|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > June 2005 > Question - Individual Not Company - But Tape v CD Stamper
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Question - Individual Not Company - But Tape v CD Stamper
|
|
| nitroxen 2005-06-20, 2:46 am |
| Every few months I go through the same routine - take my CD collection and
see if time or dust got the better of it.
I was wondering about CD stamping machines - would that be a better backup
over a Tape? Would a CD stamping machine be flexible and cost effective?
I understand a CD stamper would not be cheap - but my Data took a long time
to collect - so while cost is a factor - not an overriding concern, I will
get the money out of the machine.
I am just wanting something industrial strength. Would a stamper be better
than a tape drive?
thoughts?
nitroxen
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-06-20, 2:46 am |
| nitroxen <nit@roxen.com> writes:
> I was wondering about CD stamping machines - would that be a better backup
> over a Tape? Would a CD stamping machine be flexible and cost effective?
How much data are you talking about? What do you mean by "stamping
machine"? You mean a pressing system that uses glass masters and all
that? You really don't want anything like that.
CD-R is a good way to back up small amounts of data, where small means
up to a few GB. If you have more data than that, you're better off
with tape.
> I understand a CD stamper would not be cheap - but my Data took a
> long time to collect - so while cost is a factor - not an overriding
> concern, I will get the money out of the machine. I am just wanting
> something industrial strength. Would a stamper be better than a
> tape drive?
It sounds like you're asking for an archive medium that you can stick
in a drawer and forget about for many years and still expect your data
to be intact. That's what everyone wants, but there's no sure way to get
it (for large data collections) no matter how much you spend.
If, as you say, cost is not an overriding concern, the way to spend
the money is by backing up to conventional media, with redundant
copies geographically dispersed, and periodically migrate the data to
new media as the old stuff ages. Yes, that means you have to devote
some attention to the old backups every few years (or pay someone to
do that), instead of sticking the tapes/discs somewhere and forgetting
them. You have to treat that as one of the costs you say you're
willing to accept.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-20, 2:46 am |
|
"nitroxen" <nit@roxen.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967B8225B899nitroxencom@207.217.125.201...
> Every few months I go through the same routine - take my CD collection and
> see if time or dust got the better of it.
>
> I was wondering about CD stamping machines - would that be a better backup
> over a Tape? Would a CD stamping machine be flexible and cost effective?
"Stamping"...just no. A CDR burner is what most folks use. CDRs(not CDRWs)
last quite a long time in idle shelf storage. Don't confuse long term shelf
lifetime with frequent use durability
> I understand a CD stamper would not be cheap - but my Data took a long
time
> to collect - so while cost is a factor - not an overriding concern, I will
> get the money out of the machine.
>
> I am just wanting something industrial strength. Would a stamper be
better
> than a tape drive?
Don't even consider tapes for long term. Use good CDRs. Burners are very
inexpensive.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-20, 2:46 am |
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x4qbtefgz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> nitroxen <nit@roxen.com> writes:
backup[vbcol=seagreen]
effective?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> How much data are you talking about? What do you mean by "stamping
> machine"? You mean a pressing system that uses glass masters and all
> that? You really don't want anything like that.
>
> CD-R is a good way to back up small amounts of data, where small means
> up to a few GB. If you have more data than that, you're better off
> with tape.
NO, not for long term shelf storage.
>
> It sounds like you're asking for an archive medium that you can stick
> in a drawer and forget about for many years and still expect your data
> to be intact. That's what everyone wants, but there's no sure way to get
> it (for large data collections) no matter how much you spend.
>
> If, as you say, cost is not an overriding concern, the way to spend
> the money is by backing up to conventional media, with redundant
> copies geographically dispersed, and periodically migrate the data to
> new media as the old stuff ages. Yes, that means you have to devote
> some attention to the old backups every few years (or pay someone to
> do that), instead of sticking the tapes/discs somewhere and forgetting
> them. You have to treat that as one of the costs you say you're
> willing to accept.
CDRs are currently the best choice for modest volumes. Remember the OP said
"CD collection". The outstanding question for CDRs is whether they last in
shelf storage 15, 50 or 150 years. 15 years at least seems to be confirmed
by user experience and mfg testing.
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-06-20, 2:46 am |
| "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> NO, not for long term shelf storage.
If you have a TB of data, you're much better off with a handful of LTO
tapes that you migrate every few years, than 1000+ CD-R's that you hope
to leave unattended for decades.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-20, 2:46 am |
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xslzd4io8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> If you have a TB of data, you're much better off with a handful of LTO
> tapes that you migrate every few years, than 1000+ CD-R's that you hope
> to leave unattended for decades.
A very odd selection of choices but with a vastly different cost. What
would be the availability of LTO tapes in say 15 years? CDRs in 15
years..................
Your odds of having readable data, which includes having available readers,
would be much better with CDRs than LTO tapes left for 30 years on a dark
dry shelf.
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-06-20, 2:46 am |
| "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> A very odd selection of choices but with a vastly different cost. What
> would be the availability of LTO tapes in say 15 years? CDRs in 15
> years..................
Whenever you migrate, you would use the best media type at the time of
migration. Yes, that means buying new equipment every few years. The
guy said he wasn't worried about cost.
> Your odds of having readable data, which includes having available readers,
> would be much better with CDRs than LTO tapes left for 30 years on a dark
> dry shelf.
You're better off migrating every few years instead of trying to beat
the odds, no matter which media's odds are better.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-20, 7:46 am |
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x3brdlbzw.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:
hope[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Whenever you migrate, you would use the best media type at the time of
> migration. Yes, that means buying new equipment every few years. The
> guy said he wasn't worried about cost.
>
readers,[vbcol=seagreen]
dark[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You're better off migrating every few years instead of trying to beat
> the odds, no matter which media's odds are better.
All solutions are price-performance solutions.
| |
| Al Dykes 2005-06-20, 7:46 am |
| In article <pytte.992074$w62.413745@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"nitroxen" <nit@roxen.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns967B8225B899nitroxencom@207.217.125.201...
>
>
>"Stamping"...just no. A CDR burner is what most folks use. CDRs(not CDRWs)
>last quite a long time in idle shelf storage. Don't confuse long term shelf
>lifetime with frequent use durability
>
>time
>better
>
>Don't even consider tapes for long term. Use good CDRs. Burners are very
>inexpensive.
>
>
Is there a burner that can work unattended from a backup application
running on a server ? The last time I looked all the CD writers
stacker/feeder systems had a dedicated system and were intended to
make duplicate CDs.
For a backup solution you'd also want a simple inkjet mechinism to
spray identifivation information of each CD. Manually labeling all the
CDs burned on an overnight run would be a PITA and error-prone.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
| |
| nitroxen 2005-06-22, 2:46 am |
| nitroxen <nit@roxen.com> wrote in
news:Xns967B8225B899nitroxencom@207.217.125.201:
> Every few months I go through the same routine - take my CD collection
> and see if time or dust got the better of it.
>
> I was wondering about CD stamping machines - would that be a better
> backup over a Tape? Would a CD stamping machine be flexible and cost
> effective?
>
> I understand a CD stamper would not be cheap - but my Data took a long
> time to collect - so while cost is a factor - not an overriding
> concern, I will get the money out of the machine.
>
> I am just wanting something industrial strength. Would a stamper be
> better than a tape drive?
>
>
> thoughts?
>
> nitroxen
Read the answers - but again I wish to stress the point that cost is not
an overriding concern. Certain data to me is worth the price of a new
car - I hear folks talk about cdr's that cost 15c or free sometimes based
on rebates - and with due respect I am thinking that perhaps folks work
for a company that reduntantly makes backups daily so that is a cdr
failed on x day the y day data would be just as good.
So let me clarify. Hard Drives are industrial strength to me - they last
in my experience about 5 - 7 years based on my useage. I understand that
every so often the data needs to backed up. But I was asking about CD
pressing with glass masters - because I have CD's from the days of Win
3.1 that are at least 10 years old and they work fine.
In response to the folk who said a TB of data would be worth so much - My
data is less but one 700MB disk is worth a new car price to me for
certain data. So within reason - using $30,000 as a top level of money I
could and would commit - what would provide me with best data protection
for the future?
I have been creating data for myself since 1983 using a Commodore 64
machine and learned how to transfer that data to other formats going
through DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, and now XP - but this data really
needs something easier for me to archive now.
So I appreciate the answers - I am thinking about a press or tape - but
leaning to a press because it will b easier to access by just pulling a
volume down - but tape might be good also.
Thoughts again
thanks
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-06-22, 2:46 am |
| nitroxen <nit@roxen.com> writes:
> every so often the data needs to backed up. But I was asking about CD
> pressing with glass masters - because I have CD's from the days of Win
> 3.1 that are at least 10 years old and they work fine.
A CD mastering and stamping system is completely unsuitable for making
single copies of something. It's somewhat unsuitable for making a few
hundred identical copies. It begins to make sense at 500 or maybe
1000 identical copies. I don't think that's what you want.
> I have been creating data for myself since 1983 using a Commodore 64
> machine and learned how to transfer that data to other formats going
> through DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, and now XP - but this data really
> needs something easier for me to archive now.
How much data are you talking about?
> So I appreciate the answers - I am thinking about a press or tape - but
> leaning to a press because it will b easier to access by just pulling a
> volume down - but tape might be good also.
Main thing is make multiple redundant copies and put them in
geographically dispersed places.
| |
| Faeandar 2005-06-22, 2:46 am |
| On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 05:44:39 GMT, nitroxen <nit@roxen.com> wrote:
>nitroxen <nit@roxen.com> wrote in
>news:Xns967B8225B899nitroxencom@207.217.125.201:
>
>
>Read the answers - but again I wish to stress the point that cost is not
>an overriding concern. Certain data to me is worth the price of a new
>car - I hear folks talk about cdr's that cost 15c or free sometimes based
>on rebates - and with due respect I am thinking that perhaps folks work
>for a company that reduntantly makes backups daily so that is a cdr
>failed on x day the y day data would be just as good.
>
>So let me clarify. Hard Drives are industrial strength to me - they last
>in my experience about 5 - 7 years based on my useage. I understand that
>every so often the data needs to backed up. But I was asking about CD
>pressing with glass masters - because I have CD's from the days of Win
>3.1 that are at least 10 years old and they work fine.
>
>In response to the folk who said a TB of data would be worth so much - My
>data is less but one 700MB disk is worth a new car price to me for
>certain data. So within reason - using $30,000 as a top level of money I
>could and would commit - what would provide me with best data protection
>for the future?
>
>I have been creating data for myself since 1983 using a Commodore 64
>machine and learned how to transfer that data to other formats going
>through DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, and now XP - but this data really
>needs something easier for me to archive now.
>
>So I appreciate the answers - I am thinking about a press or tape - but
>leaning to a press because it will b easier to access by just pulling a
>volume down - but tape might be good also.
>
>Thoughts again
>
>thanks
Millions of companies whose data is worth an awful lot use tape, so
maybe there's something to that. :-)
Honestly, for the amount of data you're talking about get a few hard
drives and make multiple copies (as has been pointed out several
times). It will be easy to migrate to new media and with multiple
copies you're odds of data integrity are very high.
~F
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-22, 7:46 am |
|
"nitroxen" <nit@roxen.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967D777E7B5Anitroxencom@207.217.125.201...
> nitroxen <nit@roxen.com> wrote in
> news:Xns967B8225B899nitroxencom@207.217.125.201:
>
>
> Read the answers - but again I wish to stress the point that cost is not
> an overriding concern. Certain data to me is worth the price of a new
> car - I hear folks talk about cdr's that cost 15c or free sometimes based
> on rebates - and with due respect I am thinking that perhaps folks work
> for a company that reduntantly makes backups daily so that is a cdr
> failed on x day the y day data would be just as good.
>
> So let me clarify. Hard Drives are industrial strength to me - they last
> in my experience about 5 - 7 years based on my useage. I understand that
> every so often the data needs to backed up. But I was asking about CD
> pressing with glass masters - because I have CD's from the days of Win
> 3.1 that are at least 10 years old and they work fine.
>
> In response to the folk who said a TB of data would be worth so much - My
> data is less but one 700MB disk is worth a new car price to me for
> certain data. So within reason - using $30,000 as a top level of money I
> could and would commit - what would provide me with best data protection
> for the future?
CDRs done is multiple cycles and phases and kept offiste.
> I have been creating data for myself since 1983 using a Commodore 64
> machine and learned how to transfer that data to other formats going
> through DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, and now XP - but this data really
> needs something easier for me to archive now.
>
> So I appreciate the answers - I am thinking about a press or tape - but
> leaning to a press because it will b easier to access by just pulling a
> volume down - but tape might be good also.
Forget a press or tape.
| |
| Al Dykes 2005-06-22, 7:46 am |
| In article <RIbue.347002$cg1.277731@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"nitroxen" <nit@roxen.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns967D777E7B5Anitroxencom@207.217.125.201...
>
>CDRs done is multiple cycles and phases and kept offiste.
>
What he said. having lots of copies in multiple locations trumps any
theoretical advantage of a more exptic technology.
Make a disk or two every time you update your data. Do a readback
verify each time and once in a while read one of the CDs on some other
old PC to make sure you don't have any hardware compatibility
problems.
If you're really paranoid (not a bad thing for baskups) you might
have a second CD burner, different brand) and write a CD in each
drive just incase one develops a problem.
This is a good paper on CD lifetime and storage
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/gipwg/StabilityStudy.pdf
As you describe it, your backup task is easy. You want the latest
data. Those of us that need retain monthly or annual data for years
have a much messier problem.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-22, 5:47 pm |
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d9bltv$9vn$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <RIbue.347002$cg1.277731@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
collection[vbcol=seagreen]
long[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
based[vbcol=seagreen]
last[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
My[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
protection[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> What he said. having lots of copies in multiple locations trumps any
> theoretical advantage of a more exptic technology.
>
> Make a disk or two every time you update your data. Do a readback
> verify each time and once in a while read one of the CDs on some other
> old PC to make sure you don't have any hardware compatibility
> problems.
>
> If you're really paranoid (not a bad thing for baskups) you might
> have a second CD burner, different brand) and write a CD in each
> drive just incase one develops a problem.
Right and use different CDR blanks from different mfgs. The advantage here
is that the process will teach you as you go. I suspect one would learn
that a new cycle needn't be undertaken for more than 5 years. The process
would then become tedious when new CDR blanks and workable readers became
hard to find. By then there'll be some new technology. Also by then you'll
likely find that the whole process was a waste of time as that first cycle
you of course saved still works. But then you were wearing belt and
suspenders the whole time. Don't throw away old cycles.
> This is a good paper on CD lifetime and storage
> http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/gipwg/StabilityStudy.pdf
>
> As you describe it, your backup task is easy. You want the latest
> data. Those of us that need retain monthly or annual data for years
> have a much messier problem.
>
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
| |
|
| Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "nitroxen" <nit@roxen.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns967D777E7B5Anitroxencom@207.217.125.201...
>
>
>
> CDRs done is multiple cycles and phases and kept offiste.
>
>
>
>
> Forget a press or tape.
>
>
I cannot understand why use $30,000 when you can have a 99,9% reliable
solution making a small number of copies of your data using good media
and a good cd writer, that cost you $100 .
I guess you have a problem in the qa of your copies, you can make
chechsums of your data and control them while making copy of your data,
that ensure you have a reliable copy of your data and you are noticed
when a data corruption happens.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-23, 5:51 pm |
|
"L.C." <xastel@infinito.it> wrote in message
news:d9f9uf$nri$1@news.ngi.it...
-snip
> I cannot understand why use $30,000 when you can have a 99,9% reliable
> solution making a small number of copies of your data using good media
> and a good cd writer, that cost you $100 .
> I guess you have a problem in the qa of your copies, you can make
> chechsums of your data and control them while making copy of your data,
> that ensure you have a reliable copy of your data and you are noticed
> when a data corruption happens.
Exactly what I've been saying. If done properly the figure would go well
above 99.9%.
| |
| Al Dykes 2005-06-23, 8:46 pm |
| In article <d9f9uf$nri$1@news.ngi.it>, L.C. <xastel@infinito.it> wrote:
>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
>I cannot understand why use $30,000 when you can have a 99,9% reliable
>solution making a small number of copies of your data using good media
>and a good cd writer, that cost you $100 .
>I guess you have a problem in the qa of your copies, you can make
>chechsums of your data and control them while making copy of your data,
>that ensure you have a reliable copy of your data and you are noticed
>when a data corruption happens.
Why is it that I think that the first few hundred disks pressed on a
$30k stamper get put in the dumpster as a warmup and then they 100% QC
as many as necessary so they are set up OK for a long run.
Back to the OP. MO disks (megneto-optical) are the gold-standard for
reliable long-term data retention in industry. Fuji makes the stuff.
http://www.fcpa.com/products/mo-drives/
http://www.osta.org/technology/pdf/mo_disk_life.pdf
Sh*t happens. One copy of _any_ backup is apt to get lost or damaged.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
| |
| Al Dykes 2005-06-23, 8:46 pm |
| In article <b3Gue.1013820$w62.451983@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"L.C." <xastel@infinito.it> wrote in message
>news:d9f9uf$nri$1@news.ngi.it...
>
>-snip
>
>
>
>Exactly what I've been saying. If done properly the figure would go well
>above 99.9%.
>
>
If you do readbacks you can add another 9 to that number.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-06-24, 7:47 am |
|
"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d9fdvr$8cp$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d9f9uf$nri$1@news.ngi.it>, L.C. <xastel@infinito.it> wrote:
not[vbcol=seagreen]
based[vbcol=seagreen]
last[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
My[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
protection[vbcol=seagreen]
really[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Why is it that I think that the first few hundred disks pressed on a
> $30k stamper get put in the dumpster as a warmup and then they 100% QC
> as many as necessary so they are set up OK for a long run.
>
> Back to the OP. MO disks (megneto-optical) are the gold-standard for
> reliable long-term data retention in industry.
It use to be. Why do you think MO now is?
> Fuji makes the stuff.
>
> http://www.fcpa.com/products/mo-drives/
>
> http://www.osta.org/technology/pdf/mo_disk_life.pdf
>
> Sh*t happens. One copy of _any_ backup is apt to get lost or damaged.
>
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
|
|
|
|
|