Show your support - Like us on Facebook
grynge (21 March 2012)
That will be excellent my collection of stuff will fit on 3 hdd's though I pity losing one, it's bad enough when a 2tb crashes.
Never cast a shadow in your life, Fell asleep for longer then we like, Seemed to pass the same moon every night, It's only bright enough to show a lack of light.
Non ducor, duco
Cool. I bet one day, when we're holding quadrillions of bits of data in quantum data storage so small you can't even see it, we'll look back at the idea of storing data as magnetised bits and laugh at how antiquated it was. Like making scratches in plastic might seem now... imagine.
I don't really think that the size of the storage medium has any relevance to the argument about whether it's better or not to store data locally or dispersed in the cloud. That's still open to debate. 1Tb or 60Tb, it's still subject to the same concerns.
The future of computing - future-of-computers-quantum.html the physics of which I don't pretend to understand..
You should also cycle two or more devices for the backups, since the disaster could occur during the backup process, possibly corrupting the previous level of backup if it's on the same device. If you're serious, you should store them in a different location. This is the point at which it becomes more cost effective to outsource the job, unless you already have access to host sites in different locations, effectively running your own cloud.