4 ms·
I wouldn't trust flash drives for a whole library of hard-to-replace music, they fail all the time and they're hard to recover once they do. Better to use a NAS
by Grimm665 7y ago
I wouldn't trust flash drives for a whole library of hard-to-replace music, they fail all the time and they're hard to recover once they do. Better to use a NAS, external hard drive, or cloud storage you pay for like S3.
- sansnomme 7y agoA RAID NAS! Anything less won't cut it.
- hhmc 7y agoStill incredibly vulnerable to physical disasters e.g. a fire
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoA 2 x 12TB RAID NAS with two separate backups in two other physical locations.
- hhmc 7y agoThat would work, but at that point is it really less effort and expense that using a managed solution (AWS etc).
- GuB-42 7y agoRAID is not backup. It doesn't protect against accidental deletion, malware, fire, etc... It only protects you against disk failure, and it is mostly used to make sure the data is still available as you change disks. Not for long term data protection. Overall, a RAID NAS is probably not that safer than a standard external hard drive. RAID is mostly there to make sure that you can benefit from high performance, high capacity and networking without sacrificing reliability. If you have two disks and availability is not a problem (you can afford not to listen to music as you restore from backup), you are better off with an external hard drive used only for backup/restore operation and kept somewhere safe when not in use.
- reaperducer 7y agoSeems like overkill for OP's 64 gigs of music. Just buy two or three flash drives as backups. They're dirt cheap and bog simple.