Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi
 
For about six years, I've been backing up computer data onto CD media.
Initially, I wasn't too careful with my backups, making no after-checks
and buying cheap media, although I've learnt from my mistakes in modern
times. As I'm not keen to lose the data I'm backing, I only buy
high-quality media these days and perform fairly through after-checks to
ensure that the data is burned correctly. However, my data is not
mission-critical or anything like that, so I have no reason to buy
massively expensive equipment to ensure it survives at all costs. In all
honestly, I've had very good reliability to date, even on the oldest CD's
and I'm not even sure that the problems I suffered where related to the
medium at all.  
 
In recent times, the data I have to backup up has grown in size and I'm
considering a switch to DVD media. However, I'm not sure if DVD has yet
reached the same level of reliability as the more proven CD medium has and
the standards war has meant that I've been reluctant to change to DVD so
far. I would say that current and future readability, the ease of backup
operations and medium-time data retention are the most important factors
for me. In the latter case, I wouldn't worry about the data lasting longer
than a decade, I'm sure that in five years, I'll be looking to migrate all
the data onto a newer backup media. If I do decide to move to DVD backups,
I will transfer all my current CD backups onto DVD. I will then keep the
CD backups, but merely write all new backups to DVD alone.  
 
Would any of you say that the DVD standard is now as mature as CD and as
safe a bet? Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is it better to
migrate to DVD at this stage?
 
Thanks to anybody who responds to this thread. I'll be glad to hear any
critical views that people may hold.  
 
Regards,  
 
Pan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.29.04.15.03.455177@nodomain.com...
 
> For about six years, I've been backing up computer data onto CD media.
> Initially, I wasn't too careful with my backups, making no after-checks
> and buying cheap media, although I've learnt from my mistakes in modern
> times. As I'm not keen to lose the data I'm backing, I only buy
> high-quality media these days and perform fairly through after-checks to
> ensure that the data is burned correctly. However, my data is not
> mission-critical or anything like that, so I have no reason to buy
> massively expensive equipment to ensure it survives at all costs. In all
> honestly, I've had very good reliability to date, even on the oldest CD's
> and I'm not even sure that the problems I suffered where related to the
> medium at all.
>
> In recent times, the data I have to backup up has grown in size and I'm
> considering a switch to DVD media. However, I'm not sure if DVD has yet
> reached the same level of reliability as the more proven CD medium has and
> the standards war has meant that I've been reluctant to change to DVD so
> far. I would say that current and future readability, the ease of backup
> operations and medium-time data retention are the most important factors
> for me. In the latter case, I wouldn't worry about the data lasting longer
> than a decade, I'm sure that in five years, I'll be looking to migrate all
> the data onto a newer backup media. If I do decide to move to DVD backups,
> I will transfer all my current CD backups onto DVD. I will then keep the
> CD backups, but merely write all new backups to DVD alone.
 
> Would any of you say that the DVD standard is now as mature as CD
 
Nope.
 
> and as safe a bet?
 
Nope.
 
> Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is
> it better to migrate to DVD at this stage?
 
I've migrated to DVD and just continue with the level of protection I have  
always
had with CDs when they were at the level of maturity that DVDs are now.
 
That basically means not using the cheapest media, and not using just
one brand and format of media and ensuring multiple copys at all times.
 
I find that what I care about losing now fits fine on a single DVD
and I keep that stuff on the hard drive at all times, and so the
frequent new copy of everything I care about to a single DVD
ensures that I have multiple copys of what matters at all times.
 
I currently use DVD+RW format most of the time with an
ocassional use of DVD-R media so that if it turns out that
one of the formats doesnt last as long as I would like, I will
become aware of that while I still have at least one other
format that hasnt yet started to show any sign of degradation.
 
I dont however generate a significant volume of stuff
that I dont want to lose, particularly pictures and video.
 
If I did, I would handle those the same way, multiple copys
on multiple types of media and keep checking to ensure
that none of the stuff on DVDs is degrading over time.
 
I have also deliberately chosen a DVD burner that has
a reputation for not being fussy about the media and
for being able to write DVDs that can be read reliably
in any DVD player I care to read them in. A Pioneer 109.
 
> Thanks to anybody who responds to this thread.
> I'll be glad to hear any critical views that people may hold.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote:
> Hi
 
> For about six years, I've been backing up computer data onto CD media.
> Initially, I wasn't too careful with my backups, making no after-checks
> and buying cheap media, although I've learnt from my mistakes in modern
> times. As I'm not keen to lose the data I'm backing, I only buy
> high-quality media these days and perform fairly through after-checks to
> ensure that the data is burned correctly. However, my data is not
> mission-critical or anything like that, so I have no reason to buy
> massively expensive equipment to ensure it survives at all costs. In all
> honestly, I've had very good reliability to date, even on the oldest CD's
> and I'm not even sure that the problems I suffered where related to the
> medium at all.  
 
> In recent times, the data I have to backup up has grown in size and I'm
> considering a switch to DVD media. However, I'm not sure if DVD has yet
> reached the same level of reliability as the more proven CD medium has and
> the standards war has meant that I've been reluctant to change to DVD so
> far. I would say that current and future readability, the ease of backup
> operations and medium-time data retention are the most important factors
> for me. In the latter case, I wouldn't worry about the data lasting longer
> than a decade, I'm sure that in five years, I'll be looking to migrate all
> the data onto a newer backup media. If I do decide to move to DVD backups,
> I will transfer all my current CD backups onto DVD. I will then keep the
> CD backups, but merely write all new backups to DVD alone.  
 
> Would any of you say that the DVD standard is now as mature as CD and as
> safe a bet? Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is it better to
> migrate to DVD at this stage?
 
From the regular tests of writable DVDs and writers in the german  
computer magazine c't, I would say that no, writable DVD (with the  
exception of DVD-RAM) is not there yet. There are still frequent  
tests where some quality medium and some DVD writers do not
work well together and produce unreliable or failed burns.
 
Arno

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message  
news:3fu2buF9f6v5U4@individual.net...
> Previously Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>
>> For about six years, I've been backing up computer data onto CD media.
>> Initially, I wasn't too careful with my backups, making no after-checks
>> and buying cheap media, although I've learnt from my mistakes in modern
>> times. As I'm not keen to lose the data I'm backing, I only buy
>> high-quality media these days and perform fairly through after-checks to
>> ensure that the data is burned correctly. However, my data is not
>> mission-critical or anything like that, so I have no reason to buy
>> massively expensive equipment to ensure it survives at all costs. In all
>> honestly, I've had very good reliability to date, even on the oldest CD's
>> and I'm not even sure that the problems I suffered where related to the
>> medium at all.
>
>> In recent times, the data I have to backup up has grown in size and I'm
>> considering a switch to DVD media. However, I'm not sure if DVD has yet
>> reached the same level of reliability as the more proven CD medium has and
>> the standards war has meant that I've been reluctant to change to DVD so
>> far. I would say that current and future readability, the ease of backup
>> operations and medium-time data retention are the most important factors
>> for me. In the latter case, I wouldn't worry about the data lasting longer
>> than a decade, I'm sure that in five years, I'll be looking to migrate all
>> the data onto a newer backup media. If I do decide to move to DVD backups,
>> I will transfer all my current CD backups onto DVD. I will then keep the
>> CD backups, but merely write all new backups to DVD alone.
>
>> Would any of you say that the DVD standard is now as mature as CD and as
>> safe a bet? Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is it better to
>> migrate to DVD at this stage?
>
> From the regular tests of writable DVDs and writers in the german
> computer magazine c't, I would say that no, writable DVD (with the
> exception of DVD-RAM) is not there yet. There are still frequent
> tests where some quality medium and some DVD writers do not
> work well together and produce unreliable or failed burns.
 
Makes more sense to choose a drive where that doesnt
happen than it does to say stick with CDs for that reason.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:32:51 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>
>Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote in message
>newsan.2005.05.29.04.15.03.455177@nodomain.com...
>
<snip>
>> In recent times, the data I have to backup up has grown in size and I'm
>> considering a switch to DVD media. However, I'm not sure if DVD has yet
>> reached the same level of reliability as the more proven CD medium has and
>> the standards war has meant that I've been reluctant to change to DVD so
>> far. I would say that current and future readability, the ease of backup
>> operations and medium-time data retention are the most important factors
>> for me. In the latter case, I wouldn't worry about the data lasting longer
>> than a decade, I'm sure that in five years, I'll be looking to migrate all
>> the data onto a newer backup media. If I do decide to move to DVD backups,
>> I will transfer all my current CD backups onto DVD. I will then keep the
>> CD backups, but merely write all new backups to DVD alone.
>
>> Would any of you say that the DVD standard is now as mature as CD
>
>Nope.
>
>> and as safe a bet?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is
>> it better to migrate to DVD at this stage?
>
>I've migrated to DVD and just continue with the level of protection I have  
>always
>had with CDs when they were at the level of maturity that DVDs are now.
>
>That basically means not using the cheapest media, and not using just
>one brand and format of media and ensuring multiple copys at all times.
>
>I find that what I care about losing now fits fine on a single DVD
>and I keep that stuff on the hard drive at all times, and so the
>frequent new copy of everything I care about to a single DVD
>ensures that I have multiple copys of what matters at all times.
>
>I currently use DVD+RW format most of the time with an
>ocassional use of DVD-R media so that if it turns out that
>one of the formats doesnt last as long as I would like, I will
>become aware of that while I still have at least one other
>format that hasnt yet started to show any sign of degradation.
>
>I dont however generate a significant volume of stuff
>that I dont want to lose, particularly pictures and video.
>
>If I did, I would handle those the same way, multiple copys
>on multiple types of media and keep checking to ensure
>that none of the stuff on DVDs is degrading over time.
>
>I have also deliberately chosen a DVD burner that has
>a reputation for not being fussy about the media and
>for being able to write DVDs that can be read reliably
>in any DVD player I care to read them in. A Pioneer 109.
>
>> Thanks to anybody who responds to this thread.
>> I'll be glad to hear any critical views that people may hold.
>
 
I would agree with most of what Rod Speed has to say here, with the
biggest exception being for the choice of DVD burner.  Of the drives
currently available here in the United States, I would rate the
Pioneer 109 as being 5th on the list.  My list, in order of
preference,
 
1) Benq 1620
2) Nec 3520
3) LG 4163
4) Pioneer 108
5) Pioneer 109
 
I have owned all of the drives listed above (and others), and done
many tests with different media.
 
YMMV.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Henry Nettles" <hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote in message  
news:1m3n911cistape0dl9smnv49crt1psi8o0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:32:51 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote in message
>>newsan.2005.05.29.04.15.03.455177@nodomain.com...
>>
> <snip>
>>> In recent times, the data I have to backup up has grown in size and I'm
>>> considering a switch to DVD media. However, I'm not sure if DVD has yet
>>> reached the same level of reliability as the more proven CD medium has and
>>> the standards war has meant that I've been reluctant to change to DVD so
>>> far. I would say that current and future readability, the ease of backup
>>> operations and medium-time data retention are the most important factors
>>> for me. In the latter case, I wouldn't worry about the data lasting longer
>>> than a decade, I'm sure that in five years, I'll be looking to migrate all
>>> the data onto a newer backup media. If I do decide to move to DVD backups,
>>> I will transfer all my current CD backups onto DVD. I will then keep the
>>> CD backups, but merely write all new backups to DVD alone.
>>
>>> Would any of you say that the DVD standard is now as mature as CD
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>> and as safe a bet?
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>> Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is
>>> it better to migrate to DVD at this stage?
>>
>>I've migrated to DVD and just continue with the level of protection I have
>>always
>>had with CDs when they were at the level of maturity that DVDs are now.
>>
>>That basically means not using the cheapest media, and not using just
>>one brand and format of media and ensuring multiple copys at all times.
>>
>>I find that what I care about losing now fits fine on a single DVD
>>and I keep that stuff on the hard drive at all times, and so the
>>frequent new copy of everything I care about to a single DVD
>>ensures that I have multiple copys of what matters at all times.
>>
>>I currently use DVD+RW format most of the time with an
>>ocassional use of DVD-R media so that if it turns out that
>>one of the formats doesnt last as long as I would like, I will
>>become aware of that while I still have at least one other
>>format that hasnt yet started to show any sign of degradation.
>>
>>I dont however generate a significant volume of stuff
>>that I dont want to lose, particularly pictures and video.
>>
>>If I did, I would handle those the same way, multiple copys
>>on multiple types of media and keep checking to ensure
>>that none of the stuff on DVDs is degrading over time.
>>
>>I have also deliberately chosen a DVD burner that has
>>a reputation for not being fussy about the media and
>>for being able to write DVDs that can be read reliably
>>in any DVD player I care to read them in. A Pioneer 109.
>>
>>> Thanks to anybody who responds to this thread.
>>> I'll be glad to hear any critical views that people may hold.
>>
>
> I would agree with most of what Rod Speed has to say here, with the
> biggest exception being for the choice of DVD burner.  Of the drives
> currently available here in the United States, I would rate the
> Pioneer 109 as being 5th on the list.  My list, in order of
> preference,
>
> 1) Benq 1620
> 2) Nec 3520
> 3) LG 4163
> 4) Pioneer 108
> 5) Pioneer 109
 
> I have owned all of the drives listed above (and
> others), and done many tests with different media.
 
> YMMV.
 
And so do the reviews that test the drives properly, with your list.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:36:46 +0000, Arno Wagner wrote:
 
 
>> Would any of you say that the DVD standard is now as mature as CD and
>> as safe a bet? Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is it better
>> to migrate to DVD at this stage?
>  
> From the regular tests of writable DVDs and writers in the german
> computer magazine c't, I would say that no, writable DVD (with the
> exception of DVD-RAM) is not there yet. There are still frequent tests
> where some quality medium and some DVD writers do not work well together
> and produce unreliable or failed burns.
>  
>  
 
I do scan all written CD's with Nero CD Speed using both the Scandisc and
CD quality tests so I hopefully should be able to pick up initially poorly
written burns before I consign the DVD to storage. That's assuming that
Nero CD-DVD does the same job as CD Speed of course.....
 
My main worry in migrating to DVD's is the potential loss of data over a
period of time, or finding that my collection of DVD backups is no
longer compatible in another DVD drive. If newer standards are not
compatible with the DVD's, that would be a big problem too, although I
tend to think that is unlikely to occur.  
 
Regards,
 
Pan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:32:51 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
 
>> Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is
>> it better to migrate to DVD at this stage?
>  
> I've migrated to DVD and just continue with the level of protection I have  
> always
> had with CDs when they were at the level of maturity that DVDs are now.
>  
> That basically means not using the cheapest media, and not using just
> one brand and format of media and ensuring multiple copys at all times.
 
I do intend to make at least two copies of every burn if I do decide to go
with DVD. What brands do you alternate between? I use TDK for CD's,
although I know they don't have a perfect name in CD creation. I do stick
with the ones known to come from a proven factory though.  
 
>  
> I find that what I care about losing now fits fine on a single DVD
> and I keep that stuff on the hard drive at all times, and so the
> frequent new copy of everything I care about to a single DVD
> ensures that I have multiple copys of what matters at all times.
 
I've heard removable hard disks are a good alternative to using DVD's full
stop. Apparently they are very reliable and probably likely to outlast
DVD's completely. I don't really like the thought of using magnetic
storage to keep all my data though, and the single-point of failure is
obviously a concern. I suppose DVD's are still the best choice for the
next backup stage.  
 
>  
> I currently use DVD+RW format most of the time with an
> ocassional use of DVD-R media so that if it turns out that
> one of the formats doesnt last as long as I would like, I will
> become aware of that while I still have at least one other
> format that hasnt yet started to show any sign of degradation.
 
Good idea. I'll go with DVD-R and DVD+R to ensure I have some security
against degradation. However, I find it unlikely that either +R or -R will
become unsupported, most likely they'll both be supported under a new
unified standard much like the old modem wars between K56Flex and X2.
These two were unified under V90 of course.  
 
>  
> I dont however generate a significant volume of stuff
> that I dont want to lose, particularly pictures and video.
>  
> If I did, I would handle those the same way, multiple copys
> on multiple types of media and keep checking to ensure
> that none of the stuff on DVDs is degrading over time.
>  
> I have also deliberately chosen a DVD burner that has
> a reputation for not being fussy about the media and
> for being able to write DVDs that can be read reliably
> in any DVD player I care to read them in. A Pioneer 109.
 
Thanks for the information. Are there any other DVD writers that can be
recommended?
 
I suppose it would be more than a bit stupid to look at dual-layer DVD's?
 
Regards,  
 
Pan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:11:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
 
>>>
>>
>> I would agree with most of what Rod Speed has to say here, with the
>> biggest exception being for the choice of DVD burner.  Of the drives
>> currently available here in the United States, I would rate the
>> Pioneer 109 as being 5th on the list.  My list, in order of
>> preference,
>>
>> 1) Benq 1620
>> 2) Nec 3520
>> 3) LG 4163
>> 4) Pioneer 108
>> 5) Pioneer 109
>  
>> I have owned all of the drives listed above (and
>> others), and done many tests with different media.
>  
>> YMMV.
>  
> And so do the reviews that test the drives properly, with your list.
 
Suffice to say, I'll look at a set of reviews myself before making any
definite decisions. But your list will probably come in useful, thanks.  
 
Regards,  
 
Pan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.31.00.39.33.423099@nodomain.com...
> Rod Speed wrote
 
>>> Should I hang on to CD's a bit longer, or is
>>> it better to migrate to DVD at this stage?
 
>> I've migrated to DVD and just continue with the level
>> of protection I have always had with CDs when they
>> were at the level of maturity that DVDs are now.
 
>> That basically means not using the cheapest media, and not using just
>> one brand and format of media and ensuring multiple copys at all times.
 
> I do intend to make at least two copies of every burn if I do
> decide to go with DVD. What brands do you alternate between?
 
I dont bother doing it by brand anymore.
Just avoid the supercheap media now.
 
I did do it by brand with CDs at one time, but found that I
didnt lose any over time as long as I avoided the absolute
bottom of the market so gave up bothering about the brand.
 
Then again, I deliberately chose a liteon burner
that has a reputation for reliable burns.
 
Just had the first dud for years and years, was getting
low when a mate of mine was around, said that I was
getting low and had him hand me a spindle of 50 from
the lowest price operation in town to save me going
out to get some.  One of those was bad and the inner
layer of the area burnt is noticeably poor, rather a
wavy pattern in it, but only with some blanks.
 
> I use TDK for CD's, although I know they don't have
> a perfect name in CD creation. I do stick with the
> ones known to come from a proven factory though.
 
>> I find that what I care about losing now fits fine on a single DVD
>> and I keep that stuff on the hard drive at all times, and so the
>> frequent new copy of everything I care about to a single DVD
>> ensures that I have multiple copys of what matters at all times.
 
> I've heard removable hard disks are a
> good alternative to using DVD's full stop.
 
Yes, as long as you arent prone to dropping things.
 
That is close to what I do separately to using CDs and
DVDs too, basically write the critical stuff that I cant
afford to lose to other drives on the local network of PCs.
 
> Apparently they are very reliable
 
Dunno, you'll find virtually all of the hard drive manufacturers
except samsung will only warranty externals for 1 year.
 
> and probably likely to outlast DVD's completely.
 
Maybe, but I dont need that sort of long term
reliability, essentially because I keep backing
up everything that I care about at a decent rate.
 
But I dont bother with photos or videos.
 
> I don't really like the thought of using magnetic storage to keep all
> my data though, and the single-point of failure is obviously a concern.
 
Yes, I'd never have just one. I dont even do that at the software level.
 
> I suppose DVD's are still the best choice for the next backup stage.
 
Yeah, thats my feeling, hard drives and DVD combined.
 
>> I currently use DVD+RW format most of the time with an
>> ocassional use of DVD-R media so that if it turns out that
>> one of the formats doesnt last as long as I would like, I will
>> become aware of that while I still have at least one other
>> format that hasnt yet started to show any sign of degradation.
 
> Good idea. I'll go with DVD-R and DVD+R to ensure I have some
> security against degradation. However, I find it unlikely that either +R
> or -R will become unsupported, most likely they'll both be supported
> under a new unified standard much like the old modem wars between
> K56Flex and X2. These two were unified under V90 of course.
 
I handle that differently, once a particular format is
passing its useby date, I have always got the data
that matters on more modern media. So I dont have
anything on floppy now and dont usually bother to even
install a floppy drive in a system I assemble anymore.
 
>> I dont however generate a significant volume of stuff
>> that I dont want to lose, particularly pictures and video.
 
>> If I did, I would handle those the same way, multiple copys
>> on multiple types of media and keep checking to ensure
>> that none of the stuff on DVDs is degrading over time.
 
>> I have also deliberately chosen a DVD burner that has
>> a reputation for not being fussy about the media and
>> for being able to write DVDs that can be read reliably
>> in any DVD player I care to read them in. A Pioneer 109.
 
> Thanks for the information. Are there any
> other DVD writers that can be recommended?
 
That list that Henry posted isnt bad.
 
> I suppose it would be more than a bit
> stupid to look at dual-layer DVD's?
 
I dont use them just because of the price, and because
I dont need the higher capacity except for more
convenience with copying commercially made DVDs.
 
But since I never bother to watch anything more
than once, life is something I dont care about
as long as the life is better than months.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:30:25 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
 
 
>> I do intend to make at least two copies of every burn if I do decide to
>> go with DVD. What brands do you alternate between?
>  
> I dont bother doing it by brand anymore. Just avoid the supercheap media
> now.
>  
> I did do it by brand with CDs at one time, but found that I didnt lose
> any over time as long as I avoided the absolute bottom of the market so
> gave up bothering about the brand.
>  
> Then again, I deliberately chose a liteon burner that has a reputation
> for reliable burns.
 
I must confess that my cheap quality CD's from five years ago seem to be
holding up well. But like you, I also choose a good CD writer, one of the
Ricoh's 7060 I believe. I guess the writer is the most important part of
the equation.
 
Thanks for the media information.
 
 
> Just had the first dud for years and years, was getting low when a mate
> of mine was around, said that I was getting low and had him hand me a
> spindle of 50 from the lowest price operation in town to save me going
> out to get some.  One of those was bad and the inner layer of the area
> burnt is noticeably poor, rather a wavy pattern in it, but only with
> some blanks.
 
I always scan every CD with a surface scanner before committing it to
archive. If a burn looks even slightly dubious, I get rid of it and burn
another. But that only rarely happens, most burns are nearly perfect. I do
use only 4x writes though to keep problems to a minimum. I've heard higher
speeds can result in lower quality burns as the disc vibrates more during
writing.
 
 
> Yes, as long as you arent prone to dropping things.
 
Unfortunately my record isn't that good
 
 
> That is close to what I do separately to using CDs and DVDs too,
> basically write the critical stuff that I cant afford to lose to other
> drives on the local network of PCs.
 
Yep, I do the same for stuff that is often updated, copy it across the
network on a daily basis to another computer for safe-keeping. I wrote a
quick script to automate the process.
 
 
>> Apparently they are very reliable
>  
> Dunno, you'll find virtually all of the hard drive manufacturers except
> samsung will only warranty externals for 1 year.
 
I don't know if this is true, but I heard that this was done simply to
reduce the massive numbers of warranties that hard disk manufacturers have
to get a tag on. Hard disks are apparently so reliable these days that you
can realistically expect them to last for years. This could all be an
excuse of course, but I must confess, I haven't had all that many failures
myself. I brought my WD hard disk because it was backed by a three-year
warranty though just to be sure.
 
 
>> and probably likely to outlast DVD's completely.
>  
> Maybe, but I dont need that sort of long term reliability, essentially
> because I keep backing up everything that I care about at a decent rate.
>  
> But I dont bother with photos or videos.
 
I do have photos and videos. But the main point of why I'm considering
DVD's now is that I'm becoming concerned about some of the lower quality
discs I burned about five years ago. I'd prefer to be safe and burn newer
copies of these discs to be sure. So I can either begin replacing older
CD's on a 1 to 1 basis from the older ones I have, or I can replace the
standard with DVD and do a copy of the entire collection. It's a renewal
I'm looking at now and I'm wondering if I should go with DVD, or stick
with CD for the foreseeable future.
 
 
>>> I currently use DVD+RW format most of the time with an ocassional use
>>> of DVD-R media so that if it turns out that one of the formats doesnt
>>> last as long as I would like, I will become aware of that while I
>>> still have at least one other format that hasnt yet started to show
>>> any sign of degradation.
>  
>> Good idea. I'll go with DVD-R and DVD+R to ensure I have some security
>> against degradation. However, I find it unlikely that either +R or -R
>> will become unsupported, most likely they'll both be supported under a
>> new unified standard much like the old modem wars between K56Flex and
>> X2. These two were unified under V90 of course.
>  
> I handle that differently, once a particular format is passing its useby
> date, I have always got the data that matters on more modern media. So I
> dont have anything on floppy now and dont usually bother to even install
> a floppy drive in a system I assemble anymore.
 
Well, I have old floppy's, but I never use them anymore, they were pretty
unreliable as a backup medium anyway. Pendrives seem most likely to
replace them I think. However, I don't think I'd build a system without a
floppy just yet, I like the keep the option of having the device
available, and there are always annoying things that need a floppy to work
or boot with (like Dell drivers for example). Although you can probably
get around it, I think it's less hassle to keep it.
 
 
>>> I dont however generate a significant volume of stuff that I dont want
>>> to lose, particularly pictures and video.
>  
>>> If I did, I would handle those the same way, multiple copys on
>>> multiple types of media and keep checking to ensure that none of the
>>> stuff on DVDs is degrading over time.
>  
>>> I have also deliberately chosen a DVD burner that has a reputation for
>>> not being fussy about the media and for being able to write DVDs that
>>> can be read reliably in any DVD player I care to read them in. A
>>> Pioneer 109.
>  
>> Thanks for the information. Are there any other DVD writers that can be
>> recommended?
>  
> That list that Henry posted isnt bad.
 
I'll definitely look into that.
 
 
>> I suppose it would be more than a bit stupid to look at dual-layer
>> DVD's?
>  
> I dont use them just because of the price, and because I dont need the
> higher capacity except for more convenience with copying commercially
> made DVDs.
>  
> But since I never bother to watch anything more than once, life is
> something I dont care about as long as the life is better than months.
 
I have no real interest in copying DVD's, so I would probably use the
drive almost exclusively for backup purposes.
 
I heard that there were "rotting" problems with commercial dual-layer
DVD's, so it's probably tempting fate to buy a writing dual-layer drive at
the moment The technology is too new to be considered reliable.  
 
Regards,  
 
Pan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.06.01.14.45.59.647241@nodomain.com...
> Rod Speed wrote
 
>> Pan <noaddress@nodomain.com> wrote
 
>>> I've heard removable hard disks are a
>>> good alternative to using DVD's full stop.
 
>> Yes, as long as you arent prone to dropping things.
 
> Unfortunately my record isn't that good
 
Thats one big advantage with DVDs, they survive dropping much better.
 
>> That is close to what I do separately to using CDs and
>> DVDs too, basically write the critical stuff that I cant afford
>> to lose to other drives on the local network of PCs.
 
> Yep, I do the same for stuff that is often updated, copy it across
> the network on a daily basis to another computer for safe-keeping.
 
Yeah, by far the best for a high level of backup
so you dont lose much if something does die.
 
I do the highest activity stuff, code, a different way, manually
backup at particular points in the code development, multiple
times a day, so whatever happens you aint lost much. That
is more for protection against user error than hardware failure,
the situation where you do a substantial reorganisation of the
code etc and then decide that there is a good reason for not
doing it that way and you want to step back from that easily.
 
> I wrote a quick script to automate the process.
 
Yeah, I did too, tho its database based.
 
>>> Apparently they are very reliable
 
>> Dunno, you'll find virtually all of the hard drive manufacturers
>> except samsung will only warranty externals for 1 year.
 
> I don't know if this is true, but I heard that this was done
> simply to reduce the massive numbers of warranties that
> hard disk manufacturers have to get a tag on.
 
The problem with that line is that some manufacturers
have a different warranty for external drives and internal
drives. Presumably they have noticed that they are
getting a significantly higher return rate with the externals.
 
> Hard disks are apparently so reliable these days
> that you can realistically expect them to last for years.
> This could all be an excuse of course, but I must
> confess, I haven't had all that many failures myself.
 
Yeah, I've only had one with IDE drives.
 
> I brought my WD hard disk because it was backed
> by a three-year warranty though just to be sure.
 
Yeah, thats a real bonus with the samsungs, 3 years
on everything, tho I buy them for their quietness.
 
And I havent chosen to buy seagate lately, with their new
5 year warrantys, essentially because they arent as quiet
as the samsungs and get too hot for my taste too.
 
I've come close tho, essentially because samsung is a tad
slow with buyable drives over 160G and I've replaced the
VCRs with a PC with multiple digital TV tuner cards and I
have a real need for more drive space. So far I have decided
to wait, essentially because the samsungs are much quieter.
 
>>> and probably likely to outlast DVD's completely.
 
>> Maybe, but I dont need that sort of long term reliability, essentially
>> because I keep backing up everything that I care about at a decent rate.
 
>> But I dont bother with photos or videos.
 
> I do have photos and videos. But the main point of why I'm
> considering DVD's now is that I'm becoming concerned about some
> of the lower quality discs I burned about five years ago. I'd prefer
> to be safe and burn newer copies of these discs to be sure.
 
Yeah, I've always done that myself, that insurance is dirt cheap.
 
> So I can either begin replacing older CD's on a 1 to 1 basis
> from the older ones I have, or I can replace the standard
> with DVD and do a copy of the entire collection. It's a
> renewal I'm looking at now and I'm wondering if I should
> go with DVD, or stick with CD for the foreseeable future.
 
I'd change to DVD now if you arent getting any CD failures.
 
Basically DVDs are now mature enough, tho in
my opinion thats only quite recently become true.
 
I basically waited till dual layer became available, even
tho I dont plan to use them much for a while, due to the
fact that the media is currently rather poor value.
 
>>>> I currently use DVD+RW format most of the time with an
>>>> ocassional use of DVD-R media so that if it turns out that
>>>> one of the formats doesnt last as long as I would like, I will
>>>> become aware of that while I still have at least one other
>>>> format that hasnt yet started to show any sign of degradation.
 
>>> Good idea. I'll go with DVD-R and DVD+R to ensure I have some
>>> security against degradation. However, I find it unlikely that either
>>> +R or -R will become unsupported, most likely they'll both be
>>> supported under a new unified standard much like the old modem wars
>>> between K56Flex and X2. These two were unified under V90 of course.
 
>> I handle that differently, once a particular format is passing its useby
>> date, I have always got the data that matters on more modern media.
>> So I dont have anything on floppy now and dont usually bother to
>> even install a floppy drive in a system I assemble anymore.
 
> Well, I have old floppy's, but I never use them anymore,
> they were pretty unreliable as a backup medium anyway.
 
Yeah, thats the main reason I gave up on them. With
my level of backup that was never more than a nuisance,
but there isnt any point in bothering with that nuisance
and there hasnt been any for a long time. Any system
has to have a cdrom or dvd drive, so I dont bother
with a floppy drive even tho they only cost peanuts.
 
> Pendrives seem most likely to replace them I think.
 
Dunno, I have basically replaced them with CDs.
 
But I dont have any independant PCs, they're all networked.
 
And when I want to give someone something thats too big
for transfer over the web, CDs are more convenient than
pen drives, just because they are so cheap that the cost
of postage is trivial. I can send them for the letter rate.
 
Thats mostly people stuck with dialup
who need something like the XP SP2 etc.
 
I also do it with stuff like TV series downloaded
off the net written to DVD as avi files and played
on a DVD player that can do that.
 
> However, I don't think I'd build a system without a floppy just
> yet, I like the keep the option of having the device available,
> and there are always annoying things that need a floppy to
> work or boot with (like Dell drivers for example). Although you
> can probably get around it, I think it's less hassle to keep it.
 
I do have a floppy drive that I can plug in if its ever needed.
 
Havent needed to for a long time, essentially I use
Bart PE etc to get a driver into the system over the
lan instead. That works even when the new system
needs an obscure NIC driver to connect to the lan.
 
I need the lan connection to install the various misc stuff
anyway and have a folder of shortcuts on the main system
so its completely trivial to configure a newly assembled system.
 
>>> I suppose it would be more than a bit
>>> stupid to look at dual-layer DVD's?
 
>> I dont use them just because of the price, and because
>> I dont need the higher capacity except for more
>> convenience with copying commercially made DVDs.
 
>> But since I never bother to watch anything more than once, life is
>> something I dont care about as long as the life is better than months.
 
> I have no real interest in copying DVD's, so I would probably
> use the drive almost exclusively for backup purposes.
 
> I heard that there were "rotting" problems with commercial dual-layer
> DVD's, so it's probably tempting fate to buy a writing dua