Why not optical?

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by Chevalr1c

You call yourself poor, while you have a f'ing Core i7 pc with 32GB (!) RAM and two (!) GTX 285 graphics cards. Define poor...

He actually an i7 950 with 24gb of ram. Just because I have an i7 3820 doesn't mean I have a lot of money. It just means I had money set aside for a new computer. Something I hadn't done in 4 years.

In the end, it costs more, it takes more time, the organization of Blu-ray discs gets tedious, bad Blu-ray burns wastes discs, and finally you can read and write more faster to a HDD. I don't know about all of you, but an external drive makes more sense unless you're burning movies in BD format and you have a BD player, even the usefulness of this still could be mitigated by a(some) NAS drive(s).

[johnspack]

Actually, I am poor, I live at 3/4s the poverty level for my country. I'm on a fixed income to boot. I've bought everything I have one bit at a time, and usually starving myself for days to weeks at a time. I buy almost everything used, and for good deals. Typical TPuer! My purchase of the burner and the discs has left me without any food money what so ever for the next 2 weeks. Guess if I care whether I eat or not? No, I don't. Also, just got the burner, and I friggin love it! And for incremental backups, yes you can, it's called multisession. Jeez. So all the arguments were invalid. I can do both primary, and incremental backups using this. Sometimes a poorman's solutions IS best.

[Easy Rhino]

who needs backups? i have like 10 excel,word and java class files i do not ever want to lose. everything else is easily replaceable. what do you guys have dial up connections? oh noes, i lost my 3 TB of porn!

[AthlonX2]

at least you get free healthcare eh?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by johnspack

And for incremental backups, yes you can, it's called multisession. Jeez. So all the arguments were invalid. I can do both primary, and incremental backups using this. Sometimes a poorman's solutions IS best.

Not if you back up 1TB of data right off the bat. Then every change or new file requires new media, so another spindle of discs.

And if you are that poor it seems like going with the cheaper 1TB hard drive would have been a wiser move...

[johnspack]

Actually it is not. A lot of my data is primary, so I only need one backup. There are only certain things that require sequential backups. Backup situations are different between a corp and a small business. My needs require single, but large backup of primary data. After that, I need to back all of it up again. But I don't have to do it every few minutes. So using a bluray disc that costs a buck, isn't that big of a deal.

Here's an example. I'm helping to develop a new game engine for a flight sim. Every time we add new code to change the engine's characteristics, the entire content changes. I need to save a new backup of the entire code. It's not sequential. I need backups of every version of the engine for comparison. This is a hella cheap way to do it.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Here's an example. I'm helping to develop a new game engine for a flight sim. Every time we add new code to change the engine's characteristics, the entire content changes. I need to save a new backup of the entire code. It's not sequential. I need backups of every version of the engine for comparison. This is a hella cheap way to do it.

that is a TERRIBLY EXPENSIVE way to do it. no system administrator or IT director in their right mind would even consider the remote possibility of doing backups that way!!

you could pay a nominal fee for cloud hosting (secure, inexpensive, fast) or you could arrange with the code developers a VPS with enough hard disk space to house your needs and expand when needed. storing high value data on optical disc as a primary source is something complete idiots do. sorry, but it is true.

[johnspack]

Not with this puppy, and the owners have a way too high nda on it. We need to update it frequently, but need a full, new copy each time. The old copy gets destroyed. It's gotten way past dvd size, hence the need for bluray. If we succeed, I could make a lot of money, compared to my miserable exsistance now. We don't want it in any cloud, it's highly confidential, so only hard copy backups are needed. Each iteration requires a new backup. Jeez again, how how is that to understand?

[slyfox2151]

i dont get it?


it still seems a HDD would be a better option.... im sure you can get second hand drives cheaper price/size then blu ray for a start.

need privacy/security? encrypt your data..... no one is going to break a 256bit AES encryption with a very strong password.... what if someone robbed the place and stole your blu ray discs....


i know if i was going to rob a home i would go straight for the I.T related stuff.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Not with this puppy, and the owners have a way too high nda on it. We need to update it frequently, but need a full, new copy each time. The old copy gets destroyed. It's gotten way past dvd size, hence the need for bluray. If we succeed, I could make a lot of money, compared to my miserable exsistance now. We don't want it in any cloud, it's highly confidential, so only hard copy backups are needed. Each iteration requires a new backup. Jeez again, how how is that to understand?

If you're using versioning software, there is no reason why you have to manage that, that is the VCS's job. Honestly, in the long run, a hard drive is the better option. Also making a new copy doesn't sound like the most secure way. Also what is keeping you from getting a 1tb drive and wiping the drive everything time you need to reload code in (huh? what?). The point is, 1TB in the end would cost less, it will transfer faster, and you don't have to throw away your media every time you do it.. and honestly, as a systems admin, I can tell you that unless your backup is off-site, it's really not a backup.

Finally, I'm a Sys Admin for a school and we have a security policy that requires has to have off-site and regular on-site backups. The amount of security that you're talking about doesn't make your project any more secure, in fact using physical media makes it less secure, not more. If anything you run the chance that the media degrades or the burn was bad. I would recommend a hard drive and what baffles me is why you think this is necessary, because it is honestly kind of absurd... even more so if you're a developer, you of all people should know this already. What good is backing up your data if you need it secure and you don't even encrypt it and once it is encrypted, why does the storage medium matter so much? Honestly, in the long run it sounds like blu-rays will cost more, will take more time, and will be less secure.

I'm just saying as a friendly warning, as someone who handles secure backups, that what you're saying makes no sense.

Also doesn't Microsoft have a pretty nice flight sim already?

[Chevalr1c]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Actually, I am poor, I live at 3/4s the poverty level for my country. I'm on a fixed income to boot. I've bought everything I have one bit at a time, and usually starving myself for days to weeks at a time. I buy almost everything used, and for good deals. Typical TPuer! My purchase of the burner and the discs has left me without any food money what so ever for the next 2 weeks. Guess if I care whether I eat or not? No, I don't. Also, just got the burner, and I friggin love it! And for incremental backups, yes you can, it's called multisession. Jeez. So all the arguments were invalid. I can do both primary, and incremental backups using this. Sometimes a poorman's solutions IS best.

Well, I did not intend to offend you at all. How could I know that you are silly enough to save money by not eating. I suppose that one would rather save on electronics than on food. What is the point of a high-end pc if you starve yourself to death? Priorities, man, priorities.
The x dollars you have spent on a second, high-end graphics card (even if it was second hand) and on over-the-top amounts of RAM could have easily fed you for a month (or two). Don't forget that you will even be poorer if your health collapses (hospitals aren't exactly cheap, not even in a country in which the government partially covers the costs). And what if the government swings to the right wing and starts cutting it's costs in medicare, forcing you to pay the bills?
Saving by starving is no good strategy, neither is "saving" by going for a unnecessarily expensive back-up solution.

Really, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry...

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Not with this puppy, and the owners have a way too high nda on it. We need to update it frequently, but need a full, new copy each time. The old copy gets destroyed. It's gotten way past dvd size, hence the need for bluray. If we succeed, I could make a lot of money, compared to my miserable exsistance now. We don't want it in any cloud, it's highly confidential, so only hard copy backups are needed. Each iteration requires a new backup. Jeez again, how how is that to understand?

you really don't seem to know what you're doing. No single update changes every file. You don't need an entire backup at all if that's what you're doing. Saving a version backup for 25GB's of files should only require 100MB's of space max past the initial version.

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

I personally like keeping certain things backed up on discs because of the fact that (to me anyway) Hdds seem to have a higher failure rate these days and because of that, you dont have to worry about the data on a dvd/blu-ray being lost because the media failed like it could with a hard drive.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Not with this puppy, and the owners have a way too high nda on it. We need to update it frequently, but need a full, new copy each time. The old copy gets destroyed. It's gotten way past dvd size, hence the need for bluray. If we succeed, I could make a lot of money, compared to my miserable exsistance now. We don't want it in any cloud, it's highly confidential, so only hard copy backups are needed. Each iteration requires a new backup. Jeez again, how how is that to understand?

So the old copy gets destroyed. So tell me again why simply overwritting on a 1TB hard drive wouldn't work again?

Originally Posted by CrAsHnBuRnXp

I personally like keeping certain things backed up on discs because of the fact that (to me anyway) Hdds seem to have a higher failure rate these days and because of that, you dont have to worry about the data on a dvd/blu-ray being lost because the media failed like you would with a hard drive.

In practice that isn't true, even on archival grade optical media, disc rot is far more likely to kill the disc than any problem a hard drive sitting powered down will have.

[Easy Rhino]

i've come to the conclusion johnspack is either trolling is too dumb to know his ass from his head. /unsubscribe

[redeye]

there is no foolproof method of backing up... because entopy haunts everything... entopy wants wants what entopy wants...

blu-ray/dvds are too much trouble... go with hdd's and a regular backup routine, off-site storage and respect for backup medium...


well the Disney company has come close by having a vault, climate controlled, 3 b/w prints containing the red,green,blue... they use that method because b/w film fades at the same rate so you can adjust for the fading... unlike color film which the colors fade unevenly.

dvd's rot, blu-rays rot, so what are you going to do?
valuable memories such as family photos should be on black and white film, b/w film can be restored due to fading... and lasts nearly forever...

from what i understand, magneto-optical discs last the longest.

accidental damage is what you need to watch out for, meaning hardware failure, dropping the hdd, sunlight damge etc.

TL;DR. it all comes down to how much is your data worth, and how much are you willing to pay to store it safely.
personally, hdd are fast, and easy to use.

fortunately my words tend not be be worth much... i try but...

[johnspack]

Food, computer parts... it's all relative. As for optical disk reliability, I have cd backups I started doing from 10yrs ago, that I can still read no problem. I keep them very safely stored, I'm not a moron. Most backups however, become irrelevant at the most after 2 years. I still would far trust a well stored optical disk to a constantly operating hd to store data even for that long. I can't really afford tbs of hd space right now, and I've been doing optical backups for years, have all the discs, and they all work. I don't see how it's a bad solution. In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers, I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed, properly stored, optical discs.

[eidairaman1]

john right about that, and dual redundancy helps alot too, so basically 2 copies of the original file

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by johnspack

In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers, I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed, properly stored, optical discs.

That is relative, maybe you should treat your hardware better. I've had many hard drives and I haven't had a single one fail on me before it has been replaced (I would save average time I keep a HD is ~5-6 years). I've had many cds and dvds die. I still don't understand where the benefit is. You're arguing that incremental backups are better than using an HD, my response would be: Use a VCS, and actually version your stuff, then you can go back to any prior state (something a developer should know and use regularly.) The time wasted waiting for any optical media to burn takes time, and writing to an HDD would be thats much faster.

Finally Samsung has a 2tb drive on the 'Egg for 140 USD, assuming Blu-Ray discs cost 15 dollars for a spindle of 10, you're spending 130 USD on discs, then the blu-ray burner, which makes a drive + enclosure cost just as much. Shipping might cost most for the Blu-Ray because 8 spindles of 10 discs takes up a bit more space and weighs a bit more than a single hard drive.

I guess my question is, why are you so resistant to the idea of using a hard drive, after all, you started the topic asking, "why not optical" and everyone is telling you why a HDD is better.

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

john right about that, and dual redundancy helps alot too, so basically 2 copies of the original file

You mean the copy on both an external hdd and on your computer isn't enough redundancy? I'm perfectly satisfied with RAID-5 for redundancy (and up-time) with an external hdd for backup.mThere is a difference between back-up, redundancy, and being OCD.

[Nitro67]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Food, computer parts... it's all relative. As for optical disk reliability, I have cd backups I started doing from 10yrs ago, that I can still read no problem. I keep them very safely stored, I'm not a moron. Most backups however, become irrelevant at the most after 2 years. I still would far trust a well stored optical disk to a constantly operating hd to store data even for that long. I can't really afford tbs of hd space right now, and I've been doing optical backups for years, have all the discs, and they all work. I don't see how it's a bad solution. In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers, I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed, properly stored, optical discs.

I have been backing up on optical media, since around 1999. I have been in computers since 1982. If your backup is really valuable then make a few copies and store them in different locations. The problem with keeping things are a hard drive. Well, all hard drives are now made in China. China doesn't understand the term quality control. So that is why all these hard drives are failing, regardless of the brand. Tape backup is another option, but magnetic tape tends to rot.
Holographic storage will probably be the next medium in the future. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage...alization.html
You can also do more layers to bluray, Ultra Density Optical (UDO). Here is a website that compares the Optical vs hard drive. http://www.dataarchivecorp.com/why-Optical.htm

[Goodman]

Blank CD/DVD or Blu-Ray disk better than HDD's for backup?

Someone needs a wake up call...

[Nitro67]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

That is relative, maybe you should treat your hardware better. I've had many hard drives and I haven't had a single one fail on me before it has been replaced (I would save average time I keep a HD is ~5-6 years). I've had many cds and dvds die.

Actually it could be the brand of CD or DVD. Although, I have CD's from 1999 that still play fine. How you store them could be a factor too. The brands for CD or DVD that I recommend is Ritek or Verbatim. BD-R's the brand would be Verbatim. I store them in jewel boxes and then they are stored in these rubber maid containers that hold about 150 discs.
Reading your next post sounds like you store your optical discs in spindles. That is fine before they are burnt, but you need to store them in jewel boxes.

Originally Posted by Aquinus

Finally Samsung has a 2tb drive on the 'Egg for 140 USD, assuming Blu-Ray discs cost 15 dollars for a spindle of 10, you're spending 130 USD on discs, then the blu-ray burner, which makes a drive + enclosure cost just as much. Shipping might cost most for the Blu-Ray because 8 spindles of 10 discs takes up a bit more space and weighs a bit more than a single hard drive.

The typical Samsung drive lasts about 6 months. i had 3 Samsung drives fail and 4 WD drives fail, so that does it for me. Have a hardware raid card? Notice that Samsung is not a recommended drive, because they are junk. All these drives are now made in china, and don't last. The only good brands that I had good luck with is Hitachi or Seagate. If you buy the enterprise versions, then they last longer. I have RAID 6, but I use Hitachi drives.
If you are buying a Blu-ray burner, then I recommend a Pioneer. I use them internally, and never had issues with them. I think their cost is about 99 us now. Pioneer keeps their firmware updated. While my Sony BD-R burner didn't.

Oh, if you buying BD-R's, then the best place is Amazon. Shipping is free with Amazon Prime membership. Amazon is the cheapest for Verbatim.

[Nitro67]

Originally Posted by Goodman

Blank CD/DVD or Blu-Ray disk better than HDD's for backup?

Someone needs a wake up call...

Hmmm, didn't read the article. I post a little of it...

Tapes and Hard Drives are erasable and were not originally designed for use as an archive medium.

Tape was designed to perform high-speed backups for the purpose of file restores and disaster recovery, and hard disks were designed to store active files and databases that require immediate access and the ability to be modified and/or erased.

Hard drives have a typical life span of up to 3 years under normal operating conditions, and are prone to crash at what always seems like the wrong time.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Food, computer parts... it's all relative. As for optical disk reliability, I have cd backups I started doing from 10yrs ago, that I can still read no problem. I keep them very safely stored, I'm not a moron. Most backups however, become irrelevant at the most after 2 years. I still would far trust a well stored optical disk to a constantly operating hd to store data even for that long. I can't really afford tbs of hd space right now, and I've been doing optical backups for years, have all the discs, and they all work. I don't see how it's a bad solution. In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers, I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed, properly stored, optical discs.

Another one sided comparison to make your side look better. Why does the HDD have to be constantly operating? You can't connect the drive when you need to make a backup and disconnect it and store it properly when you don't need it? I've even already addressed this. A properly stored HDD will last far longer than a properly stored optical disc. Optical discs rot, even when stored in air tight containers, they rot. Sometimes they rot in less than a year, sometimes they last a decade. I've seen both, and I've seen both happen in discs stored right next to eachother in bank vaults.

Originally Posted by Nitro67

The problem with keeping things are a hard drive. Well, all hard drives are now made in China. China doesn't understand the term quality control. So that is why all these hard drives are failing, regardless of the brand.

Really? China? So all this flooding in Thailand that shut down 80% of WD's production was just BS, because they are all really made in China?! And those Seagate factories in Singapore must just be a fake they put there to fool people?

Originally Posted by Nitro67

Tapes and Hard Drives are erasable and were not originally designed for use as an archive medium.

Nether was traditional optical media as we are talking about in this thread. The article you linked to is talking about UDO(Ultra Density Optical), not traditional BD-R.

They are those optical discs inside cartridges(similar to UMDs but much larger, they are 5.25"). The drives are about $5,000, a 30GB disc is about $75. The discs are so expensive per GB because the data is written redundantly on the disc, and the discs are made very differently from standard consumer burnable media, they are designed to be a lot more durable.

Originally Posted by Nitro67

Tape was designed to perform high-speed backups for the purpose of file restores and disaster recovery, and hard disks were designed to store active files and databases that require immediate access and the ability to be modified and/or erased.

Hard drives have a typical life span of up to 3 years under normal operating conditions, and are prone to crash at what always seems like the wrong time.

Another instance of handicapping the HDD by leaving it running 24/7 and comparing it to optical media that is only in use during the active file backup and then put in storage. The typical life span of a HDD is 3 years, when used continuously. But when only used when needed, and properly stored between uses, they last far longer.

[Nitro67]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Really? China? So all this flooding in Thailand that shut down 80% of WD's production was just BS, because they are all really made in China?! And those Seagate factories in Singapore must just be a fake they put there to fool people?

The max that I got out of a hard drive was 5 years, but lately it is less that a year. Now I am running all enterprise drives. So we will see. I have optical disks that are 13 years old. So it looks like optical wins so far.

Hmmm, I have 2 hard drives from Seagate on my desk now that says made in china. Parts are made in china, and then shipped to the country of orgin. There is only a few suppliers.. Don't be fooled by the media... Several companies have gone for the cheap labor and failed. They just don't publish it.