On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 2:03:38 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> >
> > > > In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
> > > > amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
> > > > simply absurdly small nowadays.
> > >
> > > nonsense. 1tb is not 'absurdly small'.
> >
> > An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
> > where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
> > files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters are
> > more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have
> > accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and
> > management...
>
> putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
> is incredibly dumb.
>
> that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
> drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and
> optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user
> interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.

When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.

Because what is being claimed is "don't store it here, store it over there."

-hh

In article <479d7be3-a53e-4e35-9fcc-e954c14ca5d3n@googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > > An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
> > > where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
> > > files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters
> > > are
> > > more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have
> > > accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and
> > > management...
> >
> > putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
> > is incredibly dumb.
> >
> > that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
> > drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and
> > optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user
> > interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
>
> When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.

read it again. nowhere does it say the nas is the only copy. it
actually states the opposite.

do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you intentionally
lying about what i wrote?

> Because what is being claimed is "don't store it here, store it over there."

nope. that's not what's being claimed.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 4:14:57 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > > > An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
> > > > where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
> > > > files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters
> > > > are
> > > > more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have
> > > > accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and
> > > > management...
> > >
> > > putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
> > > is incredibly dumb.
> > >
> > > that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
> > > drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and
> > > optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user
> > > interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
> >
> > When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.
>
> read it again. nowhere does it say the nas is the only copy. it
> actually states the opposite.

But if that were true, then you'd be admitting that they still need the big internal drive *too*.

> do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you intentionally
> lying about what i wrote?

This hasn't been talking about backups, but where the primary data instance is to reside.
For that, your comment was to put it on a NAS. That means that it is there *instead of*
residing on internal storage: that's not a backup, but the primary data's instance.

Any other interpretation is an after-the-fact goalpost move attempt by you, based on
your personal biases of what you think their use case *should* be, instead of what
they stated they wanted it to be.

Now sure, we can go configure a NAS to be both the primary instance repository *and* for it
to be backup copy for the same, but to do so requires having greater storage capacity than
merely the size of the primary instance. Not likely to be cheaper at parity in size & performance.

And before one suggests using a RAID 5 or 6 (to have less overhead than RAID 1), note that
these formats are still using *one* instance, to which parity checks/etc are added to improve
improve its recovery reliability: it don't actually provide a fully standalone redundant backup copy.

-hh

On 28/03/2022 6:04 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 12:34 schrieb geoff:
>> On 27/03/2022 11:22 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
>>>> On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>>> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>>>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with
>>>>>>>> 32 or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for
>>>>>>>> me for another 10 years
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
>>>>>>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply
>>>>>>> a joke.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's
>>>>>> of redundancies too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
>>>>>> that will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of
>>>>>> money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
>>>>>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would
>>>>>> leave me 350 GB of spare space.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
>>>>> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use
>>>>> these images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
>>>>
>>>> Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external
>>>> drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose  ?
>>>
>>> Obviously I have backups.
>>>
>>> On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
>>> images at a mouse click,
>>
>> NAS ?
>
> Could be an idea. But a NAS would have to be always on, connected to the
> home WLAN. And there is the risk that some hacker could break into the
> network and get access to TB of data.

Yeah, and somebody could pinch your laptop.

My NAS has been on 24/7 for around 20 years and nobody has hacked it.

>
> <snip>
>
>> Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when
>> you travel. Its not like it will be huge !
>
> Yes, but still a brick connected by a cable to your laptop. I'm sick and
> tired of external bricks.

Hardly a 'brick'.

geoff

In article <c364726e-f580-42eb-975f-da8f0b69995fn@googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > > > > An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric
> > > > > group,
> > > > > where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of
> > > > > RAW
> > > > > files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the
> > > > > posters
> > > > > are
> > > > > more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to
> > > > > have
> > > > > accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage
> > > > > and
> > > > > management...
> > > >
> > > > putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
> > > > is incredibly dumb.
> > > >
> > > > that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
> > > > drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and
> > > > optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user
> > > > interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
> > >
> > > When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.
> >
> > read it again. nowhere does it say the nas is the only copy. it
> > actually states the opposite.
>
> But if that were true, then you'd be admitting that they still need the big
> internal drive *too*.

it is true, and without a need for a large internal volume. it actually
*reduces* the size of the internal volume.

> > do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you intentionally
> > lying about what i wrote?
>
> This hasn't been talking about backups,

then why are you bringing it up, other than for a diversion and
goalpost movement, that is?

> but where the primary data instance
> is to reside.
> For that, your comment was to put it on a NAS. That means that it is there
> *instead of*
> residing on internal storage: that's not a backup, but the primary data's
> instance.

yep. backups are separate, which need to be done regardless of where
the original content resides.

> Any other interpretation is an after-the-fact goalpost move attempt by you,
> based on
> your personal biases of what you think their use case *should* be, instead of
> what
> they stated they wanted it to be.

nope. it's *you* attempting to move the goalposts.

> Now sure, we can go configure a NAS to be both the primary instance
> repository *and* for it
> to be backup copy for the same, but to do so requires having greater storage
> capacity than
> merely the size of the primary instance. Not likely to be cheaper at parity
> in size & performance.

it cannot be both, for reasons that should be obvious.

> And before one suggests using a RAID 5 or 6 (to have less overhead than RAID
> 1), note that
> these formats are still using *one* instance, to which parity checks/etc are
> added to improve
> improve its recovery reliability: it don't actually provide a fully standalone redundant backup copy.

nobody said a raid array is a backup. that's a common myth.

another attempt to move goalposts.

In article <J-ydnfP55MrEQ93_nZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> My NAS has been on 24/7 for around 20 years and nobody has hacked it.

you might consider replacing the drives.

Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
> the average user.

If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
limit.

And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article <nh50K.6924$sb1.5765@fx11.ams1>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
> limit.

currently 8tb is the maximum internal from the factory, with an
infinite amount externally.

> And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".

except your reasons are flawed. a cable on a desktop computer is *not*
an issue.

On 2022-03-27 18:10, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
>> the average user.
>
> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
> limit.

The upper limit is 8GB (currently).

But few people need that. You're defending a silly position.

>
> And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".

Judging from all your posts over the years, I doubt you're up to the
level of average user.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

In article <yQ50K.628187$aT3.516845@fx09.iad>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
> >> the average user.
> >
> > If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
> > limit.
>
> The upper limit is 8GB (currently).

tb, not gb. :)

> But few people need that. You're defending a silly position.

yep to both.

On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, nospam wrote:
> In article <J-ydnfP55MrEQ93_nZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>> My NAS has been on 24/7 for around 20 years and nobody has hacked it.
>
> you might consider replacing the drives.

OK 24/7 except for a few power failures and 3 or 4 maintenance/upgrade
sessions (drives several times, none for failure. And NAS host which got
outdated with lack of some new necessary net capability).

geoff

On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
>> the average user.
>
> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
> limit.
>
> And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".

But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....

geoff

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> hh wrote:
>
> > > > > > An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric
> > > > > > group,
> > > > > > where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of
> > > > > > RAW
> > > > > > files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the
> > > > > > posters
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > management...
> > > > >
> > > > > putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
> > > > > is incredibly dumb.
> > > > >
> > > > > that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
> > > > > drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and
> > > > > optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user
> > > > > interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.
> > > >
> > > > When the NAS is also the only copy, there's no difference in redundancy.
> > >
> > > read it again. nowhere does it say the nas is the only copy. it
> > > actually states the opposite.
> >
> > But if that were true, then you'd be admitting that they still need the big
> > internal drive *too*.
>
> it is true, ..

Then end of story, because all you’ve then said is that the user should
consider also buying a NAS for their redundancy.. ie backup.

> and without a need for a large internal volume.

Not what the customer said they required, was it?

> it actually *reduces* the size of the internal volume.

So you’re saying that the customer is *always* wrong.

It’s one thing to recommend a reconsideration of requirements
with suitable rationale, but once the customer has reconsidered
and hasn’t materially changed, then you’ve failed. Again.

-hh

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
> >> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
> >> the average user.
> >
> > If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
> > limit.
> >
> > And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
>
> But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
> really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
> re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....

And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
“you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of
their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish
to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.

Just because you or I might choose a different trade-off doesn’t
make us right and the other guy wrong: it’s invariably just a difference
in weighting factors which then points to a different optimization set.

-hh

On Sunday, 27 March 2022 at 11:22:31 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
> > On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
> >> Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
> >>> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
> >>>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
> >>>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
> >>>>> or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
> >>>>> another 10 years
> >>>>
> >>>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
> >>>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a
> >>>> joke.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
> >>>
> >>> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of
> >>> redundancies too.
> >>>
> >>> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
> >>> that will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of
> >>> money.
> >>>
> >>> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
> >>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
> >>> me 350 GB of spare space.
> >>
> >> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
> >> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
> >> images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
> >
> > Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
> >
> > Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) -
> > aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
> Obviously I have backups.
>
> On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
> images at a mouse click, i.e. not having to walk to another room,
> fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.

I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
I can find almost anything I want on various sites sure it'd be nice to have the whole of
youtube on my internal drive, spotify & every movie I'd like to watch and have watched.
Not sure anyone makes one of that size.
My 500GB SSD in my 2014 iMac is still enough as I don;t mind clicking on an external link
such as youtube or flikr, I don't even have to get up to pick up a dictionary, google seems
to manage most corrections and definitions proivided I remember to ignore most of the american spelling and some meaning.

>
> The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
> around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.

Like a woman wanting to carry every pair of shoes and matching outfits going on holiday. ;-)

>
> In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
> simply absurdly small nowadays.

Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
seem to manage.

>
> When I buy a new PC or notebook, they first thing I usually do is to
> replace the SSD with a larger one.

Why not buy one with the correct size ?

Apple do a mac book pro with a 8TB drive.

So what size disc or drive are you looking to buy ?

> If a device such as the Apple
> prevents you from doing so, it's a no-go for me.
> --
> Alfred Molon
>
> Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
> https://groups.io/g/myolympus
> https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Am 28.03.2022 um 00:47 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
>> storage limit.
>
> The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
>
> But few people need that.  You're defending a silly position.

It's silly to insist that 1TB is sufficient for the next 10 years. Not
if you use modern digital cameras.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Am 28.03.2022 um 01:27 schrieb geoff:

> But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
> really need ?  Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
> re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational  ....

Alan was writing that he'll buy that computer with a not upgradeable 1TB
SSD and keep for the next 10 years.

If something is not upgradeable and I have to live with it for the next
10 years, I'd like to have it with a HUGE SSD.

But actually you don't have to buy an Apple computer. There are plenty
of other offerings which are reasonably good and where you can change
the SSD.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:

> I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.

<snip>

Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)

<snip>

>> In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
>> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
>> simply absurdly small nowadays.
>
> Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
> documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
> seem to manage.

With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.

> Why not buy one with the correct size ?

It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.

<snip>
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2022-03-27 18:58, nospam wrote:
> In article <yQ50K.628187$aT3.516845@fx09.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
>>>> the average user.
>>>
>>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
>>> limit.
>>
>> The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
>
> tb, not gb. :)

A 1000 apologies.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On 2022-03-28 12:54, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 28.03.2022 um 00:47 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
>>> storage limit.
>>
>> The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
>>
>> But few people need that.  You're defending a silly position.
>
> It's silly to insist that 1TB is sufficient for the next 10 years. Not
> if you use modern digital cameras.

The only photos I keep on my main store are _finished_ and useful
photos. As I can easily reject 50 - 100 photos before working on one as
a finished product, all that raw data has no purpose being on my
computer's main store. But - it does get backed up and stored elsewhere.

Data management: it's a thing.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On 2022-03-27 21:03, -hh wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
>>>> the average user.
>>>
>>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
>>> limit.
>>>
>>> And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
>>
>> But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
>> really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
>> re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
>
> And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
> need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
> “you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of

That's quite false. Those of us (several) with experience in computing
have outlined various strategies to manage large sets of data in very
simple, effective, safe ways that also contribute to backups as well.

There's no need to expensive SSD (high speed read/write storage at that)
to store data unused and unseen for years at a time ... sheesh! I have
that in 1 TB because the effort to tidy up doesn't happen very often.

> their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish
> to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.

If Mr. Molon had stated 2 or even 4 TB, I wouldn't have said a thing
(even though it's probably still too much).

We're talking about working storage here, not ones life accumulation of
photos in all states raw to finished.

15 TB of raw photos would be some 600,000 images (depending on the
camera of course). We all know as photographers that either we shoot a
lot, fast and cull down to what is useful, or we shoot slow and
deliberate and cull down a little to what is useful.

Keeping all the culls around working storage is not a very useful thing
- esp. on expensive SSD's.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On 2022-03-28 13:08, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
>
>> I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I
>> can the same with all my videos
>> via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite
>> them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
>
> <snip>
>
> Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
>
> <snip>
>
>>> In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
>>> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
>>> simply absurdly small nowadays.
>>
>> Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie
>> producer , even those
>> documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island
>> or where ever
>> seem to manage.
>
> With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
> quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
> and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.

Once the culls have been dropped, once the edits are made ... why keep
all the duds. Send them to external storage. That's what it's for.

Working storage is for work - not long term storage (although we all
have stuff that is pretty old on any system as it seems to get dragged
along ...)

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On 29/03/2022 11:03 am, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-27 21:03, -hh wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
>>>>> the average user.
>>>>
>>>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
>>>> storage
>>>> limit.
>>>>
>>>> And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
>>>
>>> But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
>>> really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
>>> re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
>>
>> And therein lies the rub:  everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
>> need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
>> “you’re wrong”.  Until one understand the basis … and trades … of
>
> That's quite false. Those of us (several) with experience in computing
> have outlined various strategies to manage large sets of data in very
> simple, effective, safe ways that also contribute to backups as well.
>
> There's no need to expensive SSD (high speed read/write storage at that)
> to store data unused and unseen for years at a time ... sheesh!  I have
> that in 1 TB because the effort to tidy up doesn't happen very often.
>
>> their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish
>> to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.
>
> If Mr. Molon had stated 2 or even 4 TB, I wouldn't have said a thing
> (even though it's probably still too much).
>
> We're talking about working storage here, not ones life accumulation of
> photos in all states raw to finished.
>
> 15 TB of raw photos would be some 600,000 images (depending on the
> camera of course).  We all know as photographers that either we shoot a
> lot, fast and cull down to what is useful, or we shoot slow and
> deliberate and cull down a little to what is useful.
>
> Keeping all the culls around working storage is not a very useful thing
> - esp. on expensive SSD's.

Not to mention *finding* what you think you remember you may have had,
or not.

geoff

On 29/03/2022 11:06 am, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-28 13:08, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
>>
>>> I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I
>>> can the same with all my videos
>>> via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite
>>> them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet
>> (lots of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
>>>> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
>>>> simply absurdly small nowadays.
>>>
>>> Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie
>>> producer , even those
>>> documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos
>>> island or where ever
>>> seem to manage.
>>
>> With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
>> quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files
>> etc and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
>
> Once the culls have been dropped, once the edits are made ... why keep
> all the duds.  Send them to external storage.  That's what it's for.

Or if they are really duds, delete them for good.

geoff

On 2022-03-28 18:59, geoff wrote:

> Not to mention *finding* what you think you remember you may have had,
> or not.

.... by accident counts. Really!

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.