M-Disc backup

Nearly $70 for 16 x 25GB? I don't think so... a NAS might be more cost effective in the long run. I didn't do any calculations though. You would need some redundancy and the power costs are nonexistent with optical storage.

Just get a tape drive

>>57944394
Read reviews. Buy 10 M-disc pack. Only 3 worked after the process.

This is so fucking autistic kill yourself op

Backups are all about redundancy. If you want information to last forever you need to keep expending energy to battle entropy.

>>57944581

Source?

>>57944568
don't listen to this idiot

>>57944479
I did a few calculations

tl;dr hard drives are the most cost-effective for regular backups, blu-rays are the most cost effective for long-term infrequent backup

If you back up more than a few times per year, use hard drives and keep overwriting them (rotate through the drives, so you always have at least one spare)

Probably best to go with both approaches. Blu-ray decay *is* a problem, so if you expect to keep your backups more than a few years you should probably use M-DISC instead (assuming they work, I have no experience with them but >>57944581 sounds sort iffy)

File: 57ea467db1ba3604805623_500.jpg (37KB, 475x274px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 475x274px

>>57944394
L T O
T
O

BITCHES

>>57944394
Don't these suffer from the same negatives as all optical media? Scratches, lasers going bad/drives failure?

>>57944852
No, M-DISC are basically immune to scratches, sunlight, organic ink decay etc. You can literally bury them in your garden if you want to.

Short from snapping the disc the data is going to remain readable.

Only problems are

1. the resilience comes at a heft price premium
2. the capacity per disk is dogshit, so enjoy swapping and labelling dozens of discs to make a single backup

>>57944883
They are optical right? How do scratches not effect them then?

>>57944394
Why not use tapes

>>57944896
They have thick padding layers. The actual optical medium isn't exposed.

>>57944932
So it's optical. It's worthless.

>he doesn't manually write down his partition tables

File: m-disc-test4.jpg (529KB, 1680x838px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1680x838px

>>57944852

The main issue plaguing optical media is that the data layer fades off over time or gets ruined from thermal stress. M-Discs supposedly adress that by using a special coating for the data layer that needs a higher power laser to get etched. Pic related is from some reviewer that claims he left a regular bluray and an mdisc-bluray out in the sun, then left them buried in shallow soil for a couple of months.

>>57944951
Feel free to make whatever calls you feel like making, I'm just stating what I know.

>>57944394
>Wanting permenant backups
What are you, the NSA?

Just use CDs

>>57944394
Why not use one of these:
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2016/02/5d-data-storage-update.page
?

>>57944962
>M-Discs supposedly adress that by using a special coating for the data layer that needs a higher power laser to get etched.
Regular optical disks use a thin organic dye layer, which fades over time and especially if exposed to the sun.

M-DISC doesn't use dyes at all, it has a etchable layer that you physically burn holes in, all the way through. It's not just some special coating, it's a fundamentally different technology.

(The method of reading and recording just happens to be essentially compatible, because both are done by applying a strong enough laser)

>>57944962
>gets ruined from thermal stress

Should I put my disks in the freezer?

>>57944962
>>57945000
But why would you use optical media for long term storage?

Even if you fix the scratch issues you still have the optical drives which has multiple failure points.

>>57944787
>>57944835

I just read about it, multiple reports in amazon. It could be also the drive's fault or human error.

>>57945020

The idea (i'm guessing) is to archive things like books and movies for a really long time, possibly hundreds of years without needing to read them regularly. The sort of thing one would use in plublic libraries, not datacenters and server rooms where you need regular backups.

>>57945019

Putting them in the freezer would be what they call thermal stress, so i'm gonna say no on that one.

>>57945136
I guess but that assumes we'd have optical drives. Already a dying format for most enthusiast PC these days.

>>57945169

Optical media is following the same trend magnetic floppies did about a decade ago. There's still a lot of DVDs being made, but since demand for them is decreasing, nanufacturers cut more and more corners in order to compensate for it. At this point they're being made so cheaply that a brand new unopened DVD may be practically DOA by the time you buy it. Early 80's floppies are much more reliable than early 2000's floppies for the same reason.

My guess is that if you want to archive something for 100+ years, then a solid-state optical media is probably the way to go. Not necessarily in DVD or Bluray format, it could be more reliably etched in crystal like in >>57944990's link, but from what we currently have, DVD burners and discs are the most abundant and accessible for a normal person. I'm thinking after the apocalypse DVDs would be easier to read since you only need a compatible high-power laser burner to write it, but afterwards it can be read on just about any DVD drive.