>I do not believe that real long term storage (10years+) is still
>relevant for the home user with technical development as fast as it
>is.
>Good media should last from introduction of a technique to it's common
>obsolecence.

While it is *possible* to put data onto non-archival media, and then
periodically migrate the data to new media, the fact is, nobody actually *do
es*
this--most people don't become aware of the problem until it's too late, and
even peope who are extremely consciencious about doing this (like me) will
inevitably end up with the oddball disk that somehow doesn't get copied befo
re
it expires.

Many historians believe the late 20th and early 21st centuries will become o
ne
of hte most poorly documented periods in history. Digital data are ephemeral
; a
huge quantity of information is lost all the time, simply because the media
doesn't last. Color photographs are hardly bette; they fade and disappear in
only a few years, whereas black and white photographs can last centuries.
(Literally--I have a B&W photo taken of my great grandparents in 1864 which 
is
in flawless condition.)

>Tell me what kind of tape a SOHO user can afford that is safe for more
>than five years.

Tapes are not viable as archive media; the tape loses magnetic coherency ove
r
time. Disks have the same problem. A disk or tape over a decade or so old ma
y
not be readable regardless of how it was stored.

The best digital archive format right now is MO (magneto-optical)
disks--they're reliable and extremely rugged, and they don't fade over time.

>Multi-Disk-RAID arrays are quite rare among SOHO users and with
>current disk capacities loss of a single disk drive will in most cases
>mean loss of the whole data (who got a backup of the 250 GB drive?)

True only of RAID-0, or simple data striping. the entire *purpose* of RAID i
s
to protect data; in a RAID array, loss of one drive does not cause loss of a
ny
data at all. RAID-0 drives are useful only for speed, and as such are best
suited to immediate online storage; other RAID configurations offer data
protection, which is why people use them.

>So compression only adds what you said: Another level of complexity.

Bingo.

Worse, compression introdices another problem: lack of data resiliancy. Lose
one byte of data in an uncompressed file, and the rest of the file is intact
.
Lose one byte of data in a compressed file, and (depending on where the loss
occurs and the type of compression used), it's possible that the entire arch
ive
is rendered unusable. At best, loss of data in a compressed file has a far
bigger impact than loss of data in an uncompressed file.

>That's not the tape, that's Iomega. If Iomega devices were less cheap
>but more reliable and the media less expensive it could have been a
>real success. As it is it only sucks.

Well, that's why Iomega succeeded and SyQuest failed. SyQuest assumed that
people want reliable products; big mistake. People want CHEAP products, and
will choose a cheap product that sucks over an expensive product that doesn'
t
suck almost every time.

--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 24 May 2004 16:43:20 GMT, tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
 
>
>While it is *possible* to put data onto non-archival media, and then
>periodically migrate the data to new media, the fact is, nobody actually *d
oes*
>this--most people don't become aware of the problem until it's too late, an
d
>even peope who are extremely consciencious about doing this (like me) will
>inevitably end up with the oddball disk that somehow doesn't get copied bef
ore
>it expires.

And during migration I usually review the files and delete two thirds
of them (old 320x256 pixel images....).
 
>
>Tapes are not viable as archive media; the tape loses magnetic coherency ov
er
>time. Disks have the same problem. A disk or tape over a decade or so old m
ay
>not be readable regardless of how it was stored.

And some can't be read on any device but the one tha wrote the data.
Very common among DAT drives, not unusual on all other types with a
rotating drum head.

>The best digital archive format right now is MO (magneto-optical)
>disks--they're reliable and extremely rugged, and they don't fade over time.[/color
]

But they are not acceptable for large amounts of data due to their
capacity.
 
>
>True only of RAID-0, or simple data striping. the entire *purpose* of RAID 
is
>to protect data; in a RAID array, loss of one drive does not cause loss of 
any
>data at all. RAID-0 drives are useful only for speed, and as such are best
>suited to immediate online storage; other RAID configurations offer data
>protection, which is why people use them.

With single drive failure I mostle referred to non-RAID systems.
BTW: Some say that the "0" in RAID-0 refers to the amount of
redundancy.

>Well, that's why Iomega succeeded and SyQuest failed. SyQuest assumed that
>people want reliable products; big mistake. People want CHEAP products, and
>will choose a cheap product that sucks over an expensive product that doesn
't
>suck almost every time.

I still have a 80MB SCSI Syquest drive in a shelf. There are people
who pay a lot for copying their Syquest cartridges on CDs :-)

Michael

These people claim 300 year life of CDROMs
http://www.mam-a.com/products/Gold/archive.html

>These people claim 300 year life of CDROMs
>    http://www.mam-a.com/products/Gold/archive.html

Kind of silly, really. Even if the CD-ROM still exists in 300 years, who wil
l
be able to read it?

--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040525164431.03106.00002069@mb-m03.aol.com... 
>
> Kind of silly, really. Even if the CD-ROM still exists in 300 years, who
will
> be able to read it?

Aliens? The Illuminati?

So let's print on t-shirts. Those are the only things that live forever.
Can't get rid of 'em.  Man, I just got to get to Good Will one of these
days.