every month or two (I get disks out of the bank vault and update them and quickly return them to the bank). Am I over doing it, probably. But rather spend a bit extra to be 100% (okay, 99.99%) secure versus less effort for only 95% secure (obviously numbers are directional only).

Hopet his helps.

 

[RichF]

Hard to tell. OWC and Buffalo both has reasonable reputations, I think.

OWC does for sure. Not familiar with Buffalo. If you have a tech savvy friend, and they use one of these systems, and they are willing to help you, that is the one to buy.

Same advice for cameras.

 

[eaj101]

I was once involved in a major disaster in which a critical server crashed and scribbled garbage all over a critical database. The backups turned out to be unreadable. The loss was literally in the hundreds of millions. I've also had a few cases where I clicked the wrong button and in one case irretrievably lost about a month's worth of my own work. Not diligent enough in backups. So I get a little obsessive sometimes. I also have, after many years, a surfeit of extra hard drives floating around, so I go... 1) RAID working set 2) NAS for direct and time machine backups 3) NAS to backup NAS 4) various hard drives to which I backup different parts of data as the spirit moves me (not often enough) 5) give some drives to a friend to hold onto.

There's nothing like the sinking feeling when you realize that the results of a couple of shoots have just evaporated to make a believer out of you.

 

[Abinoone]

Basics of backup are 3-2-1.

1 master / primary copy. Imagine if you had two master copies that got out of sync. NIGHTMARE

2. Two locations, two copies on site, one live and one off line (unplugged) except when you need it. This protects against lightning strikes, viruses, and other nasty PC bugs. Some recommendations go as far as to suggest 2 different technologies, probably more important if you use cloud, raid, etc where a systemic failure could render all our copies useless,

3. Three copies. 2 on site and 1 off site

My system is:

Download card to my SSD on my Mac desktop (or Macbook when traveling). after I download all the cards I import them into LR. Eventually I use Photomechanics to cull/sort images because i find LR too slow, especially with 47 MP raw files from D850 or Z7. After every trip or event I connect backup system (identical raid) and update my backup drive. Also will do this weekly or monthly if only editing. Meaning, because I am super cautious about backing up (I have lost some important info in the past) I have backblaze running in the background so I have cloud backup. Every month or two (I get disks out of the bank vault and update them and quickly return them to the bank). Am I over doing it, probably. But rather spend a bit extra to be 100% (okay, 99.99%) secure versus less effort for only 95% secure (obviously numbers are directional only).

Hopet his helps.

Many thanks, Rich!

 

[RichF]

I was once involved in a major disaster in which a critical server crashed and scribbled garbage all over a critical database. The backups turned out to be unreadable. The loss was literally in the hundreds of millions. I've also had a few cases where I clicked the wrong button and in one case irretrievably lost about a month's worth of my own work. Not diligent enough in backups. So I get a little obsessive sometimes. I also have, after many years, a surfeit of extra hard drives floating around, so I go... 1) RAID working set 2) NAS for direct and time machine backups 3) NAS to backup NAS 4) various hard drives to which I backup different parts of data as the spirit moves me (not often enough) 5) give some drives to a friend to hold onto.

There's nothing like the sinking feeling when you realize that the results of a couple of shoots have just evaporated to make a believer out of you.

Very well said. Backups let you SWAN (Sleep Well At Night)

 

[DBS]

From the comments and suggestions made in this thread, at the very least I think I should get another 8TB external drive to keep offsite. If I kept the two 8TB drives in sync, would this be sufficient, or should I invest in a RAID drive? I looked into cloud storage but my Internet upload speed is only 2mbps, so that's not really a viable option. I am not a professional photographer, only a amateur enthusiast, so there's no real monetary value to my photos - only a nostalgic one.

Two 8TB drives with regular backups is probably sufficient. Go with three 8TB drives if you want extra assurance. RAID has some advantages, but is not necessary for backups.

There are two main advantages to using a RAID 5 array. A RAID 5 array will protect against the failure of a single drive. This allows you to keep working and using the data while the array is rebuilt. This would be important for commercial photographers where delays in processing images can affect the job (i.e. BrideZilla or GroomZilla wants those wedding photos now). The other advantage of RAID 5 is higher performance with spinning disks. A RAID 5 with solid state drives (SSD) may be see faster speeds as well, or may be limited by the interface to the computer.

The disadvantages of a RAID array are complexity and cost. Since a RAID has more components than a single drive it is actually more likely to have a failure than the single drive, but if the failure is in one of the drives the RAID array usually doesn't lose any data. In addition to the drive mechanisms, the RAID array needs a controller to distribute the data across the disks. The controller can be software such as SoftRAID or hardware. Hardware controllers reduce the work of the computer CPU, but this is usually not a huge benefit on a single user computer. If a hardware RAID controller fails the data is likely still on the disks, but you may need an identical hardware controller to read the data. It can sometimes be difficult to find exact replacements for older RAID controllers.

For disks primarily used as a backup it can be better to have two single external drive enclosures rather than one RAID drive. If both drives are backed up to regularly you are still protected against a single drive failure. With two drives you can keep one drive offsite. In addition, with two copies you have some protection against file system corruption and user error (accidental deletions, etc.) Two single drives may actually be less expensive as well. Example: OWC 4-bay RAID with 4x4TB (12TB useable in RAID 5) is $869, while an OWC single 12TB drive enclosure is $419, two drives would be $838. (Note: for spinning hard disks USB 3.2 is fast enough for a 4-disk RAID).

 

[Abinoone]

Two 8TB drives with regular backups is probably sufficient. Go with three 8TB drives if you want extra assurance. RAID has some advantages, but is not necessary for backups.

There are two main advantages to using a RAID 5 array. A RAID 5 array will protect against the failure of a single drive. This allows you to keep working and using the data while the array is rebuilt. This would be important for commercial photographers where delays in processing images can affect the job (i.e. BrideZilla or GroomZilla wants those wedding photos now). The other advantage of RAID 5 is higher performance with spinning disks. A RAID 5 with solid state drives (SSD) may be see faster speeds as well, or may be limited by the interface to the computer.

The disadvantages of a RAID array are complexity and cost. Since a RAID has more components than a single drive it is actually more likely to have a failure than the single drive, but if the failure is in one of the drives the RAID array usually doesn't lose any data. In addition to the drive mechanisms, the RAID array needs a controller to distribute the data across the disks. The controller can be software such as SoftRAID or hardware. Hardware controllers reduce the work of the computer CPU, but this is usually not a huge benefit on a single user computer. If a hardware RAID controller fails the data is likely still on the disks, but you may need an identical hardware controller to read the data. It can sometimes be difficult to find exact replacements for older RAID controllers.

For disks primarily used as a backup it can be better to have two single external drive enclosures rather than one RAID drive. If both drives are backed up to regularly you are still protected against a single drive failure. With two drives you can keep one drive offsite. In addition, with two copies you have some protection against file system corruption and user error (accidental deletions, etc.) Two single drives may actually be less expensive as well. Example: OWC 4-bay RAID with 4x4TB (12TB useable in RAID 5) is $869, while an OWC single 12TB drive enclosure is $419, two drives would be $838. (Note: for spinning hard disks USB 3.2 is fast enough for a 4-disk RAID).

Thank you very much for your extremely clear and understandable explanation! Thus makes perfect sense to me.

 

[BirdDogDad]

Two 8TB drives with regular backups is probably sufficient. Go with three 8TB drives if you want extra assurance. RAID has some advantages, but is not necessary for backups.

There are two main advantages to using a RAID 5 array. A RAID 5 array will protect against the failure of a single drive. This allows you to keep working and using the data while the array is rebuilt. This would be important for commercial photographers where delays in processing images can affect the job (i.e. BrideZilla or GroomZilla wants those wedding photos now). The other advantage of RAID 5 is higher performance with spinning disks. A RAID 5 with solid state drives (SSD) may be see faster speeds as well, or may be limited by the interface to the computer.

The disadvantages of a RAID array are complexity and cost. Since a RAID has more components than a single drive it is actually more likely to have a failure than the single drive, but if the failure is in one of the drives the RAID array usually doesn't lose any data. In addition to the drive mechanisms, the RAID array needs a controller to distribute the data across the disks. The controller can be software such as SoftRAID or hardware. Hardware controllers reduce the work of the computer CPU, but this is usually not a huge benefit on a single user computer. If a hardware RAID controller fails the data is likely still on the disks, but you may need an identical hardware controller to read the data. It can sometimes be difficult to find exact replacements for older RAID controllers.

For disks primarily used as a backup it can be better to have two single external drive enclosures rather than one RAID drive. If both drives are backed up to regularly you are still protected against a single drive failure. With two drives you can keep one drive offsite. In addition, with two copies you have some protection against file system corruption and user error (accidental deletions, etc.) Two single drives may actually be less expensive as well. Example: OWC 4-bay RAID with 4x4TB (12TB useable in RAID 5) is $869, while an OWC single 12TB drive enclosure is $419, two drives would be $838. (Note: for spinning hard disks USB 3.2 is fast enough for a 4-disk RAID).

Very, very well put. Far too many people have been led to believe that a RAID system is infallible. It is not, as I learned from experience.

 

[sh1209]

Two 8TB drives with regular backups is probably sufficient. Go with three 8TB drives if you want extra assurance. RAID has some advantages, but is not necessary for backups.

There are two main advantages to using a RAID 5 array. A RAID 5 array will protect against the failure of a single drive. This allows you to keep working and using the data while the array is rebuilt. This would be important for commercial photographers where delays in processing images can affect the job (i.e. BrideZilla or GroomZilla wants those wedding photos now). The other advantage of RAID 5 is higher performance with spinning disks. A RAID 5 with solid state drives (SSD) may be see faster speeds as well, or may be limited by the interface to the computer.

The disadvantages of a RAID array are complexity and cost. Since a RAID has more components than a single drive it is actually more likely to have a failure than the single drive, but if the failure is in one of the drives the RAID array usually doesn't lose any data. In addition to the drive mechanisms, the RAID array needs a controller to distribute the data across the disks. The controller can be software such as SoftRAID or hardware. Hardware controllers reduce the work of the computer CPU, but this is usually not a huge benefit on a single user computer. If a hardware RAID controller fails the data is likely still on the disks, but you may need an identical hardware controller to read the data. It can sometimes be difficult to find exact replacements for older RAID controllers.

For disks primarily used as a backup it can be better to have two single external drive enclosures rather than one RAID drive. If both drives are backed up to regularly you are still protected against a single drive failure. With two drives you can keep one drive offsite. In addition, with two copies you have some protection against file system corruption and user error (accidental deletions, etc.) Two single drives may actually be less expensive as well. Example: OWC 4-bay RAID with 4x4TB (12TB useable in RAID 5) is $869, while an OWC single 12TB drive enclosure is $419, two drives would be $838. (Note: for spinning hard disks USB 3.2 is fast enough for a 4-disk RAID).

So what’s you recommendation for someone like myself that keeps images internal on my Mac? In your opinion is two or 3 copies of time machine backups enough? Like I said earlier in the thread, I might at some point go to a large external drive but for now really like having everything integrated.

 

[DBS]

So what’s you recommendation for someone like myself that keeps images internal on my Mac? In your opinion is two or 3 copies of time machine backups enough? Like I said earlier in the thread, I might at some point go to a large external drive but for now really like having everything integrated.

How many backups you should keep depends on how much you value what you're backing up and the risks to the original. Risks to the original may include: hardware failure, theft, fire, natural disasters (flood, tornado, earthquake, etc.) So if you're running an old computer with old disks I might want more backup. Likewise if I live somewhere that experiences hurricanes or wildfires I'd make absolutely sure I have at least one remote site backup.

The minimal number of copies I'm comfortable with is:
- the original data on the computer
- a backup onsite (external disk drive, preferably turned off or disconnected when not in use)
- a backup offsite (external disk drive in another location or cloud storage)
Additional backup copies gives you more assurance. I tend to keep three or more backups of my most critical files.

Another thing to consider, particularly if you have three or more backups is using at least two different programs for the backups. Apple's Time Machine and most backup software is very reliable, but code errors can happen. Although unlikely, an error in the backup software could corrupt all backups made with that software. For Macs I use Apple Time Machine for regular backups, but also periodically create clones with Carbon Copy Cloner to a separate disk. Depending on Mac configuration the clone can be bootable, which may allow working even if the internal drive is dead.

One more thing about backup assurance is knowing that you can restore files from your backups. Its not a bad idea to periodically verify that you can restore some files from your backups.

 

[BirdDogDad]

So what’s you recommendation for someone like myself that keeps images internal on my Mac? In your opinion is two or 3 copies of time machine backups enough? Like I said earlier in the thread, I might at some point go to a large external drive but for now really like having everything integrated.

As a long-time Mac guy (got my first one in 1985), I can tell you what lets me sleep at night:

I use Time Machine to back up automatically to an 8TB external drive. Keep in mind, though, that TM is not an archival backup, meaning that older files are overwritten as the drive becomes full. I use TM only as a fallback to recover material over the last few weeks, in the event of a catastrophic failure of my working drives or some sort of operator error (i.e., deleting the wrong thing). Personally, I do not recommend considering TM to be a true backup system.

Internal SSD on my iMac Pro contains only applications.

Working drive is a 4x4TB RAID 5 system in an OWC enclosure, providing 12 TB of storage space. It uses a Thunderbolt connection for maximum speed.

Both of the above are backed up to two separate OWC enclosures, two disks each. This provides me with four backups, which might be overkill, but it is worth it to me. I do NOT use a RAID on these backups--they are independent drives, known as JBOD (just a bunch of disks). A tech guy who knew far more than I about such things told me some years ago that independent drives are as close to a sure thing as exists, since it takes the potential for RAID failure out of the equation. I use Carbon Copy Cloner to create these backups. CCC is an excellent program, designed for true archival backup (meaning you can set it so a file will never be overwritten unless you tell it to). It has the added advantage of writing a small OS to the backup drives, which would allow me to use them as startup drives in the event of a failure of my internal SSD (which has happened).

My suggestion for you would be, at a minimum, to get an external two-drive enclosure (I like the Mercury Elite Pro series from OWC, which lets you choose whatever drive size you want). You can investigate Carbon Copy Cloner if you wish, or simply drag and drop your files to the external drives to create your backups. Keep in mind, though, that drag-and-drop works fine with individual data files (like photographs), but it rarely works as a backup to applications or the operating system. Apps and the OS install too many things in too many places to simply be copied. This is another advantage of CCC, which creates an identical clone of your primary drive. CCC also prevents operator error!

A USB interface works fine for me with external backups. It is plenty fast for that purpose, and less expensive than Thunderbolt.

If you're paranoid like me, make three or four backup disks instead of two. Store half of them off site if you can. I admit that I don't do this, but I do store one set of backups in a secure storage vault in my home.

I fully understand your desire to have everything integrated, all files in one place. I used to be that way, too. Any inconvenience, though, that arises from dispersing backups and files across multiple drives is inconsequential compared to the heartache and hours involved with a catastrophic failure and loss of irreplaceable images. I've been there. I've had SSDs, platter drives, RAID arrays, optical and tape backups, and various other hardware all fail over the years. As they say, it is not a matter of if, but when a drive will fail. There is an expense and a bit of a learning curve involved in creating a solid backup system, but you will never regret it.

Storing everything on one internal drive not only makes your computer work harder, but it is all your proverbial eggs in one risky basket.

(Apologies for duplicating some of the expert advice DBS just provided--he obviously types faster than I do).

Good luck!

 

[sh1209]

As a long-time Mac guy (got my first one in 1985), I can tell you what lets me sleep at night:

I use Time Machine to back up automatically to an 8TB external drive. Keep in mind, though, that TM is not an archival backup, meaning that older files are overwritten as the drive becomes full. I use TM only as a fallback to recover material over the last few weeks, in the event of a catastrophic failure of my working drives or some sort of operator error (i.e., deleting the wrong thing). Personally, I do not recommend considering TM to be a true backup system.

Internal SSD on my iMac Pro contains only applications.

Working drive is a 4x4TB RAID 5 system in an OWC enclosure, providing 12 TB of storage space. It uses a Thunderbolt connection for maximum speed.

Both of the above are backed up to two separate OWC enclosures, two disks each. This provides me with four backups, which might be overkill, but it is worth it to me. I do NOT use a RAID on these backups--they are independent drives, known as JBOD (just a bunch of disks). A tech guy who knew far more than I about such things told me some years ago that independent drives are as close to a sure thing as exists, since it takes the potential for RAID failure out of the equation. I use Carbon Copy Cloner to create these backups. CCC is an excellent program, designed for true archival backup (meaning you can set it so a file will never be overwritten unless you tell it to). It has the added advantage of writing a small OS to the backup drives, which would allow me to use them as startup drives in the event of a failure of my internal SSD (which has happened).

My suggestion for you would be, at a minimum, to get an external two-drive enclosure (I like the Mercury Elite Pro series from OWC, which lets you choose whatever drive size you want). You can investigate Carbon Copy Cloner if you wish, or simply drag and drop your files to the external drives to create your backups. Keep in mind, though, that drag-and-drop works fine with individual data files (like photographs), but it rarely works as a backup to applications or the operating system. Apps and the OS install too many things in too many places to simply be copied. This is another advantage of CCC, which creates an identical clone of your primary drive. CCC also prevents operator error!

A USB interface works fine for me with external backups. It is plenty fast for that purpose, and less expensive than Thunderbolt.

If you're paranoid like me, make three or four backup disks instead of two. Store half of them off site if you can. I admit that I don't do this, but I do store one set of backups in a secure storage vault in my home.

I fully understand your desire to have everything integrated, all files in one place. I used to be that way, too. Any inconvenience, though, that arises from dispersing backups and files across multiple drives is inconsequential compared to the heartache and hours involved with a catastrophic failure and loss of irreplaceable images. I've been there. I've had SSDs, platter drives, RAID arrays, optical and tape backups, and various other hardware all fail over the years. As they say, it is not a matter of if, but when a drive will fail. There is an expense and a bit of a learning curve involved in creating a solid backup system, but you will never regret it.

Storing everything on one internal drive not only makes your computer work harder, but it is all your proverbial eggs in one risky basket.

(Apologies for duplicating some of the expert advice DBS just provided--he obviously types faster than I do).

Good luck!

So do you only back up the originals or the library as well?

 

[emschmitt]

OWC does for sure. Not familiar with Buffalo. If you have a tech savvy friend, and they use one of these systems, and they are willing to help you, that is the one to buy.

Same advice for cameras.

Thanks Rich you have been a big help

 

[BirdDogDad]

So do you only back up the originals or the library as well?

I back up everything. CCC allows you to back up multiple volumes to a single external drive, but you have to read the CCC guidelines carefully to do this properly. I've used it for a long time, so I'm familiar with it. Once you learn how to do it, it is simple and foolproof.

But, since you are already using Time Machine, you could opt to avoid backing up applications, library, OS, etc. since in theory you could restore those from TM. You could then use your externals exclusively for your data files (images, etc.). This method is initially a little simpler and keeps your images separate from apps and the like, which makes your organization cleaner and saves space on the external drives. You don't need CCC to do this, although if you use the drag and drop method you need to make sure you don't have duplicated file names, numbers or folders or you will overwrite something you may wish to keep. Fortunately, the Mac OS always notifies you if you are about to replace a file with the same name, and asks you if you want to continue.

If I want to work on a given file, I will simply drag it into a "temporary" folder on my Mac's internal drive and do whatever I want to do with it. Then I will fire up my external drives and copy it back to them when I'm done and delete it from the Mac. This saves wear and tear on my externals, and makes processor-intensive work (Photoshop, Topaz, video editing, etc.) much quicker.

I back up apps, OS, etc. to multiple disks primarily because if my main startup drive dies, reconstructing a new startup disk without an exact clone would take me a good week to accomplish. Since almost all apps now must be downloaded, new permissions/passwords obtained, preferences reset, and given the sheer amount of time involved to install everything and remember what I have (I have a lot of software), I don't want that nightmare. I had to do it once, learned my lesson in a hurry!

 

[sh1209]

I back up everything. CCC allows you to back up multiple volumes to a single external drive, but you have to read the CCC guidelines carefully to do this properly. I've used it for a long time, so I'm familiar with it. Once you learn how to do it, it is simple and foolproof.

But, since you are already using Time Machine, you could opt to avoid backing up applications, library, OS, etc. since in theory you could restore those from TM. You could then use your externals exclusively for your data files (images, etc.). This method is initially a little simpler and keeps your images separate from apps and the like, which makes your organization cleaner and saves space on the external drives. You don't need CCC to do this, although if you use the drag and drop method you need to make sure you don't have duplicated file names, numbers or folders or you will overwrite something you may wish to keep. Fortunately, the Mac OS always notifies you if you are about to replace a file with the same name, and asks you if you want to continue.

If I want to work on a given file, I will simply drag it into a "temporary" folder on my Mac's internal drive and do whatever I want to do with it. Then I will fire up my external drives and copy it back to them when I'm done and delete it from the Mac. This saves wear and tear on my externals, and makes processor-intensive work (Photoshop, Topaz, video editing, etc.) much quicker.

I back up apps, OS, etc. to multiple disks primarily because if my main startup drive dies, reconstructing a new startup disk without an exact clone would take me a good week to accomplish. Since almost all apps now must be downloaded, new permissions/passwords obtained, preferences reset, and given the sheer amount of time involved to install everything and remember what I have (I have a lot of software), I don't want that nightmare. I had to do it once, learned my lesson in a hurry!

Lol I know exactly what you mean I got into a real mess the first time I tried moving my Lightroom originals to an external disc. I was the better part of a week getting that mess straightened out. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been apprehensive about going to an external drive again honestly. I’m still contemplating getting an OWC raid system which I’m sure would be safer than what I’m doing now. I suppose as long as I left my catalog on my iMac, then I’d still have decent performance.