Main > Everything Else
What DVD format is best for archiving purposes?
paigeoliver:
I can take a drive from the 1980s and stick it in a little box and plug it into a USB port right now.
I also say hard drives. I wouldn't even buy new ones. Just use 3 or 4 old ones, put the data on all of them, as they start to become obsolete you can pull them out and translate them to new drives.
Hard drives don't tend to fail while sitting in storage, and they don't have the batteries/caps that tend to mess up other old electronics.
Grasshopper:
OK, I’ve read through all the responses and agree with most of what’s being said regarding backups in general.
However, I think that most of the solutions being offered are overkill for my situation. Bear in mind that I only have a few gigabytes of data that is truly irreplaceable. It would be a major hassle if I lost the other stuff, but it is ultimately replaceable, or not worth replacing.
I’ve considered hard disks. If I had a vast amount of data to back up they would be my first choice - cheap (per gigabyte) and convenient. However, the problem with hard disks is that they can fail catastrophically, resulting in the loss of all your data in one go. Multiple disks are one possible answer to this but then the cost becomes too high for the amount of data that I want to protect. Also, multiple copies of any media will reduce the likelihood of data loss. Why should the rationale for multiple hard disks be any stronger than the rationale for multiple DVDs, flash memory etc.?
I’ve also rejected Blu-Ray on the grounds of cost. In any case, it’s not yet clear how durable Blu-Ray disks will be in the longer term.
I would never use online storage on its own. However it might be worth considering as an additional means of backup, in case the house burns down or something. But, and I realise this might be slightly irrational, I feel slightly uneasy entrusting my personal data to a faceless corporation. Anyway, that point aside, I’m going to look into it.
That leaves DVDs and flash memory. Flash memory is very tempting. I almost chose to use it in preference to DVDs. But it’s still just a little too expensive. I don’t think it will ever be as cheap as DVD+/-Rs. However, if the price of flash memory continues to follow Moore’s law for another year or two, it could easily give DVD-RAM a run for its money.
Interestingly, I haven’t been able to find any consistent information regarding the shelf life of flash memory i.e. how long would the data be retained if the memory was left unused for any length of time. I’ve seen estimates varying from two years to forever. Maybe no one really knows as it’s still a relatively new technology. But whatever the true figure is, flash drives are probably at least as durable as even well stored optical media, and considerably more convenient.
I think I’ll stick with multiple copies of optical media for the time being and then maybe switch to flash, or something else in a few years time.
Grasshopper:
I have one final question.
I’m still not sure what speed media to buy. For some reason the 8X and 16X Taiyo Yuden DVD+Rs cost about the same.
I know there’s a commonly held belief that you should always burn optical media at the slowest speed possible (although even that is disputed by some people). However, is it also better to buy faster media?
All other things being equal, it would seem logical to buy the fastest media you can. However, it occurs to me that the manufacturers might have had to make compromises in other areas (i.e. durability) in order to achieve the higher burn speeds. Has anyone got any thoughts on this?
SirPeale:
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on February 23, 2008, 09:31:39 am ---I’ve considered hard disks. If I had a vast amount of data to back up they would be my first choice - cheap (per gigabyte) and convenient. However, the problem with hard disks is that they can fail catastrophically, resulting in the loss of all your data in one go. Multiple disks are one possible answer to this but then the cost becomes too high for the amount of data that I want to protect. Also, multiple copies of any media will reduce the likelihood of data loss. Why should the rationale for multiple hard disks be any stronger than the rationale for multiple DVDs, flash memory etc.?
--- End quote ---
We're talking about older hard disks. In the ten-twenty gig range, or even smaller. Used, they go for peanuts. Five to ten of these would take up the space no larger than a shoe box.
If you're going to go with optical media, make copies every six months.
Grasshopper:
--- Quote from: Peale on February 23, 2008, 11:27:18 am ---We're talking about older hard disks. In the ten-twenty gig range, or even smaller. Used, they go for peanuts. Five to ten of these would take up the space no larger than a shoe box.
If you're going to go with optical media, make copies every six months.
--- End quote ---
It's funny you should mention that because I've been toying with the idea of fitting my PC with a couple of removable hard disk racks so I could make use of old hard disks. However, my motivation wasn't to back up my data, it was so I could experiment with various Linux distros. I thought I could put one on each disk, slot it in, and play with it, with no risk of damaging my main Windows installation.
The trouble with the plan is that I'm finding it difficult to get hold of old hard disks. They must be out there. But for some reason people don't seem to be selling them, or giving them away.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version