-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
May 13, 2014 1:28 AM in response to PlotinusVeritasby Csound1,PlotinusVeritas wrote:
There is no counter-position.
Clearly there is, I am voicing it now.
Estimates (no matter how colorful the graphics) are estimates, they are not proof.
-
May 13, 2014 1:40 AM in response to Csound1by PlotinusVeritas,Csound1 wrote:
Estimates (no matter how colorful the graphics) are estimates, they are not proof.
Indeed they are proof.
Estimates:
Human lifespan: 40-80 years, 67.2 current average
Common oak tree lifespan: 180-325 years 200 year average
likewise is the case of hard drives and archival professional DVD.
Pinpoint specifics arent necessary to quantifiably state:
"any archival DVD stored correctly will far far far outlast the best hard drive in lifespan"
Proof of archival DVD media longevity over hard drives is a well known entity.
Csound1 wrote:
Clearly there is, I am voicing it now.
Only the empirical facts are important, not subjective views.
For the users here are on this board, all PREFER to use hard drives, as do I.
However the absolute basement level facts are, that professionals are wise to store extremely important data on archival DVD media, and they do.
-
May 13, 2014 1:44 AM in response to PlotinusVeritasby Csound1,You set a very low bar for what constitutes 'proof'.
A lot lower than I do.
Archival DVDs stored correctly are going strong at 0% failure at 18 years
.....and will likely be the same in another 18
Since when did "likely" constitute a fact?
-
May 13, 2014 11:12 AM in response to Csound1by R.K.Orion,There's no such thing as factual speculation.
Never the less, you have to go on something. My own experience with DVDs has been that they exhibit bathtub like curves. Either they fail during recording or very early in use, or they last a long time.
I have some CD-W's that I burned 20 years ago and they're all still quite viable. About 10 years ago I bought some (at the time) new HP CD-W and thought I would dup the old CDs to the new and they'd be better. I'd guess the failure rate on the HP CD-W's was about 25% fail on burn and I'd say the typical life span of one that successfully burned was maybe a year. I still had some of the old ones in storage so I pulled them out and burned them successfully. It's this sort of thing that has earned OD's the bad reputation they have.
I think junk has flooded the market in the last 10-15 years, with many name brands kicking in. Of course when I got the HP's, "princess" Carly Fiorina (later fired for utter incompetence and given a $25M golden parachute) was in charge and she was hardly known for competence, just bottom line short cuts.
I don't know if the T-Y discs will really last 100 years but my own experience indicates that if a degree of quality is established and proven, it might be worth a shot.
-
May 13, 2014 11:21 AM in response to R.K.Orionby PlotinusVeritas,R.K.Orion wrote:
There's no such thing as factual speculation.
Never the less, you have to go on something. My own experience with DVDs has been that they exhibit bathtub like curves. Either they fail during recording or very early in use, or they last a long time.
I have some CD-W's that I burned 20 years ago and they're all still quite viable. About 10 years ago I bought some (at the time) new HP CD-W and thought I would dup
well put.
While 700MB CDs are nothing in data size, they can still hold a LOT of text / documents.
archival CDs are recommended for their 'giant' track size and long term data discernment.
R.K.Orion wrote:
I think junk has flooded the market in the last 10-15 years, with many name brands kicking in.
Absolutely.
People wanted "cheap DVD blank media" and thats what they got, 100% pure rarified genuine trash of the highest order.
Retail store DVD blank media, most of it, is pure filth on the highest peak.
R.K.Orion wrote:
I don't know if the T-Y discs will really last 100 years but my own experience indicates that if a degree of quality is established and proven, it might be worth a shot.Pro photographers put their final "must must last!" data on the TY disks.
There are the M-DISC, but theyre new and unproven, and very expensive.
If they dont last 100 years (youll never know!) and only last 30, 40, 50.
thats still 6X longer minimum than the best hard drive under perfect conditions.
-
May 13, 2014 12:22 PM in response to Csound1by OGELTHORPE,There is one element that has not been properly addressed in this discussion, which is the storage and convenience aspect.
The DVDs mentioned are 4.7 GB in capacity. The largest 2.5" SATA HDD available today is 1.5 TB in capacity which will hold the equivalent data of about 319 DVDs.
Naturally, even DVDs require duplicate backups. After all they may be inadvertently used for skeet shooting or your neighbors hippopotamus may accidentally swallow one. Thus we have two tall stacks of DVD's How long will it take to make the backup DVDs let alone the initial ones. How will they be indexed?
The question is, 'I need to find a certain file in my back up scheme'. Do I sift through 319 DVDs manually or do I connect the 1.5 TB HDD and quickly find the item in question. The data I may be seeking may be found on several DVDs, but it all will be on one HDD.
Obviously there is a significant difference in the manual components involved in the respective approaches. Relatively speaking, data changes are much quicker and easier using HDDs vs DVDs. Data is not always static and can be very fluid. The more fluid it is, the less DVDs make sense on that basis alone.
Thunderbolt technology exists today and if we introduce SSD's into the equation, copying or cloning a 1 TB (in time 1.5 TB SSD) SSD will take less than one hour. If one feels that the life span of a HDD/SSD is limited, then you can put them on a replacement schedule.
I suspect that all I am doing is repeating a lot of the thinking that Steve Jobs had about CDs/DVDs.
I favor using and storing two 1.5 TB HDDs over 638 DVDs, regardless how long the DVDs last. I do allow for others to have and hold different opinions, but never different facts.
Ciao.
-
by clintonfrombirmingham,May 13, 2014 12:31 PM in response to OGELTHORPE
clintonfrombirmingham
May 13, 2014 12:31 PM
in response to OGELTHORPE
Level 7 (30,009 points)
Mac OS XJust to answer a few of your questions...
I use the Taiyo Yuden 8.5GB discs, not the 4.7GB. Plenty of room for archiving but, no, I don't duplicate my archival DVDs and have yet to have one fail on my in the 12+ years that I've been using DVDs for archival backup purposes. For indexing my DVDs, I use Disk Tracker (current version is 2.4.7, I think) and have been using it for years as well - it will index files within archives, etc.
Overall, I'm very happy with my backup and archival system - I use two separate hard drives for Time Machine backups, five different hard drives for cloning and 8.5GB discs for archival purposes. Considering how cheap my archival system is, it's yet to fail and provides some relief that I'll never, in my lifetime, lose a photo, important document, etc.
Clinton
-
by OGELTHORPE,May 13, 2014 12:58 PM in response to clintonfrombirmingham
OGELTHORPE
May 13, 2014 12:58 PM
in response to clintonfrombirmingham
Level 9 (52,686 points)
Mac OS Xclintonfrombirmingham wrote:
For indexing my DVDs, I use Disk Tracker (current version is 2.4.7, I think) and have been using it for years as well - it will index files within archives, etc.
Nothing wrong with that, but I submit that it is easier and faster to retrieve information from one HDD than using indexing software and the equivalent capacity of DVDs. You still have to put those DVDs in a drive.
Overall, I'm very happy with my backup and archival system - I use two separate hard drives for Time Machine backups, five different hard drives for cloning and 8.5GB discs for archival purposes. Considering how cheap my archival system is, it's yet to fail and provides some relief that I'll never, in my lifetime, lose a photo, important document, etc.
If it works for you, that is all that counts. You have not persuaded me to consider DVD's for backups. I use those 1 TB and 1.5 TB HGST HDDs for that. I use both TM and CCC and I feel good about that. Should one of those backup disks fail, I have others ready to replace them.
Ciao.
-
by clintonfrombirmingham,May 13, 2014 1:06 PM in response to OGELTHORPE
clintonfrombirmingham
May 13, 2014 1:06 PM
in response to OGELTHORPE
Level 7 (30,009 points)
Mac OS XOGELTHORPE,
Disk Tracker is really good - you need only scan a disc once and, only finding what you need do you need to insert a disc. I have one database from 2002-2012 and one database that's 2012-thru ?. It's uber-fast to index and to find what you're looking for -> faster, even, than searching through hard drive, I think.
Everyone has different methods of backup and archiving. I just don't trust hard drives enough to, for instance, believe that data from 2002 is going to reside peacefully on any one (or two) hard drives that are 12 years old. My hard drives seem to fail between 3-8 years whilst my DVD archives never fail (or have yet to do, anyway).
That's just the way that I work - other methods may work better for some...
Clinton
-
by OGELTHORPE,May 13, 2014 1:26 PM in response to clintonfrombirmingham
OGELTHORPE
May 13, 2014 1:26 PM
in response to clintonfrombirmingham
Level 9 (52,686 points)
Mac OS Xclintonfrombirmingham wrote:
It's uber-fast to index and to find what you're looking for -> faster, even, than searching through hard drive, I think.
The key element is how you have organized the data. In a race.I strongly feel the HDD approach will always win. You cannot evade fumbling with those frisbee's.
Everyone has different methods of backup and archiving. I just don't trust hard drives enough to, for instance, believe that data from 2002 is going to reside peacefully on any one (or two) hard drives that are 12 years old. My hard drives seem to fail between 3-8 years whilst my DVD archives never fail (or have yet to do, anyway).
I look at it from this perspective. What are the chances of the original HDD and the two backup HDDs failing at the same time? I suspect that winning the lottery will have better odds. When one fails, you have the others that allow you to recreate it. Or do as I suggest, clone the backups on a schedule which will minimize the odds even further.
My hard drives seem to fail between 3-8 years whilst my DVD archives never fail (or have yet to do, anyway).
I have only been at this for seven years with no HDD failures to date. I did have one inoperable HDD out of the box. Then I acknowledge that my sample is very small and thus cannot be viewed as representative.
That's just the way that I work - other methods may work better for some...
I will not and cannot contest that statement.
Ciao.
-
May 13, 2014 4:00 PM in response to OGELTHORPEby PlotinusVeritas,OGELTHORPE wrote:
The largest 2.5" SATA HDD available today is 1.5 TB in capacity which will hold the equivalent data of about 319 DVDs.Nope, the largest are 15.2mm thick 4 platter 2TB 2.5" Toshiba drives.
Ive got 10 of them (i think).
Picture I took here:
and 15.2mm 4 platter drive at back (2TB)
OGELTHORPE wrote:
The question is, 'I need to find a certain file in my back up scheme'. Do I sift through 319 DVDs manually or do I connect the 1.5 TB HDD and quickly find the item in question. The data I may be seeking may be found on several DVDs, but it all will be on one HDD.
Youre missing the point 100%
We all despise burning DVDs
The point isnt to store EVERYTHING YOU HAVE on DVD. Nobody here even said such a thing.
The point is to store the VERY important stuff on archival DVDIve got 120 or so hard drives, Im not burning DVDs because I "hate hard drives"
Its because I know how they fail, and how often then fail. And so do you.
Maybe YOU dont have any very important data you dont want lost, I do however, and so do most people
OGELTHORPE wrote:
The more fluid it is, the less DVDs make sense on that basis alone.
has NOTHING to do with fluidity, .... has everything to do with longevity.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
I favor using and storing two 1.5 TB HDDs over 638 DVDs, regardless how long the DVDs last. I do allow for others to have and hold different opinions, but never different facts.
Ciao.
Heres the FACTS.......hard drives die, croak, crash fail, burn, buzz, get fried and twitch.
Archival DVDs DONT (if stored correctly)
I favor hard drives too. Ive got giant piles of them.
I favor PROTECTING my data however, thats why I burn those "slow" 4.7GB DVD.
not because theyre handy
not because theyre "cool"
not because theyre fast
not because they hold a lot of data.
There are no "different facts" You can put your decades worth of work on miserable hard drives
or you can put it on hard drives AND the very important stuff on 100+ year DVD archival media.
Hard drives and DVD are both cheap as dirt.
Wisdom implores anyone with forethought to protect their important work ON DVD
not because theyre fast, easy to handle, or sort, or hold a lot of data.
-
May 13, 2014 4:17 PM in response to clintonfrombirminghamby PlotinusVeritas,clintonfrombirmingham wrote:
I use the Taiyo Yuden 8.5GB discs, not the 4.7GB. Plenty of room for archiving but, no, I don't duplicate my archival DVDs and have yet to have one fail on me in the 12+ years that I've been using DVDs for archival backup purposes.
For indexing my DVDs, I use Disk Tracker (current version is 2.4.7, I think) and have been using it for years as well - it will index files within archives, etc.
Well said,
if you ask anyone:
"We can backup your VERY important work on this hard drive that has 20 ways to die and wont last more than 5-8 years....
.....or we can ALSO (in addition to) backup your VERY important work on these DVDs, they're slow to burn to, bit of a pain, but your data will be safe and secure 50~100 years from now"
We all LOVE fast hard drives, we all DESPISE slow DVD burning.
but who cares, thats not the point.
I dont know where people are getting this "either OR" premise from. Either HD or DVD.
its BOTH, obviously.
-
May 13, 2014 4:29 PM in response to PlotinusVeritasby OGELTHORPE,PlotinusVeritas wrote:
OGELTHORPE wrote:
The largest 2.5" SATA HDD available today is 1.5 TB in capacity which will hold the equivalent data of about 319 DVDs.Nope, the largest are 15.2mm thick 4 platterr 2TB 2.5" Toshiba drives.
These 15.2mm HDD's will not fit inside a MBP. If one has a CCC HDD backup, then it must meet that requirement. However I suspect that there will be HDDs that are larger in capacity than 1.5 TB and are 9.5 MM thick in the near future.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
The question is, 'I need to find a certain file in my back up scheme'. Do I sift through 319 DVDs manually or do I connect the 1.5 TB HDD and quickly find the item in question. The data I may be seeking may be found on several DVDs, but it all will be on one HDD.
Youre missing the point 100%
The point is to store the VERY important stuff on archival DVDThe point is what is the most efficient method of backing up ones data and being able to retrieve it. It is the use of the minimal amount of storage devices and using devices that are easy to access. HDDs (and SSDs) are such devices and DVDs are not nearly as convenient.
By introducing a differentiation of 'important' data vs 'unimportant' data simply adds an additional level of complexity which, if the HDD has sufficient capacity is totally unnecessary. As far as I am concerned, the overwhelming amount of the data that I have on my current 1 TB MBP HDD is important to me. I will accept that some others may not hold the same view.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
The more fluid it is, the less DVDs make sense on that basis alone.
has NOTHING to do with fluidity, .... has everything to do with longevity.
Not the case at all. When data is no longer relevant, you delete it, when it has changed you modify it. Easy to do on a HDD, not so on a DVD. If you wish to have DVDs with portions of obsolete data on it, your DVD pile will be in a constant state of growth. Note in my post and the ones with Clinton, the longevity issue regarding HDDs has been addressed.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
I favor using and storing two 1.5 TB HDDs over 638 DVDs, regardless how long the DVDs last. I do allow for others to have and hold different opinions, but never different facts.
Ciao.
Heres the FACTS.......hard drives die, croak, crash fail, burn, buzz, get fried and twitch.
DVDs DONT.
It is illusory to think something is forever. Nothing is. Even if DVD's last as you claim, there other outside factors that make them susceptible to damage or loss. Think of theft, fire, flood, and so forth.
You are certainly welcome to backup data via DVD's. As I said to Clinton, I find his arguments are not persuasive, nor are yours. I will let the third party reader to select their own option.
Ciao.
-
May 13, 2014 4:52 PM in response to OGELTHORPEby PlotinusVeritas,OGELTHORPE wrote:
These 15.2mm HDD's will not fit inside a MBP.
Well, I know that, the point is theyre small and portable 2TB drives
Never mentioned macbooks.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
The point is what is the most efficient method of backing up ones data and being able to retrieve it.
I love efficient!!!!!
(I love longevity a lot lot lot lot lot MORE)
OGELTHORPE wrote:
By introducing a differentiation of 'important' data vs 'unimportant' data simply adds an additional level of complexity which, if the HDD has sufficient capacity is totally unnecessary. As far as I am concerned, the overwhelming amount of the data that I have on my current 1 TB MBP HDD is important to me. I will accept that some others may not hold the same view.
Both you and I can EASILY differentiate IMPORTANT from UNimportant.
I spend a VERY VERY LONG time making = important
Movie i downloaded, music i bought and downloaded = UNimportnat
OGELTHORPE wrote:
Not the case at all. When data is no longer relevant, you delete it, when it has changed you modify it. Easy to do on a HDD, not so on a DVD. If you wish to have DVDs with portions of obsolete data on it, your DVD pile will be in a constant state of growth. Note in my post and the ones with Clinton, the longevity issue regarding HDDs has been addressed.
What is this word "DELETE" ??? I have never used nor heard of this term.
I dont know what kind of data youre saving, but the kind I make and save is timeless, always relevant.
HD and DVD are cheap as DIRT....... this term delete is unknown to me completely and utterly.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
your DVD pile will be in a constant state of growth.
Thats a good thing.
Why? Because you can go back to earlier versions before errors, mistakes etc.
Growth = buying MORE DVD and hard drives.
If the DVD data is absurdly OLD and been greatly expanded , then its in the trashcan.
DVD or HD, theres always growth and expansion, but not on ALL things.
Facebook.com isnt investing in a GIANT Bluray burning system for static data storage because its fast, etc.but because it will LAST
and its VERY cheap compared to HD in the long run.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
It is illusory to think something is forever. Nothing is.
No, its illusory to think your data is SAFE on a HD that will croak like a bullfrog in 3-8 years.
Nothing is forever, .......yes....... but forever is much closer to 100 Year DVD media than 5-8 year HDs.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
Even if DVD's last as you claim, there other outside factors that make them susceptible to damage or loss. Think of theft, fire, flood, and so forth.Im always thinking ahead. DVDs are stored in fireproof safes, fireproof boxes.
stored offsite, stored at different locations.
This negates all floods, all fires, all thefts.
HD suffer these same issues, as such, DVD and HD are in 'same boat' in this regard, ergo, theres no point here.
OGELTHORPE wrote:
You are certainly welcome to backup data via DVD's. As I said to Clinton, I find his arguments are not persuasive, nor are yours.
Youre committing the "EITHER OR" mistake here. Its not "either HD OR DVD" Its BOTH
There are NO arguments here.
There are cold hard irrefutable facts. Clinton gave them to you when he mentioned his DVDs still going strong at 20+ years.
Youre entitled to your own views, just not your own facts.
Archival DVD in their worse case scenario, will outlast the BEST HD by a million miles. And thats why wisdom implores their use.
not because anyone "likes / loves DVDS" or burning them.
Some of us suffer from a strange affliction to which we prefer things that last.
Especially data storage devices where years and year of work isnt entrusted to binary encoding on a ferromagnetic disk.
You are certainly welcome to store your data exclusively on easily corruptible and short-lived hard drives. Some of us are working the "long haul" in data protection.
-
May 13, 2014 4:51 PM in response to PlotinusVeritasby OGELTHORPE,PlotinusVeritas wrote:
OGELTHORPE wrote:
These 15.2mm HDD's will not fit inside a MBP.
Well, I know that, the point is theyre small and portable 2TB drives
Never mentioned macbooks.
I believe that this is the Macbook Pro forum. MBP = Mackbook Pro
As for the rest of your opinions, I will allow the third party reader to come to their own conclusions.
Ciao.
