Re: archiving of digital photos (write once flash; BluRay).
ps56k wrote:
> I know there are flash drives available that will go to 32Gb,
> and I think now even 64Gb.
>
> My question:
> Is it "okay" to use a flash drive as an archival storage device?
I have not seen it on the market yet... (anyone?).
Another, other option, is Blu-Ray disk. 50 - 100 GB storage. Both the
writers and the media are expensive (now), but like all such things
should come down in time. But make sure they are 'gold' disks.
>A very convenient and reliable method of Archiving is by means of an
>external H.D set in RAID 1 configuration. Raid 1 automatically mirrors
>(makes an exact copy of)whatever you put on drive A and copies it onto
>drive B. If either drive fails, the bad drive can be replaced and the
>contents of the good drive can be mirrored back onto the new drive.
It also increases read performance for large files, if the controller is
reasonably clever, since you've got two copies of the data and the
drives can be told to read different blocks of it in parallel.
Don't put *too* much faith in its absolute reliability though, since
you can still have failures common to both drives. For example, a
controller failure could write garbage over both drives. An
overvoltage output from the power supply could destroy the controllers
on both drives. Fire could destroy both drives, etc. So you still
need another copy somewhere else.
Dave Martindale <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>rfischer@sonic.net writes:
>
>>I have two backup drives. One is connected to the computer at all
>>times and gets backups of changes every hour. The other lives in my
>>office at work and comes home once every 1-2 weeks to get an update.
>>The home backup drive is 750GB and the remote is 500GB. Cost for the
>>two drives was around $200.
>
>>What's notable about this scheme? It's automatic and I only have to
>>remember to do something once every other week. Backups that are too
>>much work don't get done and aren't worth anything.
>
>The other feature of this scheme is the physical diversity of storage
>location. Your house could burn to the ground, taking the computer an
>the local disk copy with it, and you'd still have the copy in your
>office at work.
>
>I have a similar arrangement, though there are multiple computers being
>backed up. Each computer does an automated backup (Windows backup) to
>the home fileserver (NSLU2 and USB disk) a couple of times a week, and
>that's copied once a week to a portable drive that lives at work.
Of course, if you have a _really_ fast network connection and a
tolerant ISP you can just do your weekly archiving to a remote netork
drive.
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:z9ednQ6m58qCElzVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:RZqdnVZY7sZmEl3VnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>>>
>>>> so show me one that has lasted 100 years ;-)
>>>> matter of fact show me a batch that has lasted 10 years.......
>>> Two points to that.
>>>
>>> 1. The medium is metalic. Much more stable than the organic dyes used
>>> in the usual CD's/DVD's.
>>>
>>
>> then it probably has a chance :-)
>>
>>> 2. Accelerated life testing.
>>>
>>
>> worth exaclty nothing :-)
>
> False.
>
Well yes, I suppose your right, from my experience ALT *is* useful for the
marketing department, you can paint it however you like though when it comes
to something like a burnable DVD unless it has been on a shelf for 100
years, no amount of ALT is going to conclusively prove otherwise, just look
at the claims by Kodak for their "Archive Grade" CD/R's supposedly tested to
simulate 100 years, and only a few short years later I know people who have
nothing but useless plastic disks sitting in their very expensive "Archive"
quality Vaults. I used to do the backup game for a living for several
Doctors around town, and I know for a fact that some businesses that used
another service (from a "reputable" nation wide franchise) that used
"Achievable" burnt media and off site storage in a controlled environment
are not very happy to have lost some of their important Data, because of
disk rot and in some cases the media had just lost the image completely as
the dye faded, at least with the rotted disks, there is the chance of
recovering some of the info, but when the dyes just fade to nothing, leaving
the silvered back side and nothing else, well, your ******* aren't you.
When I retired from the business a couple of years ago, I handed over all
the archived tapes and HDD's to their respective owners and not one of them
showed any data loss, Magnetic media=1, burnt media=0
so you can blather on about Accelerated Life Testing till your blue in the
face, but from hard won personal experience I can tell you again, not worth
a brass razoo in the real world.
> ALT is used in many industries for many products and has proven to
> increase the reliability of those products through tests designed to
> show weaknesses. We've used it on several products to sniff out areas of
> concern and then improve the design.
>
> It's an 'art' to be sure, and you can't bank on a prediction (hours to
> failure) for the future. In this case, you _can_ bank on the statistics
> that show far less loss on the gold disk than on the usual disks in those
> conditions that are harmful to the disk: heat, humidity and UV.
>
> So not only is it worth 'something' it is worth much more than nothing.
>
> Here is a manufacturers graph from ALT. Note the bottom (3rd) curve.
> http://www.memorex.com/progold/techn...d_standard.php
>
> I don't know how conservative their tests are, but it is clear that
> there is a significant difference in errors.
>
> Now, take the same gold disk and put it in a reasonably benign area (cool,
> dry, out of the light) ...
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
> Of course, if you have a _really_ fast network connection and
> a tolerant ISP you can just do your weekly archiving to a
> remote netork drive.
Of course, that relies on your ISP staying in business and being
reliable. At one time, the government department I worked for had an
archival service for files. They went out of business and shipped the
files back to us with about 10% of them missing.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Alan Browne wrote:
> ps56k wrote:
>> from a friend - -
>> ----
>> I have invested a lot of time and effort in creating a folder
>> of all my photos over the years, currently ~16,000 occupying 10.7Gb on
>> my hard disk.
>> Having learned the lesson the hard way, I have backed them up on DVD's.
>>
>> Since each DVD will only hold 4.7Gb, I have to split up the folder to
>> do this.
>>
>> I know there are flash drives available that will go to 32Gb,
>> and I think now even 64Gb.
>>
>> My question:
>> Is it "okay" to use a flash drive as an archival storage device?
>> Is it as stable as DVD's? As secure?
>> What if I store it in a "cool, dry place"?
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>
> Another option, just remembered, is "write once" cards. Similar to a
> Flash card form factor (say CF or SD), but you can only write to them
> once. These were announced a year or so ago, but I haven't seen any so
> far in the marketplace.
>
> The issue here may be readability in 20 or 40 years. The data will
> survive, but will there be readers?
>
> (Note: I believe the most 'readable' format in 20 and even 40 years will
> still be 5.25" DVD's).
>
>
Or will Blu-Ray kill them off? And if that happens, something will
supplant Blu-Ray. Not one single data format or device is obsolete-proof.
Allen
Allen wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> ps56k wrote:
>>> from a friend - -
>>> ----
>>> I have invested a lot of time and effort in creating a folder
>>> of all my photos over the years, currently ~16,000 occupying 10.7Gb
>>> on my hard disk.
>>> Having learned the lesson the hard way, I have backed them up on DVD's.
>>>
>>> Since each DVD will only hold 4.7Gb, I have to split up the folder to
>>> do this.
>>>
>>> I know there are flash drives available that will go to 32Gb,
>>> and I think now even 64Gb.
>>>
>>> My question:
>>> Is it "okay" to use a flash drive as an archival storage device?
>>> Is it as stable as DVD's? As secure?
>>> What if I store it in a "cool, dry place"?
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>> Another option, just remembered, is "write once" cards. Similar to a
>> Flash card form factor (say CF or SD), but you can only write to them
>> once. These were announced a year or so ago, but I haven't seen any
>> so far in the marketplace.
>>
>> The issue here may be readability in 20 or 40 years. The data will
>> survive, but will there be readers?
>>
>> (Note: I believe the most 'readable' format in 20 and even 40 years
>> will still be 5.25" DVD's).
>>
>>
> Or will Blu-Ray kill them off? And if that happens, something will
> supplant Blu-Ray. Not one single data format or device is obsolete-proof.
Sorry, by "DVD" I really meant the 5.25" optical disk size of any format.
A BluRay drive will read DVD and CD. Whatever is 'next' will read them
all too... nice thing about finer and finer data, the laser can always
read the coarser data...
> Allen wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> ps56k wrote:
>>>> from a friend - -
>>>> ----
>>>> I have invested a lot of time and effort in creating a
>>>> folder of all my photos over the years, currently ~16,000
>>>> occupying 10.7Gb on my hard disk. Having learned the lesson
>>>> the hard way, I have backed them up on DVD's.
>>>>
>>>> Since each DVD will only hold 4.7Gb, I have to split up the
>>>> folder to do this.
>>>>
>>>> I know there are flash drives available that will go to
>>>> 32Gb, and I think now even 64Gb.
>>>>
>>>> My question:
>>>> Is it "okay" to use a flash drive as an archival storage
>>>> device? Is it as stable as DVD's? As secure? What if I
>>>> store it in a "cool, dry place"?
>>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>> Another option, just remembered, is "write once" cards. Similar to a
>>> Flash card form factor (say CF or SD), but you can only write to
>>> them once. These were announced a year or
>>> so ago, but I haven't seen any so far in the marketplace.
>>>
>>> The issue here may be readability in 20 or 40 years. The
>>> data will survive, but will there be readers?
>>>
>>> (Note: I believe the most 'readable' format in 20 and even
>>> 40 years will still be 5.25" DVD's).
>>>
>> Or will Blu-Ray kill them off? And if that happens, something
>> will supplant Blu-Ray. Not one single data format or device
>> is obsolete-proof.
> Sorry, by "DVD" I really meant the 5.25" optical disk size of any
> format.
> A BluRay drive will read DVD and CD. Whatever is 'next' will read
> them all too... nice thing about finer and finer data,
> the laser can always read the coarser data...
Truly archival storage will probably require periodic copying to new
media to avoid both obsolescence and chemical damage. Deposition of
metal, as in old fashioned prints and negatives, might ultimately be the
best but that depends on the substrate. The cellulose acetate film of
several 1930s movies has irreversibly deteriorated. However, good color
prints have been made from the separation negatives made by
Prokudin-Gorsky (spelling?) in the early 1900s
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Re: archiving of digital photos (write once flash; BluRay). 
Linear Mode
