I would think that the best option is a RAID 1 with hard-drives and a filesystem that checksums all files and their metadata, like btrfs or zfs. I believe these

I would think that the best option is a RAID 1 with hard-drives and a filesystem that checksums all files and their metadata, like btrfs or zfs. I believe these filesystems support recovery via RAID 1 setups. It's just a matter of periodically (automatically) asking the filesystem to verify all files with their checksums and fix whatever corruption it sees with the hard-drive that has the good copy of whatever was corrupted. I would set it up so that it reports whenever it finds errors. Every time a drive starts to fail frequently (because everything needs to fail at some point) I would buy a new hard-drive to replace the failing one and clone the drive that has the good copy. It might be good to get drives from different (good!) vendors to minimize the chance that they'll both fail at around the same time, because if that happens you'd have to figure out from which drive to copy which blocks. Maybe it's a good idea to make a RAID 1 with more than 2 drives? Idk, that might be going overboard. Still tons better than DVDs, lol. EDIT: If you want to go further, it might also be good to sync your backups with an online service like rsync.net or something. It's more expensive than local backups because you have to pay rent for the storage, but that way you won't lose anything if your house catches fire or was robbed or whatever. You might think that if you did that, then there's no point in having your backups locally, but I would hope people stop trusting businesses so much (especially the free ones) with something as important as having the only backups of family photos and videos, etc. Backups is the kind of thing that never matters until it's critical.