Long Term Hard Drive Storage
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Anyone ever had an SATA cable cause data corruption?
Next: Recovering ownerships and permissions after migration
From: Eric Gisin on 6 Apr 2008 10:48 "Dave" <someplace(a)nowhere-nice.com> wrote in message news:47f894e4(a)212.67.96.135... > > I think your biggest issue would be: > > 1) Finding something to read the hard disk or DVD. In a few decades > time, I doubt it will be easy to find something to read a SATA disk, in Use a USB-SATA converter. > much the same way as you would have a very hard time finding a computer > to read an 8" floppy disk. Same goes for a DVD storage - do you really You mean you don't have an 8" drive sitting in a box? > believe in a few decades time anything will read a DVD? Nonsense. All HD players still do DVD and CD formats. > The SCSI interface has to date been more stable than any other. You have adapters from the original SCSI-1 connnectors to SCSI-3? > > 2) Decay of electrolytic capacitors is likely to be an isssue. Hard drives have never used them. > > 3) I assume the most likely things you would want to keep over decades > would be photographs. Experience has shown images in stone have lasted > thousands of years. Getting the images carved into stone or metal would > probably be best. > > 4) Getting images painted by an artist would be very good and not > particularly expensive. We know many paintings have lasted centuries. > Not as long as stone/metal to date, but more practical and gives better > colour information. > > 5) Experience has shown many photographs have lasted well when using wet > chemistry - silver based photographic medium. > > 5) Nobody really knows how well digital data will store. My suggestions > for the best chance would be to > > i) Keep on a few different media - optical, magnetic. > ii) Transfer it to current technology every 5-10 years. Keep the old > media anyway. > iii) Keep data in different locations. > > iv) I dont think external magnetic fields would be an issue at all, but > I know mu-metal would be more suitable than lead for that purpose. But > that really would be the last of your worries. > v) I used to work developing protection systems for nuclear > electromagnetic pulse. I am aware the aim would be to explode a bomb > that would damage electronics, but not kill people. So after an EMP > strike, food might not be the issue you suspect. > > On the assumption you want to store photographs, I suggest > > stone > oil painting > photographs > digital storeage. > > In principle, digital storage would not degrade over time, but I think > the chances of the images lasting in practice is a lot less than with > phtographs or oil painting.
From: Justin on 6 Apr 2008 13:12 Al Dykes wrote: > > MOD = Magneto-Optical Disk. > > This was the gold standard for archival storage when I worked at > BigBank, which was up to 1993. We had lots in storage in Iron > Mountain and online in jukeboxes the size of large refrigerators. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optical_drive > What about DVD-RAM?
From: Rod Speed on 6 Apr 2008 14:26 Justin <Justin(a)NobecauseIhatespam.net> wrote > Al Dykes wrote >> MOD = Magneto-Optical Disk. >> This was the gold standard for archival storage when I worked >> at BigBank, which was up to 1993. We had lots in storage in Iron >> Mountain and online in jukeboxes the size of large refrigerators. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optical_drive > What about DVD-RAM? Much more viable than MOD.
From: Rod Speed on 6 Apr 2008 14:35 Dave <someplace(a)nowhere-nice.com> wrote: > Justin wrote: > >> What if one took a portable enclosure, stuffed a 200GB drive in >> there, filled it with his AVCHD footage, stuck it in the factory >> box, with a few Silica gel packs, maybe wrapped it with one of those >> lead liners that look like trash bags and stored it (properly >> labeled of course)? Is that idea stupid? >> Forget about cost for now. > > > I think your biggest issue would be: > 1) Finding something to read the hard disk or DVD. Nope. > In a few decades time, I doubt it will be easy to find something to read a SATA disk, in much the same way as you > would have a very hard time finding a computer to read an 8" floppy disk. Bet it will be trivial to find something to read a USB drive. > Same goes for a DVD storage - do you really believe in a few decades time anything will read a DVD? Yep, just like the current drive read CDs just fine. > The SCSI interface has to date been more stable than any other. Wrong, USB leaves it for dead. > 2) Decay of electrolytic capacitors is likely to be an isssue. Nope. And the DVDs protect you against that small risk. > 3) I assume the most likely things you would want to keep over decades would be photographs. Experience has shown > images in stone have lasted thousands of years. Getting the images carved into stone or metal would probably be best. His are videos, DVDs are a hell of a lot more practical. > 4) Getting images painted by an artist would be very good and not particularly expensive. Tad labor intensive with videos. > We know many paintings have lasted centuries. Not as long as stone/ > metal to date, but more practical and gives better colour information. But doesnt work for videos. > 5) Experience has shown many photographs have lasted well when using wet chemistry - silver based photographic medium. Trouble is that you dont get color that way. > 5) Nobody really knows how well digital data will store. We do know that all you really have to do is keep updating the format. > My suggestions for the best chance would be to > i) Keep on a few different media - optical, magnetic. > ii) Transfer it to current technology every 5-10 years. Keep the old media anyway. > iii) Keep data in different locations. > iv) I dont think external magnetic fields would be an issue at all, > but I know mu-metal would be more suitable than lead for that > purpose. But that really would be the last of your worries. > v) I used to work developing protection systems for nuclear > electromagnetic pulse. I am aware the aim would be to explode a bomb that would damage electronics, but not kill > people. So after an EMP strike, food might not be the issue you suspect. Nuke attack aint gunna happen. > On the assumption you want to store photographs, Dud assumption. > I suggest > stone > oil painting > photographs > digital storeage. And since its video, the only thing thats practical is digital storage. > In principle, digital storage would not degrade over time, but I think the chances of the images lasting in practice > is a lot less than with phtographs or oil painting. Its a tad unlikely that he will be around in millennia to watch the video.
From: Arno Wagner on 6 Apr 2008 19:03
Previously Justin <Justin(a)nobecauseihatespam.net> wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: >> >> MOD = Magneto-Optical Disk. >> >> This was the gold standard for archival storage when I worked at >> BigBank, which was up to 1993. We had lots in storage in Iron >> Mountain and online in jukeboxes the size of large refrigerators. >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optical_drive >> > What about DVD-RAM? It looks good in teory, but in practice less so. I recently bought a drive and disks. If you are really careful, they should last 2-3 decades, but the disk do not have cartridges (at least for the rives you can get) and one bad drop could possibly be enough. Unfortunately MOD technology has not been developed further for some years now, and it looks like it will not be. At the moment DVD RAM seems to be the best option for small volume long-term storage. Whether it can perform past the 10 year mark is not really clear to me. Arno |