Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.

------

(A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
can be replaced.

(B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.

(C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
GB on another partition.

My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
an expensive USB attached hard drive.

------

I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
above) and downloaded programs (C above).

How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.

Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
when it gets put back in the system?

Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
damage my backup data stored on it?

In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
backups for two or three years.

Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
hard drive.

Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?

Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
archival medium than a hard drive?

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote

> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.

> ------

> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives.
> Much of that can be replaced.

> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.

> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and
> cache files take 45 GB on another partition.

> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough
> to put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing
> to get an expensive USB attached hard drive.

> ------

> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the
> system (B above) and downloaded programs (C above).

Is there much point with the C ? They age pretty
quickly and can be easily replaced if you need to.

Likely better to keep a list of them rather than backing them up.

> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE
> (maybe 160 GB or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

Very viable.

> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.

That doesnt gain much backup wise, having it out of the
system. If it isnt hidden it may well get stolen with the
system and it obviously isnt protected against fire or flood etc.

> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become
> problematic when it gets put back in the system?

It shouldnt be if you use a formal standard like SATA.

> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard
> drive could damage my backup data stored on it?

Yes, particularly if you are prone to dropping things.

Hard drives hate that.

> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive
> away one set of backups for two or three years.

> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?

Yes, DVDs are worth considering, particularly for the archive.

> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and my
> backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline hard drive.

And they are the fastest form of backup, both when doing
the backup and when getting something off the backup.

> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead?

Or have both. DVD burners are damned cheap now.

> How long might it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?

Really depend on the speed media you choose to use.

And the speed doesnt matter too much if you do it in DVD sized chunks.

> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive?

Better in some ways, much easier to have the backup out of the house
for example. Worse in other ways, MUCH slower than a hard drive.

> Is DVD a better archival medium than a hard drive?

Yes, basically because it doesnt cost much to have more
than one copy on different media so one failure is just a
yawn. Much more expensive to do that with a hard drive.

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:

> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
> an expensive USB attached hard drive.
>
> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
>
> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
>
> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
>
> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
> when it gets put back in the system?
>
> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
> damage my backup data stored on it?

Assuming your "normal" handling is careful, your data should be
reasonably safe. (I've had hard drives survive a fall to the floor, but
I don't count on being that lucky all the time.)

For regular hard drive swapping, consider a tray system. They cost some
money but save time and trouble and reduce wear and tear on the drives'
power and data connectors.


> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
> backups for two or three years.
>
> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
> my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
> hard drive.
>
> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
> it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
>
> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
> archival medium than a hard drive?

"We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
<http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.

The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
out of each drive before it needs replacing.

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.

> ------

> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
> can be replaced.

> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.

> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
> GB on another partition.

> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
> an expensive USB attached hard drive.

> ------

> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
> above) and downloaded programs (C above).

> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.

> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
> when it gets put back in the system?

> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
> damage my backup data stored on it?

Depends on what you consider "normal". Treat it like it was a raw egg
and you should be fine with regard to shock. Another danger is
electrostatic damage. Two choices: USB enclosure (preferrable) or
careful handling and storage, e.g. in the plastic shell Seagate
delivers its drives with (very useful!).

> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
> backups for two or three years.

Possibly problematic, but less likely IMO. Way around this: Use
two drives from different manufacturere or better even three.
Many sysadmins also think that you should have at least three
independent backups.

> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
> my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
> hard drive.

More robust alternatives: MOD (3.5" ), DVD-RAM and professional tape.
Personally I have critical stuff (family photographs, code, etc)
on MOD (never lost a single bit in now 8 years), everything else
on HDDs in other computers.

> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
> it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?

> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
> archival medium than a hard drive?

Forget about them. Some DVD/Burner/Speed combinations are pretty good,
many are catastrophic and manufactueres often change their disks
without changing the labels. Completely unusable for archiving,
mostly unusable for backups. Exception: DVD-RAM.

Arno

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Neill Massello <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:

[...]

> "We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
> transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
> deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
> sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
> hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
> Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
> <http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.

> The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
> medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
> onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
> run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
> out of each drive before it needs replacing.

Actually professional Tape (not DAT), MOD and with some limitations
(cartridge!) DVD-RAM all give >50 years. But neither of them are
cheap. You get what you pay for.

HDDs are most reliable when you have them in a redundant configuration
and test them periodically. Still, a single copy for long-term
archiving on a HDD is gone when you drop the disk if you are not
very lucky. A tape cartridge or a MOD or DVD-RAM in its cartridge
are very sturdy in comparison.

Arno

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno,
What MO drives and media you use - Fujitsu?

-- Pavel

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3m4kesF15gt2qU3@individual.net...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
>> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
>> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
>
>> ------
>
>> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
>> can be replaced.
>
>> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
>
>> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
>> GB on another partition.
>
>> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
>> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
>> an expensive USB attached hard drive.
>
>> ------
>
>> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
>> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
>
>> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
>> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
>
>> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
>
>> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
>> when it gets put back in the system?
>
>> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
>> damage my backup data stored on it?
>
> Depends on what you consider "normal". Treat it like it was a raw egg
> and you should be fine with regard to shock. Another danger is
> electrostatic damage. Two choices: USB enclosure (preferrable) or
> careful handling and storage, e.g. in the plastic shell Seagate
> delivers its drives with (very useful!).
>
>> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
>> backups for two or three years.
>
> Possibly problematic, but less likely IMO. Way around this: Use
> two drives from different manufacturere or better even three.
> Many sysadmins also think that you should have at least three
> independent backups.
>
>> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
>> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
>> my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
>> hard drive.
>
> More robust alternatives: MOD (3.5" ), DVD-RAM and professional tape.
> Personally I have critical stuff (family photographs, code, etc)
> on MOD (never lost a single bit in now 8 years), everything else
> on HDDs in other computers.
>
>> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
>> it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
>
>> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
>> archival medium than a hard drive?
>
> Forget about them. Some DVD/Burner/Speed combinations are pretty good,
> many are catastrophic and manufactueres often change their disks
> without changing the labels. Completely unusable for archiving,
> mostly unusable for backups. Exception: DVD-RAM.
>
> Arno

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Tray system for HDDs - I have been using them for over 10 years, every
computer in the house (5) has a tray shell (housing) installed. It
takes literally about 15 seconds to switch drives - machines - OS
-whatever. Tray and housing combo costs about $15.00 at computer shows,
probably less online.

Regards,

Marv

Neill Massello wrote:
> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
>>put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
>>an expensive USB attached hard drive.
>>
>>I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
>>above) and downloaded programs (C above).
>>
>>How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
>>or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
>>
>>I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
>>
>>Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
>>when it gets put back in the system?
>>
>>Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
>>damage my backup data stored on it?
>
>
> Assuming your "normal" handling is careful, your data should be
> reasonably safe. (I've had hard drives survive a fall to the floor, but
> I don't count on being that lucky all the time.)
>
> For regular hard drive swapping, consider a tray system. They cost some
> money but save time and trouble and reduce wear and tear on the drives'
> power and data connectors.
>
>
>
>>In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
>>backups for two or three years.
>>
>>Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
>>I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
>>my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
>>hard drive.
>>
>>Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
>>it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
>>
>>Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
>>archival medium than a hard drive?
>
>
> "We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
> transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
> deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
> sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
> hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
> Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
> <http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.
>
> The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
> medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
> onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
> run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
> out of each drive before it needs replacing.
>

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Pavel A. <pavel_a@nowritemeno.com> wrote:
> Arno,
> What MO drives and media you use - Fujitsu?

The drive is an internal Fujitsu SCSI drive (640MB, in use for about
8 years now). Today I would likely get a 2.3GB drive (they are
fully backwards compatible) with IDE or USB2 interface, again
from Fujitsu.

I have media from several manufacturers, mostly Philips, some
Sony and some FujiFilm. It does not really matter, they all are
reliable. The only problem I ever had was with an excess of dust
in a disk (errors when writing, no data loss before) that was fixed
by cleaning the disk.

Arno

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

You are just speaking of two very different backup strategies. It is a
personal preference and you should use what you feel comfortable with.
Either one is "good"! Try them both and you will soon gravitate toward one
as "your" preferred method.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"Columbus" <hiss@mail.com> wrote in message
news:96B0CE7DE344461M2A@66.250.146.159...
> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
>
> ------
>
> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
> can be replaced.
>
> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
>
> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
> GB on another partition.
>
> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
> an expensive USB attached hard drive.
>
> ------
>
> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
>
> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
>
> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
>
> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
> when it gets put back in the system?
>
> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
> damage my backup data stored on it?
>
> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
> backups for two or three years.
>
> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
> my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
> hard drive.
>
> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
> it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
>
> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
> archival medium than a hard drive?

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Thanks Arno. I'm looking at MO for a long time
but still undecided. 2.3 GB is less than 4.7 of DVD,
They are not only expensive but also not easy to buy,
most stores where I live don't sell them.
Also, Iomega from time to time tries to win the market =
their newest product looks interesting but again, it's future is not clear.

--PA

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3m54f4F14la8sU2@individual.net...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Pavel A. <pavel_a@nowritemeno.com> wrote:
>> Arno,
>> What MO drives and media you use - Fujitsu?
>
> The drive is an internal Fujitsu SCSI drive (640MB, in use for about
> 8 years now). Today I would likely get a 2.3GB drive (they are
> fully backwards compatible) with IDE or USB2 interface, again
> from Fujitsu.
>
> I have media from several manufacturers, mostly Philips, some
> Sony and some FujiFilm. It does not really matter, they all are
> reliable. The only problem I ever had was with an excess of dust
> in a disk (errors when writing, no data loss before) that was fixed
> by cleaning the disk.
>
> Arno
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <ODgkPQAoFHA.2080@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com says...
> You are just speaking of two very different backup strategies. It is a
> personal preference and you should use what you feel comfortable with.
> Either one is "good"! Try them both and you will soon gravitate toward one
> as "your" preferred method.

I agree, I've used Tape for years, and also installation of a spare
drive in each system. Nightly backups to the spare drive, then copy to
tape. As the portable drive have become cheaper I've gone to purchasing
external FireWire/USB2 drives that I can move around if needed. In many
cases I leave one connected to a server and then backup across the
network to that device and then back that device up to tape.

I like the idea of using a drive caddy, but it's easier to just grab a
FireWire/USB2 external drive any more, and the user doesn't have to do
anything with their case.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno Wagner wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Neill Massello
> <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> "We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
>> transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
>> deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
>> sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
>> hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
>> Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
>> <http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.
>
>> The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
>> medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
>> onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
>> run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
>> out of each drive before it needs replacing.
>
> Actually professional Tape (not DAT), MOD and with some limitations
> (cartridge!) DVD-RAM all give >50 years. But neither of them are
> cheap. You get what you pay for.

The chemistry of DVD-RAM is the same as for DVR-RW. If one lasts 50 years
the other will last 50 years. What's different is the formatting.

> HDDs are most reliable when you have them in a redundant configuration
> and test them periodically. Still, a single copy for long-term
> archiving on a HDD is gone when you drop the disk if you are not
> very lucky. A tape cartridge or a MOD or DVD-RAM in its cartridge
> are very sturdy in comparison.

There are few cartridge-loading DVD-RAM drives available these days. In any
case the protection provided by the cartridge is overrated. I remember a
fellow giving a demonstration of an MO drive a while back who was puzzled
because it wasn't working. I opened the slider on his cartridge while he
was down the hall finding the tech and found that the cartridge was full of
coffee.

Further, a powered-down contemporary disk in a shock-mounted carrier will
take quite a lot of abuse.

> Arno

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)