Longterm storage of backup HDD : Waterproof container?

[Sebastian Cohen]

So, I am doing an archival backup of EVERYTHING. This will be the "Doomsday Vault Backup" and it won't get backed up further or connected. It is going on a 3.5" HDD, no case. FYI, I will still be doing my regular backup routine with my other drives as normal.

Lately I have been thinking about how I store my backup drives, in general. I know they are airtight so air moisture variations shouldn't really be an issue. Problem is, they usually end up all over the place. Drawers, bottom of, cardboard boxes, usually bottom of.

So I've been thinking of sticking them into one of those plastic IKEA airtight refrigerator boxes. The type has this rubber seal which would also make them waterproof. It is an added protection AND it will be easier to find. I can also put in a note with what/where etc so I don't have to connect it if I don't remember. Sounds like I have a ton of discs, but you would be surprised how confused you can get with just a couple when you find one 4 years later.

SO, long question short. I will be creating a permanent "environment" in that box and I am wondering if or how that can be negative for the drive when the outside fluxtuates?

I am planning on throwing in one or two of those silica gel pouches as well, should negate any negative variations?

This will prob just lie there for 3-4 years.

I am aware of that the lubrication might dry out in the bearings, but this has not been an issue so far.

 

[kelpdiver]

I do keep my backup and archival HDDs in a large fire resistant safe (that's bolted to the concrete floor) so I don't know how much that contributes to humidity protection. The HDDs are just kept in the anti-static bags that they came in that are open on one end. No moisture absorbing packets have been used in the safe.

There's a lot of hand waving about how fire proof these consumer safes really are. Certainly more than nothing, but the ratings are mostly self dealt. And since their burglar ratings are also somewhat fantastical, using one doesn't remove the need for an offsite backup.

They're also not airtight - the protection comes from heat triggered foam that closes it up.

As far as the moisture concern goes, gun safes address this with a heating element. But I find a running QNAP works just as well. I have a $10 thermometer/moisture sensor that shows 24 hour min/max range for validation. I considered going more serious, but the results here indicate that it is not necessary.

 

[a_c_skinner]

You need to make sure that deletes and malware changes are not mirrored to the backup. You can get cloud services that do this. Local on line backup is also prey to all the other physical hazards. There isn't an easy, cheap, safe and work free solution to backup.

--
Andrew Skinner

 

[kelpdiver]

You need to make sure that deletes and malware changes are not mirrored to the backup. You can get cloud services that do this. Local on line backup is also prey to all the other physical hazards. There isn't an easy, cheap, safe and work free solution to backup.

as I've said many times before - snapshots address deletes and mal intended file encryptions.

 

[Sean Nelson]

There isn't an easy, cheap, safe and work free solution to backup.

Price / Service / Quality - you get to choose any two.

 

[Chris Noble]

Cloud is a bit costly for the volumes of data the OP is considering isn't it?

$60/TB/year is typical pricing right now for accessible cloud storage (Glacier is not this), so that would be $300/year

Glacier is for backup, which is what the OP is looking for.

and truly remote from the customer.

That's the whole point.

A pair of 6TB hard drives would run 240-300, require user action and occasional updates/verification. On the plus side, no bandwidth restriction on the upload.

Uploads happen in the background, on demand. BW is not an issue for backup uploads to the Cloud once your system is current.

I'm in favor of one local backup copy, one Cloud. Both with time-stamped versioning updates.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Indeed and I did say most cloud services do that. Locally it means more space but in any case leaves you prey to hardware malfunctions like voltage spikes. You balance robustness and the work and cost.

--
Andrew Skinner

 

[kelpdiver]

Indeed and I did say most cloud services do that. Locally it means more space but in any case leaves you prey to hardware malfunctions like voltage spikes. You balance robustness and the work and cost.

you deal with voltage spikes by running a UPS. Personally I worry a lot more about undervoltage.

 

[kelpdiver]

Cloud is a bit costly for the volumes of data the OP is considering isn't it?

$60/TB/year is typical pricing right now for accessible cloud storage (Glacier is not this), so that would be $300/year

Glacier is for backup, which is what the OP is looking for.

and it's a complete bear to use. You're paying the same for a far less convenient nearline service. (50 centos x 365 = 182.5$, or 60.80/TB/year.

and truly remote from the customer.

That's the whole point.

A pair of 6TB hard drives would run 240-300, require user action and occasional updates/verification. On the plus side, no bandwidth restriction on the upload.

Uploads happen in the background, on demand. BW is not an issue for backup uploads to the Cloud once your system is current.

not sure why you're trying to convince me. I use Drive because I don't want to take a lot of manual actions. My backup set is still less than 2TB. But let's not ignore the upfront commitment in time.

 

[Chris Noble]

Cloud is a bit costly for the volumes of data the OP is considering isn't it?

$60/TB/year is typical pricing right now for accessible cloud storage (Glacier is not this), so that would be $300/year

Glacier is for backup, which is what the OP is looking for.

and it's a complete bear to use.

Which API do you use? Some are ultra-easy and convenient. I use the Synology Glacier app, but there are many others.

You're paying the same for a far less convenient nearline service. (50 centos x 365 = 182.5$, or 60.80/TB/year.

What are you comparing it to?

 

[skyglider]

I'm surprised that your fireproof safe stays dry.

Ours gets really moist inside, so that paper objects stored in the safe soon smell like mildew.

I've been using this fireproof safe for 15+ years. Never had any moisture or mildew problems. I store paperwork and hard drives stored in it. If I did experience moisture or mildew smell problems then I would have used moisture absorbing packs so no biggie.

Thanks,
Sky

 

[skyglider]

I do keep my backup and archival HDDs in a large fire resistant safe (that's bolted to the concrete floor) so I don't know how much that contributes to humidity protection. The HDDs are just kept in the anti-static bags that they came in that are open on one end. No moisture absorbing packets have been used in the safe.

There's a lot of hand waving about how fire proof these consumer safes really are. Certainly more than nothing, but the ratings are mostly self dealt. And since their burglar ratings are also somewhat fantastical, using one doesn't remove the need for an offsite backup.

My safe is bolted to the concrete slab floor from the inside using two large bolts. It will be very difficult for a burglar to even get a saw blade underneath the base of the safe to get at the two bolts. I'm satisfied that it is the best level of protection against theft that I can muster.

Yes, offsite backups are needed for near perfect protection but this thread appears to be about protecting hard drives that are stored in the home, is it not?

They're also not airtight - the protection comes from heat triggered foam that closes it up.

Not a problem. None of my backup or archival HDDs have hand any problems from being stored in the safe.

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

Cloud is a bit costly for the volumes of data the OP is considering isn't it?

$60/TB/year is typical pricing right now for accessible cloud storage (Glacier is not this), so that would be $300/year

Glacier is for backup, which is what the OP is looking for.

and it's a complete bear to use.

Which API do you use? Some are ultra-easy and convenient. I use the Synology Glacier app, but there are many others.

You're paying the same for a far less convenient nearline service. (50 centos x 365 = 182.5$, or 60.80/TB/year.

What are you comparing it to?

I know no one is really interested in this however, out of curiousity, I did the math with current prices comparing cloud storage to storage on 'M' disks.

If you paid the price of 50 cents per day for 3 TB cloud storage, for 38 years, it would amount to $2220. This is the same price to store 3 TB on 'M' disks.

$3.60/disk

640 disks 4.7 GB per disk = 3 TBs

[29 disks if stored on 100 GB Blu-ray M disks]

cost: $2300

Cloud storage for $60/year for 38 years = $2300

I have heard that the same archival material and burning data onto disk method is also used for much larger capacity Blu-Ray disks of 100 GB storage. (rather than 4.7 GB) In that case, 3 TB of data could be stored on 29 disks.

M Disc for archival durability. Tests and review.

Torture testing the 1,000 year DVD

Earlier this year company called Millenniata came out with a DVD that claimed a 1000 year life. Could that really be true?

www.zdnet.com

Even the best HDs will not retain data for more than 10 (if that) years in storage. SSDs are gone in a very few years.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I think we are debating something we agree about. My point is, and I dare say will be again, that if someone relies completely on backups that are constantly on line they their data is far from safe. People see these solutions as "fire and forget" and that isn't easy to do. For the average user, and what the OP asked about, data is safest off line - disconnected.

 

[Sebastian Cohen]

So, I am doing an archival backup of EVERYTHING. This will be the "Doomsday Vault Backup" and it won't get backed up further or connected. It is going on a 3.5" HDD, no case. FYI, I will still be doing my regular backup routine with my other drives as normal.

Lately I have been thinking about how I store my backup drives, in general. I know they are airtight so air moisture variations shouldn't really be an issue. Problem is, they usually end up all over the place. Drawers, bottom of, cardboard boxes, usually bottom of.

So I've been thinking of sticking them into one of those plastic IKEA airtight refrigerator boxes. The type has this rubber seal which would also make them waterproof. It is an added protection AND it will be easier to find. I can also put in a note with what/where etc so I don't have to connect it if I don't remember. Sounds like I have a ton of discs, but you would be surprised how confused you can get with just a couple when you find one 4 years later.

SO, long question short. I will be creating a permanent "environment" in that box and I am wondering if or how that can be negative for the drive when the outside fluxtuates?

I am planning on throwing in one or two of those silica gel pouches as well, should negate any negative variations?

This will prob just lie there for 3-4 years.

I am aware of that the lubrication might dry out in the bearings, but this has not been an issue so far.

I think you have a couple of options to consider:

(1) Pay to have your backup ride on the next rover mission to Mars, where the rover can bury it in an undisclosed location, in a sealed glass enclosure.

(2) Maintain two time-machine-type backups of your entire system, in two different locations, one of them being the Cloud. This option has the disadvantage that it is not expensive, can be automated, and is boring.

I didn't say I wasn't crazy. But I'm not Musk-Level Crazy.

I have had friends cry over this sort of thing when tell them there is nothing I can do. (Imagine a vet telling the dog owner bad news)

AS long as I get this into a routine and it's not a hassle, why not? Rather do this than spend COUNTLESS hours rebuilding my stuff from scattered drives and from the corrupted WD external RAID. I don't remember if it was Microsoft or WD who screwed up, but I still get annoyed by thinking about it.

 

[Sebastian Cohen]

I think we are debating something we agree about. My point is, and I dare say will be again, that if someone relies completely on backups that are constantly on line they their data is far from safe. People see these solutions as "fire and forget" and that isn't easy to do. For the average user, and what the OP asked about, data is safest off line - disconnected.

I would also argue, depending on the circumstances. Upload speeds might be good where you live now, but then you end up somewhere it's not a feasible solution both for up and down.

You then have the "locked-in" syndrome. You can't move 5TB from one cloud to another, even if they are on the same farm. And sometimes, it's a hassle just getting it all down.

Yes, some are better than others. Sure, they have better security than I have.....but my issue with the cloud is more the integration between cloud and ground, not what's up in the cloud.

HDD/storage costs is not really an issue either. Well, let's suppose they are not an issue. If you have a 1200$ iPhone, which you replace every 1-2 years. You can spend 300-400$ on a couple of discs every 4 years. A decent computer is 2000-3000$. It all ads up, we all need to cut some corners. I am saying, I am not cutting mine on dumb-drives.

Hopefully I will never need to make use of my backup solution, toca madera. Just as I will never need the fire insurance coverage for my house.

Perhaps more people would understand what backup is if we called it insurance. "How's your data insurance setup John?"

 

[Sebastian Cohen]

Cloud is a bit costly for the volumes of data the OP is considering isn't it?

$60/TB/year is typical pricing right now for accessible cloud storage (Glacier is not this), so that would be $300/year

Glacier is for backup, which is what the OP is looking for.

and it's a complete bear to use.

Which API do you use? Some are ultra-easy and convenient. I use the Synology Glacier app, but there are many others.

You're paying the same for a far less convenient nearline service. (50 centos x 365 = 182.5$, or 60.80/TB/year.

What are you comparing it to?

BTW. I use Jottacloud as my cloud provider. Unlimited storage, easy and clean to use.

 

[Chris Noble]

I know no one is really interested in this however, out of curiousity, I did the math with current prices comparing cloud storage to storage on 'M' disks.

No one is really interested because the data that is most at risk is what was recently created or modified, as that is the data that is most likely to be recently corrupted by human error.

So I update my backups every night. You can't do that with 'M' disks in an automated, quick way.

Nightly, off-site, encrypted, automated and quick are the five key features for me.

I'll pass on the fireproof safe bolted to a concrete floor.

 

[Chris Noble]

Cloud is a bit costly for the volumes of data the OP is considering isn't it?

$60/TB/year is typical pricing right now for accessible cloud storage (Glacier is not this), so that would be $300/year

Glacier is for backup, which is what the OP is looking for.

and it's a complete bear to use.

Which API do you use? Some are ultra-easy and convenient. I use the Synology Glacier app, but there are many others.

You're paying the same for a far less convenient nearline service. (50 centos x 365 = 182.5$, or 60.80/TB/year.

What are you comparing it to?

BTW. I use Jottacloud as my cloud provider. Unlimited storage, easy and clean to use.

Jottacloud -- You can't do a system backup or restore from it, or encrypt your backups with your own password. Maybe OK for cloud storage of individual files (like Microsoft, Google, Apple and many others offer). If that's what you are looking for, the big established players are a more secure option. I would not go with a small private company that does not publish its financial results and could go out of business tomorrow.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I agree, Cloud needs a good connection. A year ago I was 10Mbit/s down and 2 up, then 50 down 12 up (pretty much top of the shop for most of the UK) and now 900 each way. This might make cloud a proposition but I've got a second NAS on another 900/900 connection a few miles away.

One thing you could do is make a long term backup, put a second copy off site and use Cloud between refreshing the backups.

 

[Sean Nelson]

I know no one is really interested in this however, out of curiousity, I did the math with current prices comparing cloud storage to storage on 'M' disks.
:
:
Even the best HDs will not retain data for more than 10 (if that) years in storage. SSDs are gone in a very few years.

I believe that no matter what storage medium you use, archived data needs to have redundant copies and it needs to be checked on a regular basis. 'M' disks sound great in practice, but so did DVDs when they first came out and my experience is that the longevity of the data was very highly dependent on the quality of the burn, which in turn was influenced by the interaction between the drive and the particular media.

I used to test all my DVD burns and caught a lot of them that were riddled with a huge number of correctable errors - they'd read just fine but were on the ragged edge of acceptability. The only way to know how marginal they were was with software that could report the raw error rates and a drive that was capable of reporting them (and such drives were not all that common).

So I just wouldn't trust any optical media without verifying it on a regular basis. There are too many things that could go wrong that you might not find out about until it's too late. Between poor manufacturing batches and drive compatibility, I just don't trust that 100% of all disks can be burned in 100% of all drives and be solid enough to last as long as advertised.

And that brings me to my big objection to optical media - it requires too much handling to make periodic verification runs practical. Since my own personal standards require me to have redundant copies and to verify them on a regular basis, the fact that media may last 1000 years instead of 5 years is irrelevant to me. I'd rather have a hard drive that fails in 4 years that I can replace than a bunch of optical disks that I have to jockey in and out of the drive on a regular basis, even if I never have to replace them.