Customer Reviews

First Alert 2040F Fire and Water Media Chest, 0.14 Cubic Foot, Light Gray

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I've got a good sized RAID at home and I'm rotating two 1TB drives for backups, but I needed someplace safe to store the unused drive. I could have brought it to work and stored it in the datacenter, but that presents a few problems - 1) it's not on hand when needed 2) other people have access to it 3) hauling it around allows for more opportunities to drop or otherwise mishandle the drive. A cheap lock box would have solved #2, but I didn't want to deal with #1 and #3.

I selected the Honeywell 2040 safe because it's rated UL-125, which means it will maintain an internal temperature of 52C for at least one hour. Anything higher and the drive platters will likely crystalize, destroying the drive and rendering the data inaccessible. Most hard drives have allowable storage temperatures from -40C to 70C, flash is often -20C to 70/80C, and CDs and DVDs are -40 to 70C. A UL-150 should maintain an internal temperature of 66C, but it's not recommended for magnetic media, only microfilm/fiche or other photographic film.

Sentry Safe has a large selection and most of what I looked at were noted as being suitable for various computer storage media like CDs and DVDs, even some that have a USB port so you could use the device while it was IN the safe, but only two models (1710, 6720) were actually appropriate for computer media. I liked their prices and selection, but was annoyed with the somewhat deceptive and vague information on their website. Don't believe me? Download the 1710 manual and look for the UL ratings and their notation on suitable safes for storing "computer and audio/visual media". Most of their safes are UL-350, which is 177C and primarily for paper documents, certainly well beyond the maximum storage temperature of hard drives, flash, and CD/DVD media.

The Honeywell safe is big and heavy (awkward to carry), and the price is definitely up there. I'd rather not have spent $170 on a safe, but it'll be well worth it if the safe is ever tested (hope not) and my data survives.

Having had a lower rated fire safe, I wanted to upgrade to one that would protect paper documents and electronic media. This safe's rating is certainly what I wanted and is solidly built. However, the actual space to store things is very small, so pay attention to the total volume it holds. I sort of knew the size it advertises, but it did not really hit home until I received it. It is still plenty big to hold my papers and some USB drives, but do not expect to be able to store much more than that in it.

It is very, very heavy also. This and the small storage space is the price one has to pay to get such a high fire rating and flood protection. So it is not really the manufacturer's fault that the space is small, but that is what it takes to protect the contents to such high temperatures. I use it for the most important documents and files, and keep the larger, less important but more durable items in my older safe.

Also, there is no "bolt down" option, so this safe is more about fire and flood protection than it is about theft prevention. I assume that any through holes for bolting it down would make it hard to retain the level of fire/flood protection.

I think this is a great safe for what it was designed for, and it is exactly what I have been looking for. If you only need to protect documents, which can sustain higher temperatures than computer media, then this safe isn't for you. It is large and heavy with a relatively small internal space. However, this is exactly what you need to prevent damage to computer media (hard drives, CDs, DVDs) in the event of a fire.

Those small, fireproof hard drive enclosures being sold do not completely protect the hard drive, and they often require that you send in the hard drive after the fire to a recovery service to extract your data. With this First Alert safe, your hard drives will be fully functional after the fire/flood. Now, I can't vouch for whether the safe meets the fireproof specifications since I haven't had a fire. But, given its strong build and the amount of insulation, I believe it should hold up fine.

I think of this safe as an investment, which I can use for the rest of my life. I keep mine in my basement so that if it were to be a really bad fire and the whole house caves in, the safe won't be falling from an upper level, possibly damaging its contents.

The construction of the media chest inspires confidence that it will perform as rated and as advertised. Because of my expanding media storage requirements, I have purchased two of these. The first was when it was being sold under the Honeywell brand and the second under its current First Alert brand. Both seem pretty much identical from a construction and functional perspective. I don't mind its weight if that is what is required to protect my media.

I would favor a remote backup solution over a media chest as long as I have adequate bandwidth for uploading the volume of data required and as long as the remote backup remains economically viable for the required volume of data. I used Mozy for remote backup when they had a plan that allowed an unlimited volume of data for a very affordable price, and I had approximately 1.5TB of data uploaded with Mozy when that was in effect. But Mozy's revised price structure within the past year made any continuation of that solution extremely expensive, and that's when I bought the second media chest. The disadvantage of the media chest is that you really don't know for sure that it will work until you have a flood or fire. You would otherwise have a fairly high level of confidence in remote backup. But, as I noted, the construction of the First Alert media chest does inspire a satisfactory level of confidence.

Another alternative might be to keep a backup of your most important data at a friend's or relative's home or some other secondary location. But that presents issues of convenience in maintaining current backups and the risk of a natural disaster such as flooding that might also impact the secondary location.

But doing nothing to protect your data while you are waiting for a more perfect solution would not be wise. The media chest seems to be a very practical and prudent first step.