But realistically, isn’t it worth $60 a year to have a constantly backed up hard drive? The alternative is to take the hard drive out of the safe every so often and do a backup and put it back.
Modern higher density drives are probably less resilient, and who knows how flash drives will fair after 17 years in the closet - but my experience so far is that HDDs trump backup tapes on every measure including costs except at extreme sizes (at this point in time, into the petabytes).
Your point is valid and constant, seamless backup is indeed a good thing to have. Whether it's worth $60/year is one's own decision.
Care to share what kind of procedures you use?
I've recovered some data for friends and employers who want it back but aren't prepared to pay > USD1000 for it but if I cannot connect to the disk I'm lost.
(My tricks: tilting the disk, freezing the disk, leaving ssds powered on but sata unconnected, and even before that photorec and ddrescue etc.)
Note: don't do any of the above if data needs to be recovered at any cost, in that case just contact a data recovery company.
It is proven that if you introduce friction into process, over time that process will be followed less.
A B2 based backup solution costs more but you don’t have those limitations.
[1] https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217666628-What-...
If you have an externally attached drive on your computer and it isn’t connected in 30 days and your computer is online, they erase that backup of the external drive.
If you reconnect your computer after a month and you don’t have the external drive connected, they erase your backup.
Local backup is cheap and fast, and you should do it too. But it doesn't provide geographic redundancy.