The question shouldn’t be if but when. I’m talking about technical failures that have the potential to disrupt your workflow and lose your data. Cloud or drive, which is more likely to let you down? We explore.
A Five Minute Job!
It was Saturday morning. My wife had asked me to do a simple job of sending her some images from my MacBook, and it should have taken no longer than a minute. 4 hours later, I was still battling with my Mac, trying to discover why my Finder was continually crashing. Worse still, I had some mission-critical folders sitting on my Desktop that I didn’t want to lose. Yes, roll your eyes at me, but sometimes travelling means I don’t get the benefit of external drives and the time to dump the stuff over. This is where intention and perfection part company!
However, I wasn’t making any headway on why my Mac had decided not to play nice, and I didn’t want to lose those files. Every time I tried to back them up to an external SSD, Finder would crash. Then I had a brainwave. All the files on my Desktop were mirrored onto my Mac Studio using Apple iCloud. If I went into my studio, I could copy them over to one of my external drives, and all would be well. I went into my studio, and it worked like a charm. Crisis averted!
Drive Or Cloud?
Once I had calmed down and stopped my stringing-profanities rant, I considered this - whatever happened, in this case, a drive didn’t save me. The cloud did. So, which is the safest place, according to the data, to keep our precious content? So, I decided to do some digging.
This is certainly not an exhaustive study into both forms of data storage, but even a cursory exploration throws up some interesting things.
The Durability of Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage boasts an impressive durability target of 99.999999999% (11 nines) annually. This remarkable figure implies that even with a billion objects stored, the likelihood of losing a single one over a century is incredibly low. The secret behind this resilience lies in the storage process: breaking data into chunks distributed across multiple servers and zones, combined with erasure coding for data reconstruction in case of hardware failures.
In addition to this, Google Cloud actively mitigates physical destruction risks, like natural disasters, by offering dual-region or multi-region buckets for added redundancy. Data in transit is also safeguarded through checksum protection, ensuring integrity during transfers.
The biggest threat to cloud data, ironically, comes from software bugs. Google say that it addresses this by extensive testing and staged software rollouts, ensuring the detection and mitigation of bugs before they impact data durability. They also highlight the importance of backing up data and implementing strict access control policies to prevent accidental or malicious data loss.
For long-term data retention, Google Cloud's bucket lock feature ensures compliance with regulatory requirements by preventing accidental modifications or deletions. Their commitment to data security is further evidenced by encryption protocols for data at rest and in transit.
This is just based on Google data, but it’s highly likely that other cloud services, such as Apple iCloud, Dropbox, et al, have similar robust policies and infrastructure.
The Reliability of Local Hard Drives
Backblaze's analysis (a favoured Cloud backup service provider) offers insight into the reliability of local storage solutions. Their findings show that solid-state drives (SSDs) have a slightly lower annual failure rate of 0.98%, compared to 1.64% for hard disk drives (HDDs). This difference, while notable, is less significant than anticipated.
The inconsistency in manufacturers' use of SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology) for drive state reporting adds a layer of complexity to assessing drive reliability. Additionally, Backblaze noted higher average temperatures in SSDs compared to HDDs, potentially impacting their longevity and performance.
This shows that failure rates in the cloud versus drive storage are far lower, but is this comparing apples with apples, or is it a false equivalence?
Comparative Analysis
When comparing cloud storage and local hard drives, several key factors emerge:
Durability: Cloud storage, especially services like Google Cloud or Apple iCloud, offers near-perfect durability rates, significantly reducing the risk of data loss. Local storage, while reliable, cannot match these rates, especially considering physical damage risks and the variability in drive manufacturing standards.
Data Integrity: Cloud services implement robust measures against data corruption, both at rest and in transit. Local drives depend heavily on the user's maintenance and monitoring practices.
Data Security: Both cloud and local storage solutions are prone to user errors and malicious attacks. However, cloud services offer more sophisticated tools for data protection, encryption, and access control.
Cost and Scalability: Cloud storage provides scalable solutions that can grow with your needs, often at a predictable cost. Local storage requires upfront investment and physical space, with limited scalability.
Accessibility and Control: Local storage offers immediate, offline access to data and complete control over the storage infrastructure. Cloud storage depends on internet connectivity, with control distributed between the provider and the user.
Which Should You Use?
The choice between cloud and local storage hinges on specific needs, preferences, and resources. Cloud storage, with its high durability, scalability, and security features, is ideal for studios and creative professionals requiring robust, flexible data storage solutions. Local hard drives, offering direct control and immediate access, remain relevant for those with specific data privacy needs (remember, many large studios don’t put much trust in cloud security) or those needing immediate offline access requirements.
So, which should one choose to protect their data? In my opinion, the answer is both! Although we’ve come a long way from the days of having to depend on slow, physical, expensive hard drives, there’s no such thing as a perfect solution. It’s also not wise to depend on one. What if I had no cloud access when my failure happened? What if, however unlikely, the cloud had been the reason for my data issues?
Our opinion remains as it always has on this subject, that however robust data storage is unless you have your data in at least two and ideally three locations, we suggest, at a minimum, two locally and one in the cloud, then you are asking for trouble. This time, it was local data that let me down, and the cloud saved me. Next time, it could be the other way around, while I’m at 37,000’ in the clouds on a plane and unable to access my cloud (how ironic!)
Of course it also helps to remember to move anything sitting on your desktop back to a backup drive ASAP 😳 - but in my defence Apple iCloud had me covered. That’s my defence and I’m sticking to it.
The punchline; nothing is perfect, albeit near as dammit, but the good news is we have all the options we need to keep our data safe. Use them both - you’ll thank me one day.