>all hard drives are eventually going to run out of good sectors

>tfw entropy will eventually consume the universe and information will no longer exist for the rest of infinity

>tfw eventual heat death of the universe
>can't even get jiggy with other atoms

it will be a sad eternity

>>55969398
Who is this whore?

>>55969398
>tfw no qt3.14 trap gf
>tfw no face

>>55969398
>he doesn't use RAID or have backups

>>>/v/

>>55969805
This

Also having a SSD backup a best so your porn lasts for generations

HDD and Tape Drives won't "disintegrate" if you keep them in plastic containers designed for them.
They can last decades that way, and tape drives a lifetime.

>>55969833
>backing up to SSD

Jesus fucking christ. Just use tape at that point.

Um ezcuse me i am affluent and white and have you not heard of The Singularity im going to live forever

>tfw I have backups of all my important shit on tape
>tfw the €10 I spent on that DLT VS80 drive have probably been my best investment ever

>>55969398
>not using punch cards made from stone tablets
How do any of you expect to save data long term?

>>55969833
>Also having a SSD backup a best so your porn lasts for generations

>stupid anon backs up porn on SSD
>stupid anon leaves SSD to rest for 6 months in a safe
>stupid anon takes out SSD
>stupid anon turns it on for the first time in 6 months
>stupid anon is met with empty SSD because data dissipated
>stupid anon looks tries to look up why this happened
>stupid anon finally learns SSD is shit for long-term storage because its data dissipates on its own at a constant rate once the SSD is turned off due to the nature of how SSDs store data
>stupid anon goes back to HDD for long-term storage as is proper, and sticks with using SSD for caching, system, and circumstances where it is frequently turned on

>>55969398
thats why you copy them to new drives after a while.

WTF?!! This is why your supposed to rotate/replace your drives every 2-5 years. That way your data stays intact and your drives stay healthy. Not to mention keep your job if your the person who's in charge of keeping a company/business's file server(s) in top condition.

File: How-Long.jpg (30KB, 400x339px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x339px

>tfw I am indifferent because I will be long dead by then

>>55969975
my ssd lost its content even when it was powered 24/7.

>>55969398
>what are backups?

I still have my fist digital photos from 1996.

>>55970102
Why did you start writing like a cocksucking gigantic faggot?

>>55970102
Do you rotate arbitrarily, wait for errors, or do it based on the read/write workload vs. what the HDD manufacturer quotes? Sounds like you could potentially be wasting a lot of money and RAID rebuild times (which are extremely tough on all of the disks.)

>>55970138
Must have been a weird fluke. When SSDs die normally (for modern SSDs we're talking insane amounts of reading and writing) they become read-only.

>>55970167
Not him, but I just buy a whole new RAID 1 with double the capacity every couple of years.

Then I use the old drives as primary backup drives for the new RAID 1. (note that used as single discs they have the same capacity)

And any usable drives from generations ago I scrap together to make a secondary backup set.

>>55970167
>RAID rebuild times (which are extremely tough on all of the disks.)

Re-writing all your data is also what ensures it doesn't degrade over time.

>>55970244
Which means you need space for that additional RAID1 and you're not working with large datasets either way.

>>55970317
Use a modern file system instead of raping your disks and lowering their lifespan.

>>55970328
>Which means you need space for that additional RAID1.

I use an external SATA dock and just copy over the entire volume to a single new disc.
Then I replace the RAID1 discs with the disc containing my copied data, plus a blank disc.
Finally I joint he new discs to form a new RAID1

That way I only need 2 HDD slots - plus 1 external bay.

>and you're not working with large datasets either way.

No larger than 6TB, no.

>>55970328
>Use a modern file system

I don't see how that helps a disk that lies powered down in some closet for 20 years?

>>55970438
Bitrot doesn't come from leaving it off in a closet.

>>55970417
Gotcha, not as bad as I was expecting. That works for that amount of data.

>>55970469
>Bitrot doesn't come from leaving it off in a closet.

Fairly sure it does?
What else could it cause it?

>>55969446
/thread

unless we (I) figure out perpetual storage.

>>55970469
>>55970632
>Magnetic media, such as hard disk drives, floppy disks and magnetic tapes, may experience data decay as bits lose their magnetic orientation. Periodic refreshing by rewriting the data can alleviate this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_degradation#Decay_of_storage_media

File: 967.png (441KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 500x374px

>>55969398
Keep copying shit forward and make backups. I've got files from the 80's still kicking around. In b4 ancientfag.

>>55970642
>periodic refreshing by rewriting the data can alleviate this problem

See: using a modern file system. Also, this is assuming it's in use in the first place. If you truly care about long-term storage you won't touch then use tape as mentioned more than once in this thread.

>>55970662
What kind of files?

>tfw all your digital data is inevitably going to disintegrate and get lost forever

Oh yeah, because I plan to use 1 storage medium for at least 10 years. You transplant data to new shit every 4-5 years like a normal person. Flash can never lose read abilities anyway you clueless fuck.

>>55970691
Some shit I drew in Macpaint as a kid. Not even kidding.

>>55970663
>this is assuming it's in use in the first place.

That's basically my whole point:
I keep all my data in use all the time.
My backups are at most a couple of months old.

File: installinggentooindaclub.png (580KB, 800x792px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 800x792px

>what is cp -r /mount/memedrive /mount/maturedrive

>>55970706
I have a text I wrote on a Commodore 64 when I was about 11.

Funny thing it didn't just store the final text, but all the key presses so I can play-back exactly how I wrote it including the mistakes I corrected.
It's like I can watch myself type as a kid.

>>55970778
>I keep all my data in use all the time.

Use. A. Modern. File. System. This is not an issue in 2016. This before even considering backups.

>>55969517
lies.

Dumb scientists haven't figured out that since the universe is endless and galaxies keep separating at a higher velocity, there is infinite energy.

File: 1470087766346.jpg (20KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 450x600px

>>55970875
Serious question.
Is Ext3 a good option to safe my files(most of them are zipped) for long term?

>>55969446
>not using modern universe systems

>>55971267
Why would you use that over EXT4?

Use ZFS or Btrfs for long term storage. Basically, EXT4 is fine for an OS partition, but data partitions should be something modern so you can do checksums, snapshots, compression, and dedupe (zfs) if needed.

>>55971348
ty anon

>>55969567
http://halboor.com/hernyart

>>55969398
I have hard drives with 50k+ working hours and they haven't even developed 1 bad sector.

Raid is good and all but it is best to use in conjunction with good backups. Nothing can be 100% perfect but at least this method is doable without spending a lot of money or consuming a lot of time. Yeah those online backup solutions are great and all but if you're trying to backup a lot of data then it's far better to do it locally. or for the really worried, get a external hdd dock and a hdd big enough to hold everything and just store the hdd and dock offsite somewhere. Once I had a raid 1 card just die, thankfully I had a current backup taken before the card kicked. So replace the card, recreate the array and restore the data. Good as new and no data got lost so i was back in business

>>55969398
Assuming the universe in infinite, you could have an infinite amount of hard drives, if the previous one fails, just copy the data to the next one.

>>55970933
It doesn't cost energy to create space between galaxies. Why would it cost/generate energy to make literally nothing? Even if there were any energy there, how could we possibly harvest it?

>>55969398
Look at pictures and listen to vinyls from decades ago. Physical media is doomed to the same fate, but digital media will be preserved for longer periods of time to come. Zeroes and ones will last virtually forever.

While film negatives today will degrade to look absolutely incomprehensible 1000 years from now, digital media, provided it's continually archived properly, will look pristine thousands, even millions of years from now.

File: mein disc.png (17KB, 415x375px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 415x375px

>>55971571
11k here. This bad boy isn't dying anytime soon.
Old as shit but it works flawlessly, except for the really loud noises it makes when under heavy usage

>>55970150
>>what are backups?
this
>I still have my fist digital photos from 1996.
I bet they look like shit by today's standards unless you had a very good camera back then. Anyhow, the important thing is that the data is still preserved.

/thread.

>note to self, buy new hdd for backups.

>>55970875
>Use. A. Modern. File. System. This is not an issue in 2016. This before even considering backups.
>Software prevents wear and tear
The epitome of retardation.

File: 1398372597838.png (216KB, 305x350px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 305x350px

>he doesn't transcribe the information on his hard drive onto granite tablets
Fucking casuals

OP is absolutely correct. Read the library of congress webpages regarding digital archiving. All 'digital' data is held on physical media that breaks.

A HDD will eventually die, and if left untouched the bearings will seize after 3-5 years.

Flash media already discussed in this thread.

CD/DVD/BluRays oxidize and get bit rot no matter how well they are made, or the glue separates and it comes apart. Most SEGA Saturn games have pinhole damage already.

Source code is lost for almost every videogame ever made, data formats go obsolete so fast old archives become worthless, etc.

The only thing that will last past a century is polyester-base film. Vinyl is complete shit however for listening and preserving music.

If society collapsed now, in 100 years no digital data will exist in any format.

However that book on your bookshelf will be just fine. If you want important data saved, make it into physical copies. LOC recommends printing out source code to programs and saving the papers because digital media is so shit at preservation.

Film archives do not digitize old prints, they do this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_masters

Think of the physical medium for a second, which is more likely to last longer: developed film (where the 'data' is encoded in the media itself in the chemical makeup of the emulsion layer) or a SSD that is dying from the moment it is made?

Some of the old film companies have existing B&W film produced in the 1800s they still test develop and old negatives, and the stock doesn't decay. (?Kodak)

tl;dr The only thing that will survive the test of time are books and black and white film (photos, film reels, whatever). Digital shit is just a flash in the pan. One good interruption like WW3 in the interruption of supply for electronic media and shit will break before it can be backed up (imagine no HDDs for the better part of 10 years).

>>55974309

More fun facts: The studio lost the master copy files for Avatar a few years after it came out. The only 'masters' left are those encrypted drives they send to theaters that has the actual rendered film on it. They can't re-render it at 4K even if they wanted to because all the files comprising VFX, audio, it's all lost.

Why did Pixar not release Finding Nemo on bluray for YEARS after they released their other old movies? Because that version of Renderman save files when Nemo came out in 2003 couldn't be loaded anymore in their new version. When they modified it to actually be able to load, tons of data was lost (like the random seeds to influence things like seaweed moving, bubbles, water effects) and they had to redo most of this by hand and the original copy of the movie is lost forever. Oops.

All the master information for The Matrix 1 comprises 1.6TB stored on several tapes that no new readers are made for and once those machines break at WB they won't be able to re-render the VFX in 16K or whatever the fuck we have in 10 years.

>>55972693
This.

For the person claiming checksums and snapshots are the reason to use a modern filesystem, I would argue that one could script this themselves if they could enable either of those things on ZFS/BTRFS.

EXT4 is just fine and there are plenty of options to do the things you are saying without going with beta filesystems if reliability is paramount.

What you should really spend your time on if you have to ask about filesystem deltas is disk redundancy and multiple separate copies on other media.

>Simply there is no plan of attack when it comes to storing media that originates in a digital realm. Film is its own archival medium. Properly stored a color negative can last decades, centuries even. Black and white negative will last indefinitely, which is why even today the most secure method of preservation has been to produce separation masters of a color film to black and white stock. But films that exist entirely on digital are a huge problem. Tape based media is proving highly unstable, as the adhesive that binds the magnetic material to the tape backing decays, the material flakes off. Countless hours of television footage is at risk because the tape stock it is on is decaying. File based formats are in even worse shape. In a particularly notorious example, nearly have of the original files for Toy Story had to be re-rendered because the LTO tape they were stored on had become unreadable or corrupt.

>The assumption going forward has been this blithe, dreamy notion that they'll all exist on the cloud, and hopefully backed up to some server somewhere in the Cayman Islands. But there is no plan, and the Academy archivists, I could tell, were full of anxiety. Their major mission is to preserve all the films that are nominated for or have won Oscars. And traditionally every year they receive a print of the Oscar nominated films. This year broke that tradition, as Wolf of Wall Street was not presented on film in any way shape or form. And because the studios are so wary of piracy, they won't even give a digital copy to their own archive!

>The most commonly used format for digital archiving is Linear Tape-Open (LTO) technology, a magnetic tape format that is most commonly used for enterprise data backups. LTO tapes are more stable than hard drives, which are subject to mechanical failure, but they’re far from ideal. Although it’s estimated that they have a 15-to-30-year lifespan, most studios assume a practical lifespan of five years. It isn’t simply an issue of tape degradation, either: The drives that read the tapes are also subject to obsolescence. Since 2000, new generations of LTO technology have been released every two years or so—new tapes and new drives—and they’re only backward-compatible for two generations. So a film that was archived to tape in 2006 using then-state-of-the-art LTO-3 tapes can’t be read by the LTO-6 drives that are for sale today. In other words, the tape drive that created an archival copy of Skyfall in December 2012 wouldn’t be able to read the original 2006 copy of Casino Royale—the technology becomes obsolete faster than James Bond is recast. To read one of these tapes, even if the data is in pristine condition, you’d have to find an older drive.

>>55974351
Damn Pixar needs to backup shit properly.

Speaking of backing shit up. This is why having old versions of programs ready for download. maybe even buy should be important. what if a certain file can't be opened without some other file that is no longer for download/buy? You are fucked.

Maybe they should just upload it to the pirate bay, it'll fucking last longer

Hi /g/
So I'm considering buying a HDD to back up my digital content and storing them. What's the best containers for HDDs?

>>55974494

Whatever proprietary file format they store film masters in (believe me there are a fuck of a lot) will not be readable even by the same software program in 10 years (see the Pixar examples). And Pixar even has the source code to all old versions of Renderman and they still can't back up a movie.

They may say 35mm = 8K but there is more physical data in the molecules of the emulsion layer of a film cel than any uncompressed digital still image of that cell.

In 200 years someone can hold up a flashlight to a film reel and look at frames, what will they do with a degraded SSD that broke 190 years ago?

Additionally the only permanent form of something like video games is hardcoded ROM like NES carts... not PROM or EEPROM or any of that other shit that will lose charge.

They also accidentally deleted ALL the data while making Toy Story 2 and only got a backup because someone took a copy home. As told by the VFX director for Pixar:

https://www.quora.com/Pixar-company/Did-Pixar-accidentally-delete-Toy-Story-2-during-production/answer/Oren-Jacob

From one guy in the industry:

>I have personally scanned nitrate films (some Laurel & Hardy shorts, circa 1933-34) that was actually in fine condition, more than 50 years after it was shot, and it was fine. Are you absolutely certain that an R3D file today will be recoverable, decodable, and viewable in 2062? I'm not so sure. (And I would say that for all digital file formats.)

>I have had at least six major, A-level studio features affected by LTO2 crashes and data losses in the last ten years. Granted, most of them have been fine. But just one of those resulted in more than $500,000' worth of work having to be redone. Don't forget the infamous Toy Story 2 data loss story...

>what is object storage

>>55971267
Filesystems are generally all equal. I use HAMMER. Three PFS for documents/music/video, with PSF copies to a second disk. I start a mirror-stream on boot to keep the backup up-to-date, although it's fine to just have it update the copy at night. That's backed-up with Backblaze's B2 archival service. I think I'm paying about $0.70 per month to store 146GB of absolutely essential files, which would cost me $7 to download.

>>55970134
>hard drive
>up to 5 years

hmmm really makes you think

>"... not too long ago, studios simply threw films away. Paramount planned to burn its old nitrate. MGM was set to dump its original negatives — including those for Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz — into the ocean. What did they need those for, they figured? They'd made copies.
Luckily for the studios, archivists at UCLA and Eastman House took the prints instead. Because, years later, MGM wanted to digitize its old movies and needed the originals back. The copies they'd made, on Kodak stock, had faded."

>"And even after the films are converted to digital, Jan-Christopher Horak, director of the UCLA Film & Television Archive, calls the challenges of preserving them "monumental." Digital is lousy for long-term storage. The main problem is format obsolescence. File formats can go obsolete in a matter of months. On this subject, Horak's every sentence requires an exclamation mark. "In the last 10 years of digitality, we've gone through 20 formats!" he says. "Every 18 months we're getting a new format!" So every two years, data must be transferred, or "migrated," to a new device. If that doesn't happen, the data may never being accessible again. Technology can advance too far ahead."

>"Five years after the first Toy Story came out, producers wanted to release it on DVD. When they went back to the original animation files, they realized that 20 percent of the data had been corrupted and was now unusable."

Separate from the Toy Story 2 fuckup, Pixar couldn't even backup to tapes properly + the tapes degraded within 5 years even when being actively checked once a year.

How many movies has Pixar made? And at least 4 of them are fucked or re-done forever because of issues. And this is like the biggest animated movie company.

>>55974696

Also the only way they fixed Toy Story 1 is by frame-matching shit to 35mm prints of it that were sent to theaters which Pixar had to recover. Digital age my ass. They did the same thing for Finding Nemo bluray and '3d' version... they had to watch a 35mm print and try to make the seaweed and assets match what it did in the theatrical print.

>Every version of Toy Story 1 and Finding Nemo is different from what was in the theater

>>55974720
Good lord. Makes me wonder what would happen if all the files were gone completely.

File: s-death3.jpg (103KB, 590x831px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 590x831px

>>55969398
Everything dies.

>Fact

>>55969398
>you will eventually die
I don't really need my porn to outlive me.

>>55970134
*With regular use

>>55974677
>On this subject, Horak's every sentence requires an exclamation mark. "In the last 10 years of digitality, we've gone through 20 formats!" he says. "Every 18 months we're getting a new format!" So every two years, data must be transferred, or "migrated," to a new device. If that doesn't happen, the data may never being accessible again. Technology can advance too far ahead."
Bullshit. Find me one file I can't play on my computerright now

>Because of all these factors, the notion that digital is cheaper is a myth. And that, too, is a worry. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences recently released a study, "The Digital Dilemma." It discovered that it's actually 11 times more expensive to preserve a 4K digital master than film.

>Meanwhile, all film needs is a cold, dry place to spend eternity. Under these conditions, archivists say, a black-and-white print on polyester-based film stock can last 1,000 years.

Remember how they made a 'final cut' version of Blade Runner in like 2007? Well they lost the tape masters a few years later for some reason and the only way they could get a new master is to re-scan the 35mm print they made as a 'stock backup', they had to get it from the UCLA archive to scan it and send it back to UCLA. If they had not bothered making a print all that work would just be pointlessly lost.

Am I the only one that doesn't have that much data to backup?
I really don't have anything very important to backup.
Mostly just some torrents, and wallpapers.

>>55974351
Okay, so I'm very much into getting the, "original," version of movies, so I have to ask: If Finding Nemo on Blu-Ray isn't the original version, is there any home media or fan preservations that have the original version?

>>55970134
>with regular use
Who the fuck stores their files on a DVD disc and then uses it everyday?

>>55974944
faggot

>>55974968
The DVD, at least ones made before the 2012 BluRay. At that point they probably downscale the new digital master for DVDs since new movies come with both in the same case.

There are also HDTV rips that floated around for years before the BluRay came out, I would imagine those are sourced from original digital masters Pixar lost. I had one back in the day.

>>55974677
>make redundant backups on tapes
>each tape has checksums for each sector
>every time you upgrade your tape readers, use the previous backups to make new ones.

It isn't hard. Just hire one dude for 80k a year to make sure all this shit gets done.


And for fucks sake, if your readers dont read the old tapes anymore, im sure you can pay under 100k to find readers that do!

>>55975019
Thank you. Also, if I understood this thread correctly, Toy Story was also changed. The other way I watched a DVD rip of the movie on VODLocker with the original 3D Disney logo that was made exclusively for the movie. Is that necessarily the original version?

File: laughinggirls.jpg (210KB, 489x500px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 489x500px

>>55969398
>not storing your data native american needle tie rugs

>>55969398
europe is getting bombarded by muslims
africa is going through a famine
USA is going through midlife crisis
middle east is losing all historic value
the normies are on the rise
AND YOU'RE HAVING A FUCKING SOB ABOUT YOUR WEEABOO PORN BEING LOST


faggot

>>55975096

Toy Story came out on DVD in 2000, when Pixar was attempting to make a render for this, they found 20% corruption w/ the tapes.

I would imagine a VHS copy released before then would be the 'original' theatrical release.

As above these masters tend to push out old versions... when a new 4K render is made for BluRay the studio will start printing it on DVD too even if there is an older transfer.

>>55969398
Why does she have a mustache?

File: crackbone.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>55970134
>tfw my 15 year old IDE drives still retained their data
Everything that chart says, is without exception wrong.

>>55970802
>CP
Sup pedo

>>55975007
Fuck you

>>55975272
Priorities straight SENPAI

We gotta worry about ourself first, so maybe in a few years in the peak of storage, we will have eternal HDDs and SSDs that will outlive you even if you leave them for millenniums they just still werks

And also, you must have a really sad life to not worry about important things stored in your computers just like >>55974944

File: seagete.png (32KB, 762x508px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 762x508px

>>55972464
>tfw no backups

The clothes you wear Disintegrate over time. Doesn't mean you'll never be clothed again.

File: :-DDDD@$*!#().jpg (8KB, 190x265px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 190x265px

>>55975325
X-DD

>all flash memory is eventually going to run out of read/write cycles
>all flash memory will die if not powered on consistently every week

fixed

>>55969398
Punchcards

>>55969975
explain to me anon, is flash memory that is used for thumb drives the same as SSD about this one? I mean i left my 512MB thumb drive in the drawer for 2-3 years and nothing happened™
Not mentioning my 7 y.o. mp3 player.

>>55969855
>Just use tape at that point.
Spotted the idiot.

>>55969975
Spotted another idiot.

>>55976096
That's not an argument.

>>55976070
no. and new flash drives are different technology too. smaller chips hold data better than bigger.

>>55972464
>loud noises it makes when under heavy usage
>isn't dying anytime soon.
HURR DURR

I wonder if Windows 10 kills your SSD faster since it's constantly reading and writing even when your pc is not in use (by you).

File: Jellyfish.jpg (758KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1024x768px

>>55969446
>not using the jellyfish rebirth system

>>55969398
If our storage media were made of glass they would in principle last until the heat death of the universe.

ssds can probably last you a good while, assuming you minimize the write cycles,
atleast a decade

>>55976453
>don't turn it on
>keep it off for a few weeks
>suddenly data is gone

Ops!

>>55969923
did you mean like €1000 . isn't tape drives extremely pricey

>>55976322
thats a feature on seagate drives. mine have loud noises too when they are under heavy load but they still work fine.

File: 1468903186737.png (481KB, 775x750px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 775x750px

>not using paper tape

>>55969975
Maybe 60years, not 6months

I'm considering getting into MDisc for backing up essential data, though if you asked me what I have that is so essential, I wouldn't know how to answer you. I am just a digital hoarder and most of the shit I collect doesn't really have any long term value. I doubt I'll ever play most of the visual novels I have stored on my NAS, but if I lost them I'd probably have a panic attack.

I wonder how 3D Xpoint memory will hold up over time, since that is going to be introduced as a replacement for NAND in the relatively near future.