I still stand by my statement that at the present time DVD-RAM is the best media for LONG TERM archiving for typical home and small business users.
External HD's are fine for short term backup but not for permanent archive usually stored in a vault or off site.
Longevity tests can be done in a Lab. It's very easy to simulate conditions of aging etc etc.
Of course nobody has actually seen the DVD RAM devices last 200 years but the Lab tests are valid enough.
Unfortunately not many people do Engineering or Science these days so I'm afraid a typical response would be --nobody's been around for 200 years with these devices so how do they know they will survive that long.
Whilst the above question is valid and the only 100% certain method is to actally wait 200 years, decent Lab testing conditions wil yield a 99.9999999% good enough answer -- more than OK for me.
I still say at the current time for off site permanent Archive use Double sided DVD-RAM discs -- 9.4 GB per double sided disc.
When Blu Ray matures a bit more then have a look at that.
Incidentally always duplicate your archive and store one copy in a different place.
Before filing away also check the archive is good (try restoring to a temporary disc.
For archiving use some decent backup software such as arconis true image
You'll need also to keep some record of what's on what media. For smallish archives you can use EXCEL or make your own catalog via something like MySQL database (Free).
Otherwise invest in some cataloging software -- this will read the DIsc volume name and the files and directories on it.
I find even for a largish archive a home gron MySQL application is fine.
I label the archive Discs before archiving the data then cut and paste the directory names and files into my database.
(Incidentally if you do this backup your data base as well otherwise you'll have a load of DVD's around without a clue as to what's on them or when you made the archive.
Even assuming everything you claim is true (which I don't believe anybody is really making 200 year disks anyway) the 'archival' super long lasting disk that are gold plated are several bucks a piece! Plus it takes for freaking ever to write 10gb of data to a cd. With $/gb getting under 15 cents, it's simply easier and cheaper to buy a 500gb HDD and treat it like CD. Fill it up, stick it in a safe and replace it every 5-10 years.
External HDD's certainly have their place -- no probs at all provided you have enough of these and can store them off site individually. Most people don't use HDD's this way.
DVD-RAM at 8X write doesn't take that long.
You also need to consider the Physical space needed for your archive and how do you retrieve the files.
HDD's as archive need to be write-protected - this is automatic with DVD-/+R. DVD-RAM can set a Write protect mechanism as well.
You can lose data quite easily by accidentual erasure -- easily done.
The main problem of people using external HDD's as archives is that these aren't archives at all but backups. Nothing wrong in this but once you start keeping these disks online you are going to lose files or certainly you'll have files on the external hard disk and on your "real working Disks" out of sync with each other.
- open
- insert
- find 4.7Gb data - tweaking to fit
- write
- eject
- flip over
- insert
- find 4.7Gb data - tweaking to fit
- write
- eject
- catalog 9.4Gb data
- label disc
- store in jewel case
- don't scratch it along the way
- REPEAT FOR EVERY 4.7GB
HDD:
- open
- stick in $40 USB dock
- find 1TB of data
- copy overnight
- pull drive
- catalog
- label the drive
For smaller sets of data, removable discs can work for most. Although, all of us know that our archive set is growing exponentially every year with more cameras and more resolution.
To make the archive set work, simply rotate through a few drives every month.
One onsite for a week, getting new files, pull, swap with another drive at home. When full, store one copy at the bank, another at home.
Keeping track of 1 drive per 100+ discs...hmmm
And my point for the lists above was time. I know my time is more valuable that burning 4.7Gb at a time. The cost benefit of the media has already been illustrated, but lets say it takes 10 minutes to burn a DVD-RAM at 8x. You can use that time to find the new data set. But I still have to sit and swap discs 212 times compared to starting one copy. That comes out to 35 hours of manually swapping discs and manning the copies.... hmmm
Again, if you don't shoot much, that may be the way to go, but I accumulate 50-300Gb per weekend 6 months a year (2-3TB per season = ~500 discs to keep burn and keep track of - but I'm different. )
What makes you think that flash drives ensure long term survivability? While the devices may last a long time, most reports suggest that you can only expect about 10 years for the data stored on them.
I think the query here displays the fundamental problem people have in distinguishing between ARCHIVE and BACKUP.
When you are archiving data this assumes that you have essentially finished needing it on a regular basis and you can then write it away to a Permanent medium such as a DVD (blu ray, DVD-RAM or whatever).
Backing up is a TOTALLY different ballgame --you could be backing up several 100GB at a time --for this external hard discs are the correct tool.
Archiving generally shouldn't involve writing more than a few GB per archive session.
Under Linux it's even easier -- you set up a CRON job which runs automatically every day to copy all files (or a selection) which say haven't been modified or accessed for several weeks / months or whatever and store these on to a temporary directory on a hard drive.
You can then archive these files at your leisure. You shouldn't have too much to archive.
After you've run the archive you delete the temporary directory and the files from your current hard drives.
(Don't forget you've still got your backups if the archive fails during the run.
Kyle Yates wrote:
I think the query here displays the fundamental problem people have in distinguishing between ARCHIVE and BACKUP.
It seems like most people are understanding this (I am in any case). I'm just mentioning that on a cost/convenience basis, hard drives win hands down. As I said earlier, fill one up, stick it in a safe, and migrate it every 5-10 years. It's nice that CD's (bluray, whatever) might last 100 years, but chances are readers/players aren't going to be commonplace then. Case in point, no new computers come with a 3.5 floppy (not that you can't buy one), yet usb/firewire is continually backwards compatible, ie no extra hassle on your end if you're using a 5-10 year old external HDD. You're going to end up migrating your data in the meantime anyways, so you might as well go with the easier and cheaper solution in the interim.
we seem to be going round in circles here! Everyone seems to be in agreement that HDD is best for onsite backup, but the question was about infrequent access offsite archive. I'm not looking for a 100 year solution, but something to last until the next technology change. 5-10 years perhaps. Flash? Optical? Online?
ajkessler wrote:
It seems like most people are understanding this (I am in any case). I'm just mentioning that on a cost/convenience basis, hard drives win hands down. As I said earlier, fill one up, stick it in a safe, and migrate it every 5-10 years. It's nice that CD's (bluray, whatever) might last 100 years, but chances are readers/players aren't going to be commonplace then. Case in point, no new computers come with a 3.5 floppy (not that you can't buy one), yet usb/firewire is continually backwards compatible, ie no extra hassle on your end if you're using a 5-10 year old external HDD. You're going to end up migrating your data in the meantime anyways, so you might as well go with the easier and cheaper solution in the interim. ...Show more →
I would be amazed if USB is still being used 20 years from now.
I only briefly scanned every ones comments but didn't see anyone mention tape drives.
DLT tape drives are great the can hold up to 800 gigs of data, write speed faster then any hard drive, easy to store. Its an actual proven tech that works. Its used by quite a few financial institutions that need a good way to archive data.
It also fits yer criteria of different storage medium.
That being said using hard drives for backup/archiving is perfectly viable.
monkeyonacamer wrote:
I only briefly scanned every ones comments but didn't see anyone mention tape drives.
DLT tape drives are great the can hold up to 800 gigs of data, write speed faster then any hard drive, easy to store. Its an actual proven tech that works. Its used by quite a few financial institutions that need a good way to archive data.
It also fits yer criteria of different storage medium.
That being said using hard drives for backup/archiving is perfectly viable.
I would say "quite a few" is a real understatement. Most large companies use take backups. Yes, HD is getting cheaper, but tape is still king of the backup. It is not suitable for long term archive.
alexhibbert wrote:
we seem to be going round in circles here! Everyone seems to be in agreement that HDD is best for onsite backup, but the question was about infrequent access offsite archive. I'm not looking for a 100 year solution, but something to last until the next technology change. 5-10 years perhaps. Flash? Optical? Online?
Thanks
Alex,
Perhaps you just skimmed my post above yours and missed my point. If so, I'm suggesting using a HDD for infrequent offsite archival means. This is not a 100 year solution. It is probably the easiest and cheapest 5-10 year solution that you seem to be searching for. Not sure what else to say here....
Nathan, your point is probably true. USB might not be around in 20 years, but you'll be migrating data before than anyway, so its pretty much a moot point. Blue-ray, dvd, firewire (etc. etc.) won't exist in it's current iteration in 20 years either.
And yes, enterprise class tape drives kick ass, but again, they're far more expensive than a simple external hard drive.
)