DD works grate. It's abit tricky to learn to use but with cd's you really can't make a bad mistake.

If your useing Windows look up winDD.

Jade Falcon wrote:

DD works grate. It's abit tricky to learn to use but with cd's you really can't make a bad mistake.

If your useing Windows look up winDD.

I use Linux but I strongly prefer software that has Windows versions or are live bootable. The latter doesn’t matter, because it won't have to install on the target system.

Active at boot should work it's live bootable.
Also DD should be biult into and UNIX os.

You want to long-term store the images where? On hard drive? That involves additional risks.

You may want to put your CDs in a couple of those large portable 1000 CD storage cases. Stow them under your bed.

You can't just dump your files on a server and call it done. Storing your files properly will cost you some money wether it's on CD or on hard drives.

I store all of my data on my file server at home that has 11 6TB hard drives (currently being upgraded to 10TB) using FreeNAS in one ZFS RAIDZ3 pool.

I then use multiple NAS for offsite.

As you can imagine this costs $$$ but it's worth it to me.

If this isn't something you are willing to do then you'll need to consider about storing them in the "cloud" using storage you pay for or someone elses storage that you don't.
This comes with it's own pros and cons as well.

You should also consider if you need a lossless copy or not if lossy is "good enough" then that will save some money and space.

It's a good thing that hard drives are getting bigger and bigger. In the near future we will be able to get away with just a few hard drives and won't have to buy that many anymore. 3 is probably a good number without expensive cloud storage fees. And as soon as one of them goes out you just purchase a new one and you're set. I heard that 5400RPM hard drives last longer than 7200RPM and it also seems that Japanese brands like Toshiba or Hitachi are more reliable.

The bad thing about hard drive size increasing is rebuild time. A 3 drive RAID5 array using 4TB+ drives would take 10+ hours or more and if another drive fails you're screwed and if one drive failed and they are all the same model and year then it's likely another will fail during the rebuild.

To resilver my pool (replacing a 6TB drive with a 10TB drive) it took 47hrs 41mins for 5.18 TB of data....

About that CD backup thing..
I used Nero for years. Its virtual writer can create NRG files which have the ability to store all CD tracks.
But that's just me. Most people prefer this BIN/CUE thing, I guess.

Anyway, the NRG format is widely known, so programs like MagicISO or similar can read it, at least.

I see three separate problems here.

1. How to properly back up a collection of games/media. IMO, the only real way, as was suggested here, is multi-layer backup, on multiple physical media, preferably at multiple physical locations. A stack of CDs + local hard drive + NAS + cloud is good. Now, some people don't like cloud backup because it costs a periodical fee to keep (definitely when we're talking about terabytes of data as in your case), but if you factor it in the overall cost of the project (how much will the drives + NAS cost, for example?), you will probably see that it's not so much. Many people also have an aversion of storing personal data on the cloud, but here there is no personal data involved, so this should not be an issue.
2. How to keep an existing collection organized. Here, there are no shortcuts. You will have to get a sufficient amount of cases and boxes/cabinets, and spend a whole day or two sorting and organizing them. Fortunately, you will probably only need to do it once. Use portable cases / paper cases, instead of jewel cases when possible (for example if the original disk does not come with an inlay, or you don't care to keep it). This will save a lot of space and keep the cost down.
3. How to properly RIP all disks.Here, there are tons of free software, but you need to be aware that some disks (DVDs especially, but also some CDs) may use copy protection schemes that thwart naive attempts to make 1:1 copies, and you need to make sure your software knows how to defeat those to (a) not fail in the middle of a rip, (b) produce a rip that will be usable later on. I will admit that I am behind the curve on this, so I cannot recommend off the top of my head a piece of software that meets all these and your other requirements. Finally, just the sheer volume of work and time spent ripping them all one-by-one is so intimidating, that I would seriously consider locating a shop that would do this for you, for a fee, then bring them disks in batches of 50 or 100 at a time, until you are done. It may feel wasteful in some sense, since you can technically do it all yourself, but it's in cases like yours where these services can be immense time and effort savers, and IMO, these are exactly the cases that it's worth paying for them.

Jo22 wrote:

About that CD backup thing.. I used Nero for years. Its virtual writer can create NRG files which have the ability to store all […]
Show full quote

About that CD backup thing..
I used Nero for years. Its virtual writer can create NRG files which have the ability to store all CD tracks.
But that's just me. Most people prefer this BIN/CUE thing, I guess.

Anyway, the NRG format is widely known, so programs like MagicISO or similar can read it, at least.

I like Nero too, as well as Alcohol 120, but I don't like the BIN/CUE format. It has two files and takes up more space than an ISO, which is a single file. Is there some reason people prefer BIN/CUE?

DosFreak wrote:

The bad thing about hard drive size increasing if rebuild time. A 3 drive RAID5 array using 4TB+ drives would take 10+ hours or more and if another drive fails you're screwed and if one drive failed and they are all the same model and year then it's likely another will fail during the rebuild.

To resilver my pool (replacing a 6TB drive with a 10TB drive) it took 47hrs 41mins for 5.18 TB of data....

I am in the process of building a new server with at least four 2TB SATA drives. Quick question, is RAID10 better and more safe than RAID5? Or should I stick with RAID1 like I had in my previous 2-drive servers?

DosFreak wrote:

I store all of my data on my file server at home that has 11 6TB hard drives

That's a huge amount of p0rn, you know! *runs away*

Anyway, back to the topic, I usually use Nero to store my CD's to .NRG image. Reason being is Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120 can mount .NRG, but Nero Image Drive cannot mount CUE/BIN. Nero Image Drive can mount ISO as well, but I found NRG is better because it can store hybrid Redbook/data CD, like those mid 1990's games like Heroes II of Might and Magic and Archimedean Dynasty, while ISO can't. Recently I found myself using Daemon Tools more often though, to rip CD's directly to WAV files without having to convert CUE/BIN into CUE/WAV.

computergeek92 wrote:

I like Nero too, as well as Alcohol 120, but I don't like the BIN/CUE format. It has two files and takes up more space than an ISO, which is a single file. Is there some reason people prefer BIN/CUE?

AFAIK, one of the reasons is that historically this format (or perhaps the tools that used it) was more resilient to copy protection schemes. Another reason is that the CUE descriptor allows you to build a CD from multiple image/data files. One common use case is specifying the data track as BIN and the audio tracks as separate WAV/OGG files. This allows greater flexibility, and also you can utilize audio compression this way.

computergeek92 wrote:

DosFreak wrote:

The bad thing about hard drive size increasing if rebuild time. A 3 drive RAID5 array using 4TB+ drives would take 10+ hours or more and if another drive fails you're screwed and if one drive failed and they are all the same model and year then it's likely another will fail during the rebuild.

To resilver my pool (replacing a 6TB drive with a 10TB drive) it took 47hrs 41mins for 5.18 TB of data....

I am in the process of building a new server with at least four 2TB SATA drives. Quick question, is RAID10 better and more safe than RAID5? Or should I stick with RAID1 like I had in my previous 2-drive servers?

RAID10 is good. Rebuild times are fast. Performance is still good during drive failure. Can withstand multiple drive failue. You do lose alot of space but if you need the performance then it's worth it. You don't usually see RAID10 used in file server situations though due to the loss of space and RAID10 is riskier than RAID6 if there is a drive failure.

computergeek92 wrote:

I am in the process of building a new server with at least four 2TB SATA drives. Quick question, is RAID10 better and more safe than RAID5? Or should I stick with RAID1 like I had in my previous 2-drive servers?

RAID is good, but keep in mind that it doesn't protect you of data loss. That's what backups are for.
For example, if you accidently delete the MBR or GPT, no RAID can help you.
RAID was primarily made to guarantee an uninterruptible operation in case of hardware failure.

DosFreak wrote:

computergeek92 wrote:

DosFreak wrote:

The bad thing about hard drive size increasing if rebuild time. A 3 drive RAID5 array using 4TB+ drives would take 10+ hours or more and if another drive fails you're screwed and if one drive failed and they are all the same model and year then it's likely another will fail during the rebuild.

To resilver my pool (replacing a 6TB drive with a 10TB drive) it took 47hrs 41mins for 5.18 TB of data....

I am in the process of building a new server with at least four 2TB SATA drives. Quick question, is RAID10 better and more safe than RAID5? Or should I stick with RAID1 like I had in my previous 2-drive servers?

RAID10 is good. Rebuild times are fast. Performance is still good during drive failure. Can withstand multiple drive failue. You do lose alot of space but if you need the performance then it's worth it. You don't usually see RAID10 used in old file server situations though due to the loss of space and RAID10 is riskier than RAID6 if there is a drive failure.

How is RAID10 riskier when it can survive multiple drive failures? Is it because the drives all age the same and can fail during a rebuild? What about using RAID1 instead?

RAID10 can lose two drives in some disk failure modes and the array survives. RAID6 can lose two in all disk failure modes and the array survives.

computergeek92 wrote:

How is RAID10 riskier when it can survive multiple drive failures? Is it because the drives all age the same and can fail during a rebuild? What about using RAID1 instead?

RAID10 will fail if more than a disk of a span fails. It's usually indicated for write intensive scenarios like DB servers, etc. For cold storage there are better options like RAID5 (having a dedicated hotspare is nice).

RAID1 is only between two disks. You'll either have to grab big disks or manage a good # of arrays/volumes depending on how much stuff you'll need to storage.

Generally, I am not a big fan of storing personal data collections (media, music, games, pictures, whatever) in huge, highly redundant RAID arrays. Such data typically does not need to have 100% uptime, which is the main advantage of such arrays. On the other hand, a highly redundant array comes with non-negligible costs: total price of the drives, rebuild time during failure or during routine upgrades, frequency of required maintenance (the more drives in your array, the more often one of them fails), but it's still only one array in one physical location. It will protect from physical drive failures, but not from accidental content corruption, nor from natural disasters (fire/flood) or acts of malice.

Several smaller, less redundant arrays (even just a pair of drives in RAID1), in several physical locations + additional types of storage (cloud / optical media) will keep your data overall safer, and will probably cost less. Though, of course, it has a higher maintenance overhead - you cannot just control your archive with a single click from a single point.