mw.834515: glad you like it :-)
Experience collected over a period of more than 2 decades.
And "overkill" is my 2nd first name - which includes my backup strategy.
I can be your counterpart then....call me mr underkill. :)
(I don't backup much...dunno why....maybe due to laziness and also the cost)
mw.834515: parents, work, friends...
Not a special rented room/box. That would be overkill and if someone tries to really go for your data+all backups, they would search the rented rooms too (linked to you via payment/credit card/etc).
You can call me paranoid :-)
You could rent such rooms/box in another name or have someone unrelated to you do it I guess....also by that logic couldn't work/friends/parents also be traced due to being associated to you?
mw.834515: I disagree. I have a backup at my parents house and i know, how my parents act with
their data (careless). I do trust my parents, but they could corrupt my backup by accident and i have little chance to find out, what got damaged (other than always doing a full sync with another working backup).
Encryption ensures, that the backup didn't get changed. Nobody can switch a single file (replace an installer with a trojan for example) in a backup consisting of million files (yes, there are million of files in my backup). Paranoid, i know :-)
I meant if one encrypts mainly to keep people from
Viewing said data than its not needed to encrypt it all.
Also a secure lock on the place with said data and other measures(good hiding place maybe) can prevent people from even getting at the drives in the first place.
mw.834515: Also if you have (for example) 5MB of sensitive data and 1 TB of uninteresting (i.e. gog installer) and you only encrypt those 5 MB, everyone knows, that you have 5MB sensitive data. And I do have sensitive data (from my point of view) in my backup, health info like blood-pressure history, registration info (for websites), ...
If you encrypt everything, you can say "I always encrypt everything... /shrug"
This falls into "plausible deniability" (important for encryption). This is the reason you fully encrypt empty/new drives, so no one can find out, how much sensitive data you have on it.
Even if you encrypt everything people will still wonder why you even bother using encryption.....and they'd still have to decrypt it anyways, so even if they knew which data to target it'd likely take them a long time to do so either way.
==========================
nightcraw1er.488: I use about 14tb currently, the rest is raid 5 redundancy and space to grow. So 5*6= 24tb space plus one drive fail fall over. That’s about what I need, and 6tb we red are reasonable price for what they store, 4tb is £154, 6tb is £182, 8 is £223, so £28 diff for 4-6, £41 for 6-8 and 10tb is way more. So overall 6tb drives are about right for the job. If you have less, just use smaller hdds. I had 4*2tb in my first one.
At this point I am so poor i'd maybe get an external to supplement the mem sticks and call it a day, but those are some good prices for storage.
nightcraw1er.488: So in your example, 5*2tb drives, raid 5 (effectively drop one drive to allow the fail over) would give you your 8tb storage plus if one drive failed you could rebuild the array. That is of course only one back, you would want other copies in case the whole device broke or all the drives went at the same time. As stated above raid is not back, just a safety net for one drive failure. If your never going to go particularly high then you may be better off just getting usb drives at the size you think you need , e.g get a few 8tb we elements, and make multiple clones (you would want more as a single drive failure=total loss in this instance).
As said above i'd likely just get 1 backup drive and use mem sticks as the new 2nd backup.....plus i'm not as attached to most of my data as some can get(no offense meant by that).
nightcraw1er.488: As a final note, as mentioned size is always going up, if you plan on making videos available (I have all my old dvds on there) these take up a fair bit of room, and obviously blue rays are a factor larger in storage, and the latest 8k films will be a factor more. Not too mention games are factoring up in scale, RDR2 is 150gb compressed!
Thankfully I don't see a need for 8K(or even 4K).....my eyes found a sweet spot in 1080p....so I can save space that way as well as only saving stuff I truly need to.
(Also for some games I use console and a game drive if need be)
====================
f1e: Presumably that's because on consoles the games don't have 4k visual content. In all likelihood the upcoming generation will target 4k, though, and the size will follow.
Then i'd likely cut back on new games downloaded, or only DL the ones being played(for console titles).
f1e: I saw a news recently that only 2% of steam users play in 4k. Yet the fuss about the topic is as if everyone uses it. Also all the 100% of the users must download those 4k data. It baffles me they won't make it optional.
This is why scene releases(
for bought games of course) are great...they strip out unneeded data in some versions like extra languages/4K/etc.