# Why not optical?



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm suffering a huge hd backup problem,  and today I checked ncix.com and a 20 spindle of bd-r 6x just dropped overnight from 37.50can to 25can.  So I ordered an LG 12x bluray burner for $85can and 2 spindles of bd-rs for another 50can.  That's 1tb of data backup.  
That is also much cheaper than dvd backup.  Seems to me this is a really cheap way to make hard copy backups of valuable data,  and much safer than expensive hard drives.  Discuss?
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=62879&vpn=BH12LS38&manufacture=LG Electronics&promoid=1211
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=67655&vpn=97344&manufacture=VERBATIM


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 22, 2012)

optical media sucks... im not going to stuff around looking for a disk... insert it and then wait 4 years for it to load / transfer.







i do see a point in making backups on optical media. but its not my thing, i would much rather upload it or if its really important i will store it on a HDD/Flash drive at another location.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 22, 2012)

+1 imagine how long it will take the bluray to burn 1TB of data...lol


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

22 mins to burn 25gbs.  how else are you going to back up critical data?  hds die.  period.  even raid 5 can fail.  a hard copy won't fail.  if you have critical data,  this is the way to go...


----------



## erocker (Mar 22, 2012)

USB 3.0 sticks. I have few 32gb sticks and a couple 16gb's. I also have Two separate 1tb HDD's as backup that aren't even in my computer. I haven't used optical media for quite some time. I do have a USB DVD burner for old games and things like that, but it's rarely connected. DVD-R's can be quite unreliable. Some are just cheap and there's always the likelihood that they get scratched, lost, etc. Luckily I bought those HDD's when they were cheap. Between the sticks and the HDD's it takes about two and a half minutes to back up 25gb's of data.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

But a usb stick can be erased.  If the data is critical,  and you need a permanent,  non-erasable backup,  a 25gb disc is perfect.  Do you know how many discs I can squeeze into a spindle?  Many TBs just in a small one,  and if I drop one,  oops,  it's still okay!


----------



## erocker (Mar 22, 2012)

I've done this for years. At work I use encrypted HDD's. Discs can be erased/destroyed too. Nothing is really foolproof.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 22, 2012)

johnspack said:


> I'm suffering a huge hd backup problem,  and today I checked ncix.com and a 20 spindle of bd-r 6x just dropped overnight from 37.50can to 25can.  So I ordered an LG 12x bluray burner for $85can and 2 spindles of bd-rs for another 50can.  That's 1tb of data backup.
> That is also much cheaper than dvd backup.  Seems to me this is a really cheap way to make hard copy backups of valuable data,  and much safer than expensive hard drives.  Discuss?
> http://ncix.com/products/?sku=62879&vpn=BH12LS38&manufacture=LG Electronics&promoid=1211
> http://ncix.com/products/?sku=67655&vpn=97344&manufacture=VERBATIM


Get yourself a nice HDD with a eSATA and/or USB 3.0. It would be more cost effective in the long run.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm paying 25 bucks for 500gbs of data backup with bluray.  Hds are way too expensive.  I have tbs of data to back up.  It would just cost way too much.  And the whole point of mission critical data backup is not to keep it on hds.  They are not safe.  Period.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 22, 2012)

neither is plastic disks,lol


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

And look how darn cheap it is for 20 discs/500gbs.  So easy to make a backup of something


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

Protect your bluray disks,   keep them in a friggin vault...  can't do that with an hd.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 22, 2012)

why cant you put a hdd in a vault?


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

So you want to buy hds,  fill them,  and store them in vaults?


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 22, 2012)

Its the same concept you are following with your Blu-Rays..


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

Yes,  but blurays are made for that...  what?  My hds stay trim and ready for more data,  and everything else gets sent to bluray.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 22, 2012)

You just need an 8 bay NAS...Blu-Rays are for the movies


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

Why are blurays for movies?  I can copy any data perfectly well to a bluray.  Odd?
Edit:  I don't care about movie playback.  Don't care at all.  I just want secure data backup.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 22, 2012)

if you want secure data backup why did you choose destructible media? Odd?


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

Jeez,  if I fling an hd at the wall,  I could loose all data,  if I fling a bluray disc at the wall,  it will probably survive.  For the cost difference,  I still think bluray discs are much safer.  You can put it anyway you like,  but it's cheaper,  and safer than many,  even much more expensive methods.  I'm poor,  so I like this method!


----------



## DannibusX (Mar 22, 2012)

You're just trolling now.  Fling a bluray at a wall and it'll likely shatter.

No backup solution is bulletproof.  Good on you for actually backing your data up.


----------



## erocker (Mar 22, 2012)

johnspack said:


> I'm paying 25 bucks for 500gbs of data backup with bluray.  Hds are way too expensive.  I have tbs of data to back up.  It would just cost way too much.  And the whole point of mission critical data backup is not to keep it on hds.  They are not safe.  Period.



Data centers back their data on to other drives. They are just as safe, it's not a closed discussion by a long shot. If you fling any data device at a wall you don't deserve "safe data".


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

Okay,  maybe that was a reach....  but still,  this will work for me extremely well,  don't have to invest in a dat system....


----------



## erocker (Mar 22, 2012)

If it works for you it works. I'm by no means trying to convince you to change. It's the best solution for you, not necessarily for others.


----------



## DannibusX (Mar 22, 2012)

erocker said:


> If it works for you it works. I'm by no means trying to convince you to change. It's the best solution for you, not necessarily for others.



+1

I keep all of my important data stored on my main drive, so when it crashes I have to freak out and not have any of my data available to me anymore.


----------



## BumbleBee (Mar 22, 2012)

Drobo is promising


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 22, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Okay,  maybe that was a reach....  but still,  this will work for me extremely well,  don't have to invest in a dat system....



?  

Circular logic is circular.


You write, under ideal situations, 25 GB to a Blu-ray.  If anything in that 25 GB changes you have to buy another disk, then write the data again.  The only way a stationary back-up, ie any disc media, makes sense is if the information being stored is entertainment (movies, music, games).  If you store data that has any practical use the second that a back-up is completed it cannot be updated.  No updates means your static backup gets less relevant every minute it exists.

HDDs may be more expensive currently, but that is their only down side.  They are as durable, or more so, as discs (throw a disc against a wall and data is lost under scratches, though this is a terrible analogy...).  They have the ability to be updated frequently.  They can be protected just like discs.  They have higher data densities, so take up less room.  Finally, HDDs last longer once written (25 years to degauss, 15 for glue in BR disc to degrade).

Tell me again, what is the advantage?  Pricing will get worse as more back-ups are necessary, so I'm having a hard time following your reasoning....


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 22, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Jeez,  if I fling an hd at the wall,  I could loose all data,  if I fling a bluray disc at the wall,  it will probably survive.



I think you should look for the solution in pills, not in backups. Throwing stuff around isn't a normal thing to do.

All storage media are unreliable, optical, HD, tape, etc. That's why backups are recommended. But backups fail as well, that's why people made up backup schemes. In the end, even that isn't bulletproof. The right solution depends on importance of data and required availability.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 22, 2012)

Why not use RAID-5 or some other RAID level? If you do RAID-5 correctly, you should have practically no downtime, still have redundancy and you will have a lot more speed than a Bluray Disc. I have a RAID-5 and after a hick-up the nForce FakeRaid (Ha!) that my RAID-5 used to be sitting on said that one of my drives failed (which it didn't.) The computer would still boot even though the RAID-5 was degraded and you can rebuild the raid while you're using it. Also if you do the RAID correctly like how it would be done on a server, you should have a hot spare in case a drive does die so you can rebuilt it right away. Either that or you can find a RAID-6 controller so you would need to lose more than 2 drives out of n to lose your data instead of just one (this also required 4 hard drives, minimum, where RAID-5 only needs 3.)

Keep in mind that RAID-5 and 6 have reasonable write (take into account that parity data has to be written every time data is written to the RAID,) but reads have performance similar to RAID-0 because it ignores parity (unless you're running in degraded mode.)

Personally, I've been very happy with my 3x1TB RAID-5 and when hard drives weren't incredibly expensive, I would recommend 3x750gb WD Blacks which would have costs about 240 USD (before WD got flooded out,) for 1.5Tb of redundant storage (and relatively quick compared to a single HDD or a Blu-Ray Disc.)

I just find it easier to search my files on a file system, not a cabinet with labeled cases. To each their own. Also there is no redundancy to Blu-Ray discs. Once it is gone, it is gone. I can rip a drive out of my raid, throw it out the window, and I would still be good.

Edit: Additionally, if you do a RAID-5 of 3x1Tb drives like I did, you could get a 2tb external drive as a backup of your raid, then you have your data in a position where you would have to lose 2 drives in your raid and your external drive to lose all of your data. It can happen, but the point is every time you add redundancy you're mitigating the chances of everything dying all at once. At this point though, you've lost 3 of your 4 hard drives, something that won't happen if you replace things in a reasonable amount of time.



johnspack said:


> Jeez,  if I fling an hd at the wall,  I could loose all data,  if I fling a bluray disc at the wall,  it will probably survive.  For the cost difference,  I still think bluray discs are much safer.  You can put it anyway you like,  but it's cheaper,  and safer than many,  even much more expensive methods.  I'm poor,  so I like this method!


Actually, the HDD platter would most likely survive, your case wouldn't though. Theoretically you can recover data if you do this. It takes a lot of acceleration to displace data on magnetic media (something like 100G of acceleration, some nutty number like that). At least HDDs can be written over multiple times *quickly*.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 22, 2012)

Like someone else said, good for you for backing up your data, and NOTHING is indesructable, even if you carved bits into a stone tablet. 

I used to use CDs and DVD's to back up my data, but found the following problems:

1. Piles of reduntant data on discs.
2. DVD's in fact do ROT (especially when exposed to sunlight or heat over a certain amount, a HDD could survive more)
3. They're slow.
4. Eventually, as my music collection grew to over 400GB, and 60 GB of photos and videos, it just wasn't working.

Hard drives are much easier to work with in the system.  I wish I could put a RAID NAS in a fire proof box in my cellar, but there's an obvious problem with heat in an enclosed fireproof safe (and the need for power and cables).

But, if it works for you, it works for you!


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 22, 2012)

A safer way to store data  is to upload it to multiple file hosts as well as to an external HDD/Nas/Backup server.
(*safe from damage* not from prying eyes*)

To those who said RAID... RAID is not a backup solution, you must have files stored in multiple locations, separate from each other for a true backup.

a fire for example would kill a RAID array, but lucky you made a backup and stored the HDD offsite at another location.




IMHO, one backup is not enough for this "mission critical" data.
Email it to yourself.
Upload it to a file host.
Copy it to an external HDD and or flash drive.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

Jeez,  for one,  I only make primary backups to optical discs.  I don't need to make sequential backups,  although that could be handy.  I still think a hard copy of any primary critical data safely kept in a spindle is much safer than any data on a running mechanical device.  If I do need sequential backup,  then yes,  an external hd would be good.  For primary however,  50 bucks for 1tb is sweet.  Really can't see any cons about this....


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 22, 2012)

slyfox2151 said:


> a fire for example would kill a RAID array, but lucky you made a backup and stored the HDD offsite at another location.



A fire would kill your Blu-Ray discs that are sitting on the shelf in your office too. 
You're right, RAID isn't a backup, that is for redundancy because copying > 800gb from an external drive can suck and you don't wait to wait all day for it to copy if you lose a drive. Hate to say it though, if your house burns down I think losing your music and movies will be the least of your problems.


----------



## sneekypeet (Mar 22, 2012)

Speaking of Optical Storage, I did run across these guys at CES, and they seem to have the best idea I have seen in a "disc". Since it was built for the Navy originally (exclusively tested with them), these discs are pretty indestructible!

http://millenniata.com/m-disc/

That isn't to say it wont cost you an arm, kidney, and your first born to own it, but it is a much better idea than typical optical media. Also as mentioned, fire and floods do need to be considered, so maybe a fireproof storage box bolted somewhere to house them is a good idea too.

On the flip side of it. Why not just use a HDD for all the backups. Don't leave it plugged in and grab a dock for it or get a backup system as suggested. IF the drive isn't powered and is stored well, who knows how long that drive can last. When you think its been too long, buy another and transfer it.

Bottom line is, what is that info worth to you????
There is a company called ioSafe that offers products that are the most reliable way to completely protect information, but they are extremely pricey!!!!


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 22, 2012)

blu-rays don't warn you when they are about to fail or have an issue. HD's do. 

though if you're talking data you will rarely if ever use it's hard to justify active storage space on that.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 22, 2012)

The cunning problem with your plan, what happens when I have to re-burn my 1TB of data?  With a hard drive, I just write the new file over the old, with BD-R you have to write over free space.  So backing up 1TB might cost you $50 now, but over time, with requiring new discs every time you want to back up changed data, the cost quickly surpasses hard drives.



johnspack said:


> 22 mins to burn 25gbs.  how else are you going to back up critical data?  hds die.  period.  even raid 5 can fail.  a hard copy won't fail.  if you have critical data,  this is the way to go...



Oh yes they will, optical media degrades, look up Disc Rot.  Even if you store them in a "vault" they will degrade.  In fact, it has been shown that a properly stored HDD will last far longer than an optical disc.  Optical discs start degrading the instant they are exposed to air, a hard drive with a parked head will only loose data if subjected to a strong magnetic field.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 22, 2012)

yogurt_21 said:


> blu-rays don't warn you when they are about to fail or have an issue. HD's do.
> 
> though if you're talking data you will rarely if ever use it's hard to justify active storage space on that.



Depends on how you measure that. What takes up more space, a 2Tb external drive or 82 single-layer Blu-Ray discs? Then you also run into the issue of organization, what is more organized, a single hard drive or 82 discs. Also I'm willing to bet that the HDD is faster to read and write to as well if it is using eSATA, USB 3.0, or Firewire 800.



johnspack said:


> 22 mins to burn 25gbs.



How much is your time worth?

Also, if a drive does die and it has incredibly important information on it that requires you to have this much redundancy, my questions would be; why don't you have more copies of it and why aren't you paying the money to have the platter removed and your data recovered? Blu-Ray works well for movies and bulk media that you don't use often, but I wouldn't trust my documents or anything really important to optical media, like my virtual machines.

Edit: Finally you also can't automate regular backups if you're using Blu-Ray.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 22, 2012)

Sure wish I could afford to spend 1000s on a raid 5 array,  but only in my dreams...  this is a poor mans backup solution.  I can afford to keep spindles of blanks ready to go when I feel the need for a backup.  If I could afford a few tbs worth of hds just for backup,  I would,  honestly!


----------



## Kreij (Mar 22, 2012)

What I do at work for backups that I want to take offsite (disaster prevention) is to buy portable USB hard drives (I also have redundant on-site backups to other machines/servers).
For instance, you can get a 1TB WD Elements drive for ~$110 at theEgg (or a 500GB Seagate for about $80).
It's really a handy little solution. Using something like Robocopy (that comes with Windows 7) you can have it update the portable with only changes made (and new files) from the locations you choose and it's a lot faster than doing full backups.

Just a suggest for the future


----------



## johnspack (Mar 23, 2012)

Good idea Kreij,  I will look for cheap external backup solutions.  I see external backup hds on sale for cheap,  guess I should pick one up....


----------



## johnspack (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm always incredibly amused by the financially well off.  I basically posted this thread as a joke,  as I'm poor,  and this is really the only solution for me financially.  I knew my decision would get bashed by those with lots of money.  I asked what a low cost solution to backup was,  and I get "buy more hds,  or buy lots of flash drives"  This is not an option for me,  I can't afford that.  I still can't figure out why being able to store 1tb in a relatively small spindle is bad?  And then I can store more,  and more...  hmmm.


----------



## Kreij (Mar 23, 2012)

It's not that storing data to blu-ray disks is bad, it's just really inefficient and horribly time consuming from a management standpoint. The good folks here at TPU are trying to make you life easier.
I understand the contrained budget. I've been working in IT for almost 30 years and when the boss says, "Too much, make it cheaper", you learn to get very creative.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 23, 2012)

johnspack said:


> I'm always incredibly amused by the financially well off. I basically posted this thread as a joke, as I'm poor, and this is really the only solution for me financially. I knew my decision would get bashed by those with lots of money. I asked what a low cost solution to backup was, and I get "buy more hds, or buy lots of flash drives" This is not an option for me, I can't afford that.



I wouldn't consider myself financially well off. You prioritize when something is important.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 23, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Sure wish I could afford to spend 1000s on a raid 5 array,  but only in my dreams...  this is a poor mans backup solution.  I can afford to keep spindles of blanks ready to go when I feel the need for a backup.  If I could afford a few tbs worth of hds just for backup,  I would,  honestly!



1000s on a RAID5 setup?  You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

1.) Startup cost for a 1TB RAID5 is like $250.
2.) If you must have RAID, then RAID1 would be enough for 1TB, and cost for that is $200.
3.) Why compare RAID to your solution?  RAID is far more reliable than your solution.  A single drive is more reliable than your solution, so you really only need a single 1TB drive.  So $100.

So you don't have to be rich to use an alternative to your solution.



johnspack said:


> I'm always incredibly amused by the financially well off.  I basically posted this thread as a joke,  as I'm poor,  and this is really the only solution for me financially.  I knew my decision would get bashed by those with lots of money.  I asked what a low cost solution to backup was,  and I get "buy more hds,  or buy lots of flash drives"  This is not an option for me,  I can't afford that.  I still can't figure out why being able to store 1tb in a relatively small spindle is bad?  And then I can store more,  and more...  hmmm.



I don't get your logic, or your shitty math skills.  You spent $85 on a burner and $50 on discs, to get 1TB of backup space.  By my math, that is more expensive than the $100 it would have cost your to just buy a hard drive and use that.  And the hard drive won't degrade as quickly over time as the Blu-Ray discs...


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 23, 2012)

my practice has been to have separate OS and data drive....

both drives get swapped out for BRAND NEW drives every 6-9months like clockwork. 

i usually get WD black drives, and i have one machine dedicated for storage for every computer i own. all pics, music, video, games get backed up to the main machine weekly. 

drobo is very nice, i've used almost every model but i recommend one with LAN as its sort of a pain to share the usb model over network and its crap to have to leave a PC on 24/7 just for the drive to be available to the network.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 23, 2012)

johnspack said:


> I'm always incredibly amused by the financially well off.  I basically posted this thread as a joke,  as I'm poor,  and this is really the only solution for me financially.  I knew my decision would get bashed by those with lots of money.  I asked what a low cost solution to backup was,  and I get "buy more hds,  or buy lots of flash drives"  This is not an option for me,  I can't afford that.  I still can't figure out why being able to store 1tb in a relatively small spindle is bad?  And then I can store more,  and more...  hmmm.





but HDDs are cheaper then blu-ray discs..... 

i know i earn less money then you do, so dont use that as an excuse, guess i just have different priority's as to where my money goes.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Mar 23, 2012)

Internet storage is by far the cheapest no? Just use a service like mediafire...


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 23, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> Internet storage is by far the cheapest no? Just use a service like mediafire...



this is what i have been saying all along 


problem is you cant really upload multiple gigabytes without a nice internet connection.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Mar 23, 2012)

slyfox2151 said:


> this is what i have been saying all along
> 
> 
> problem is you cant really upload multiple gigabytes without a nice internet connection.



Well he is just arguing about costs and doesn't seem to care about efficiencies, so that seems like it would suit him best.


----------



## Peter1986C (Mar 23, 2012)

johnspack said:


> I'm always incredibly amused by the financially well off.  I basically posted this thread as a joke,  as I'm poor,  and this is really the only solution for me financially.  I knew my decision would get bashed by those with lots of money.  I asked what a low cost solution to backup was,  and I get "buy more hds,  or buy lots of flash drives"  This is not an option for me,  I can't afford that.  I still can't figure out why being able to store 1tb in a relatively small spindle is bad?  And then I can store more,  and more...  hmmm.



1) As already stated, a single (external) hard drive is cheaper than the combined costs of a Blu-ray burner and the blu-ray disks.
2) Mis-burns and CD rot make the disks less reliable.
3) You call yourself poor, while you have a f'ing Core i7 pc with 32GB (!) RAM and two (!) GTX 285 graphics cards. Define poor...


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 23, 2012)

Chevalr1c said:


> You call yourself poor, while you have a f'ing Core i7 pc with 32GB (!) RAM and two (!) GTX 285 graphics cards. Define poor...



He actually an i7 950 with 24gb of ram. Just because I have an i7 3820 doesn't mean  I have a lot of money. It just means I had money set aside for a new computer. Something I hadn't done in 4 years.

In the end, it costs more, it takes more time, the organization of Blu-ray discs gets tedious, bad Blu-ray burns wastes discs, and finally you can read and write more faster to a HDD. I don't know about all of you, but an external drive makes more sense unless you're burning movies in BD format and you have a BD player, even the usefulness of this still could be mitigated by a(some) NAS drive(s).


----------



## johnspack (Mar 27, 2012)

Actually,  I am poor,  I live at 3/4s the poverty level for my country.  I'm on a fixed income to boot.  I've bought everything I have one bit at a time,  and usually starving myself for days to weeks at a time.  I buy almost everything used,  and for good deals.  Typical TPuer!  My purchase of the burner and the discs has left me without any food money what so ever for the next 2 weeks.  Guess if I care whether I eat or not?  No,  I don't.  Also,  just got the burner,  and I friggin love it!  And for incremental backups,  yes you can,  it's called multisession.  Jeez.  So all the arguments were invalid.  I can do both primary,  and incremental backups using this.  Sometimes a poorman's solutions IS best.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 27, 2012)

who needs backups? i have like 10 excel,word and java class files i do not ever want to lose. everything else is easily replaceable. what do you guys have dial up connections? oh noes, i lost my 3 TB of porn!


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Mar 27, 2012)

at least you get free healthcare eh?


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 27, 2012)

johnspack said:


> And for incremental backups, yes you can, it's called multisession. Jeez. So all the arguments were invalid. I can do both primary, and incremental backups using this. Sometimes a poorman's solutions IS best.



Not if you back up 1TB of data right off the bat.  Then every change or new file requires new media, so another spindle of discs.

And if you are that poor it seems like going with the cheaper 1TB hard drive would have been a wiser move...


----------



## johnspack (Mar 27, 2012)

Actually it is not.  A lot of my data is primary,  so I only need one backup.  There are only certain things that require sequential backups.  Backup situations are different between a corp and a small business.  My needs require  single,  but large backup of primary data.  After that,  I need to back all of it up again.  But I don't have to do it every few minutes.  So using a bluray disc that costs a buck,  isn't that big of a deal.

Here's an example.  I'm helping to develop a new game engine for a flight sim.  Every time we add new code to change the engine's characteristics,  the entire content changes.  I need to save a new backup of the entire code.  It's not sequential.  I need backups of every version of the engine for comparison.  This is a hella cheap way to do it.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 27, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Here's an example.  I'm helping to develop a new game engine for a flight sim.  Every time we add new code to change the engine's characteristics,  the entire content changes.  I need to save a new backup of the entire code.  It's not sequential.  I need backups of every version of the engine for comparison.  This is a hella cheap way to do it.



that is a TERRIBLY EXPENSIVE way to do it. no system administrator or IT director in their right mind would even consider the remote possibility of doing backups that way!! 

you could pay a nominal fee for cloud hosting (secure, inexpensive, fast) or you could arrange with the code developers a VPS with enough hard disk space to house your needs and expand when needed. storing high value data on optical disc as a primary source is something complete idiots do. sorry, but it is true.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 27, 2012)

Not with this puppy,  and the owners have a way too high nda on it.  We need to update it frequently,  but need a full,  new copy each time.  The old copy gets destroyed.  It's gotten way past dvd size,  hence the need for bluray.  If we succeed,  I could make a lot of money,  compared to my miserable exsistance now.  We don't want it in any cloud,  it's highly confidential,  so only hard copy backups are needed.  Each iteration requires a new backup.  Jeez again,  how how is that to understand?


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 27, 2012)

i dont get it? 


it still seems a HDD would be a better option.... im sure you can get second hand drives cheaper price/size then blu ray for a start.

need privacy/security? encrypt your data..... no one is going to break a 256bit AES encryption with a very strong password.... what if someone robbed the place and stole your blu ray  discs....


i know if i was going to rob a home i would go straight for the I.T related stuff.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 27, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Not with this puppy,  and the owners have a way too high nda on it.  We need to update it frequently,  but need a full,  new copy each time.  The old copy gets destroyed.  It's gotten way past dvd size,  hence the need for bluray.  If we succeed,  I could make a lot of money,  compared to my miserable exsistance now.  We don't want it in any cloud,  it's highly confidential,  so only hard copy backups are needed.  Each iteration requires a new backup.  Jeez again,  how how is that to understand?



If you're using versioning software, there is no reason why you have to manage that, that is the VCS's job. Honestly, in the long run, a hard drive is the better option. Also making a new copy doesn't sound like the most secure way. Also what is keeping you from getting a 1tb drive and wiping the drive everything time you need to reload code in (huh? what?). The point is, 1TB in the end would cost less, it will transfer faster, and you don't have to throw away your media every time you do it.. and honestly, as a systems admin, I can tell you that unless your backup is off-site, it's really not a backup.

Finally, I'm a Sys Admin for a school and we have a security policy that requires has to have off-site and regular on-site backups. The amount of security that you're talking about doesn't make your project any more secure, in fact using physical media makes it less secure, not more. If anything you run the chance that the media degrades or the burn was bad. I would recommend a hard drive and what baffles me is why you think this is necessary, because it is honestly kind of absurd... even more so if you're a developer, you of all people should know this already. What good is backing up your data if you need it secure and you don't even encrypt it and once it is encrypted, why does the storage medium matter so much? Honestly, in the long run it sounds like blu-rays will cost more, will take more time, and will be less secure.

I'm just saying as a friendly warning, as someone who handles secure backups, that what you're saying makes no sense.

Also doesn't Microsoft have a pretty nice flight sim already?


----------



## Peter1986C (Mar 27, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Actually,  I am poor,  I live at 3/4s the poverty level for my country.  I'm on a fixed income to boot.  I've bought everything I have one bit at a time,  and usually starving myself for days to weeks at a time.  I buy almost everything used,  and for good deals.  Typical TPuer!  My purchase of the burner and the discs has left me without any food money what so ever for the next 2 weeks.  Guess if I care whether I eat or not?  No,  I don't.  Also,  just got the burner,  and I friggin love it!  And for incremental backups,  yes you can,  it's called multisession.  Jeez.  So all the arguments were invalid.  I can do both primary,  and incremental backups using this.  Sometimes a poorman's solutions IS best.



Well, I did not intend to offend you at all. How could I know that you are silly enough to save money by not eating. I suppose that one would rather save on electronics than on food. What is the point of a high-end pc if you starve yourself to death?  Priorities, man, priorities.
The x dollars you have spent on a second, high-end graphics card (even if it was second hand) and on over-the-top amounts of RAM could have easily fed you for a month (or two). Don't forget that you will even be poorer if your health collapses (hospitals aren't exactly cheap, not even in a country in which the government partially covers the costs). And what if the government swings to the right wing and starts cutting it's costs in medicare, forcing you to pay the bills? 
Saving by starving is no good strategy, neither is "saving" by going for a unnecessarily expensive back-up solution.

Really, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry... :shadedshu


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 27, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Not with this puppy,  and the owners have a way too high nda on it.  We need to update it frequently,  but need a full,  new copy each time.  The old copy gets destroyed.  It's gotten way past dvd size,  hence the need for bluray.  If we succeed,  I could make a lot of money,  compared to my miserable exsistance now.  We don't want it in any cloud,  it's highly confidential,  so only hard copy backups are needed.  Each iteration requires a new backup.  Jeez again,  how how is that to understand?



you really don't seem to know what you're doing. No single update changes every file. You don't need an entire backup at all if that's what you're doing. Saving a version backup for 25GB's of files should only require 100MB's of space max past the initial version.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 27, 2012)

I personally like keeping certain things backed up on discs because of the fact that (to me anyway) Hdds seem to have a higher failure rate these days and because of that, you dont have to worry about the data on a dvd/blu-ray being lost because the media failed like it could with a hard drive.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 27, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Not with this puppy,  and the owners have a way too high nda on it.  We need to update it frequently,  but need a full,  new copy each time.  *The old copy gets destroyed.*  It's gotten way past dvd size,  hence the need for bluray.  If we succeed,  I could make a lot of money,  compared to my miserable exsistance now.  We don't want it in any cloud,  it's highly confidential,  so only hard copy backups are needed.  Each iteration requires a new backup.  Jeez again,  how how is that to understand?



So the old copy gets destroyed.  So tell me again why simply overwritting on a 1TB hard drive wouldn't work again?



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I personally like keeping certain things backed up on discs because of the fact that (to me anyway) Hdds seem to have a higher failure rate these days and because of that, you dont have to worry about the data on a dvd/blu-ray being lost because the media failed like you would with a hard drive.



In practice that isn't true, even on archival grade optical media, disc rot is far more likely to kill the disc than any problem a hard drive sitting powered down will have.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 27, 2012)

i've come to the conclusion johnspack is either trolling is too dumb to know his ass from his head. /unsubscribe


----------



## redeye (Mar 27, 2012)

there is no foolproof method of backing up... because entopy haunts everything... entopy wants wants what entopy wants...

blu-ray/dvds are too much trouble... go with hdd's and a regular backup routine, off-site storage and respect for backup medium... 


 well the Disney company has come close by having a vault, climate controlled, 3 b/w prints containing the red,green,blue... they use that method because b/w film fades at the same rate so you can adjust for the fading... unlike color film which the colors fade unevenly. 

dvd's rot, blu-rays rot, so what are you going to do?
valuable memories such as family photos should be on black and white film, b/w film can be restored due to fading... and lasts nearly forever...

from what i understand, magneto-optical discs last the longest.

accidental damage is what you need to watch out for, meaning hardware failure, dropping the hdd, sunlight damge etc.   

TL;DR. it all comes down to how much is your data worth, and how much are you willing to pay to store it safely.  
personally, hdd are fast, and easy to use. 

fortunately my words tend not be be worth much... i try but...


----------



## johnspack (Mar 29, 2012)

Food,  computer parts...  it's all relative.  As for optical disk reliability,  I have cd backups I started doing from 10yrs ago,  that I can still read no problem.  I keep them very safely stored,  I'm not a moron.  Most backups however,  become irrelevant at the most after 2 years.  I still would far trust a well stored optical disk to a constantly operating hd to store data even for that long.  I can't really afford tbs of hd space right now,  and I've been doing optical backups for years,  have all the discs,  and they all work.  I don't see how it's a bad solution.  In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers,  I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed,  properly stored,  optical discs.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 29, 2012)

john right about that, and dual redundancy helps alot too, so basically 2 copies of the original file


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 29, 2012)

johnspack said:


> In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers, I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed, properly stored, optical discs.



That is relative, maybe you should treat your hardware better. I've had many hard drives and I haven't had a single one fail on me before it has been replaced (I would save average time I keep a HD is ~5-6 years). I've had many cds and dvds die. I still don't understand where the benefit is. You're arguing that incremental backups are better than using an HD, my response would be: Use a VCS, and actually version your stuff, then you can go back to any prior state (something a developer should know and use regularly.) The time wasted waiting for any optical media to burn takes time, and writing to an HDD would be thats much faster.

Finally Samsung has a 2tb drive on the 'Egg for 140 USD, assuming Blu-Ray discs cost 15 dollars for a spindle of 10, you're spending 130 USD on discs, then the blu-ray burner, which makes a drive + enclosure cost just as much. Shipping might cost most for the Blu-Ray because 8 spindles of 10 discs takes up a bit more space and weighs a bit more than a single hard drive.

I guess my question is, why are you so resistant to the idea of using a hard drive, after all, you started the topic asking, "why not optical" and everyone is telling you why a HDD is better.



eidairaman1 said:


> john right about that, and dual redundancy helps alot too, so basically 2 copies of the original file



You mean the copy on both an external hdd and on your computer isn't enough redundancy? I'm perfectly satisfied with RAID-5 for redundancy (and up-time) with an external hdd for backup.mThere is a difference between back-up, redundancy, and being OCD.


----------



## Nitro67 (Mar 31, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Food,  computer parts...  it's all relative.  As for optical disk reliability,  I have cd backups I started doing from 10yrs ago,  that I can still read no problem.  I keep them very safely stored,  I'm not a moron.  Most backups however,  become irrelevant at the most after 2 years.  I still would far trust a well stored optical disk to a constantly operating hd to store data even for that long.  I can't really afford tbs of hd space right now,  and I've been doing optical backups for years,  have all the discs,  and they all work.  I don't see how it's a bad solution.  In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers,  I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed,  properly stored,  optical discs.



I have been backing up on optical media, since around 1999.  I have been in computers since 1982.  If your backup is really valuable then make a few copies and store them in different locations.  The problem with keeping things are a hard drive.  Well, all hard drives are now made in China.  China doesn't understand the term quality control.  So that is why all these hard drives are failing, regardless of the brand.  Tape backup is another option, but magnetic tape tends to rot.  
Holographic storage will probably be the next medium in the future.  http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storag..._Discs_Steps_Closer_to_Commercialization.html
You can also do more layers to bluray, Ultra Density Optical (UDO).  Here is a website that compares the Optical vs hard drive.   http://www.dataarchivecorp.com/why-Optical.htm


----------



## Goodman (Mar 31, 2012)

Blank CD/DVD or Blu-Ray disk better than HDD's for backup?

Someone needs a wake up call...


----------



## Nitro67 (Mar 31, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> That is relative, maybe you should treat your hardware better. I've had many hard drives and I haven't had a single one fail on me before it has been replaced (I would save average time I keep a HD is ~5-6 years). I've had many cds and dvds die.



Actually it could be the brand of CD or DVD.  Although, I have CD's from 1999 that still play fine.  How you store them could be a factor too.  The brands for CD or DVD that I recommend is Ritek or Verbatim.  BD-R's the brand would be Verbatim.  I store them in jewel boxes and then they are stored in these rubber maid containers that hold about 150 discs. 
Reading your next post sounds like you store your optical discs in spindles.  That is fine before they are burnt, but you need to store them in jewel boxes.  



Aquinus said:


> Finally Samsung has a 2tb drive on the 'Egg for 140 USD, assuming Blu-Ray discs cost 15 dollars for a spindle of 10, you're spending 130 USD on discs, then the blu-ray burner, which makes a drive + enclosure cost just as much. Shipping might cost most for the Blu-Ray because 8 spindles of 10 discs takes up a bit more space and weighs a bit more than a single hard drive.




The typical Samsung drive lasts about 6 months.  i had 3 Samsung drives fail and 4 WD drives fail, so that does it for me.  Have a hardware raid card?  Notice that Samsung is not a recommended drive, because they are junk.  All these drives are now made in china, and don't last.  The only good brands that I had good luck with is Hitachi or Seagate.  If you buy the enterprise versions, then they last longer.   I have RAID 6, but I use Hitachi drives. 
If you are buying a Blu-ray burner, then I recommend a Pioneer.  I use them internally, and never had issues with them. I think their cost is about 99 us now.  Pioneer keeps their firmware updated.  While my Sony BD-R burner didn't.  

Oh, if you buying BD-R's, then the best place is Amazon.  Shipping is free with Amazon Prime membership.  Amazon is the cheapest for Verbatim.


----------



## Nitro67 (Mar 31, 2012)

Goodman said:


> Blank CD/DVD or Blu-Ray disk better than HDD's for backup?
> 
> Someone needs a wake up call...



Hmmm, didn't read the article.  I post a little of it...

Tapes and Hard Drives are erasable and were not originally designed for use as an archive medium.

Tape was designed to perform high-speed backups for the purpose of file restores and disaster recovery, and hard disks were designed to store active files and databases that require immediate access and the ability to be modified and/or erased.

Hard drives have a typical life span of up to 3 years under normal operating conditions, and are prone to crash at what always seems like the wrong time.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 31, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Food,  computer parts...  it's all relative.  As for optical disk reliability,  I have cd backups I started doing from 10yrs ago,  that I can still read no problem.  I keep them very safely stored,  I'm not a moron.  Most backups however,  become irrelevant at the most after 2 years.  *I still would far trust a well stored optical disk to a constantly operating hd to store data even for that long.*  I can't really afford tbs of hd space right now,  and I've been doing optical backups for years,  have all the discs,  and they all work.  I don't see how it's a bad solution.  In almost 20yrs of dealing with computers,  I've thrown out a lot more failed hds than failed,  properly stored,  optical discs.



Another one sided comparison to make your side look better.  Why does the HDD have to be constantly operating?  You can't connect the drive when you need to make a backup and disconnect it and store it properly when you don't need it?  I've even already addressed this.  A properly stored HDD will last far longer than a properly stored optical disc.  Optical discs rot, even when stored in air tight containers, they rot.  Sometimes they rot in less than a year, sometimes they last a decade.  I've seen both, and I've seen both happen in discs stored right next to eachother in bank vaults.



Nitro67 said:


> The problem with keeping things are a hard drive.  Well, all hard drives are now made in China.  China doesn't understand the term quality control.  So that is why all these hard drives are failing, regardless of the brand.



Really?  China?  So all this flooding in Thailand that shut down 80% of WD's production was just BS, because they are all really made in China?!  And those Seagate factories in Singapore must just be a fake they put there to fool people?



Nitro67 said:


> Tapes and Hard Drives are erasable and were not originally designed for use as an archive medium.



Nether was traditional optical media as we are talking about in this thread.  The article you linked to is talking about UDO(Ultra Density Optical), not traditional BD-R.

They are those optical discs inside cartridges(similar to UMDs but much larger, they are 5.25").  The drives are about $5,000, a 30GB disc is about $75.  The discs are so expensive per GB because the data is written redundantly on the disc, and the discs are made very differently from standard consumer burnable media, they are designed to be a lot more durable.



Nitro67 said:


> Tape was designed to perform high-speed backups for the purpose of file restores and disaster recovery, and hard disks were designed to store active files and databases that require immediate access and the ability to be modified and/or erased.
> 
> Hard drives have a typical life span of up to 3 years under normal operating conditions, and are prone to crash at what always seems like the wrong time.



Another instance of handicapping the HDD by leaving it running 24/7 and comparing it to optical media that is only in use during the active file backup and then put in storage.  The typical life span of a HDD is 3 years, when used continuously.  But when only used when needed, and properly stored between uses, they last far longer.


----------



## Nitro67 (Mar 31, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Really?  China?  So all this flooding in Thailand that shut down 80% of WD's production was just BS, because they are all really made in China?!  And those Seagate factories in Singapore must just be a fake they put there to fool people?



The max that I got out of a hard drive was 5 years, but lately it is less that a year.  Now I am running all enterprise drives.  So we will see.  I have optical disks that are 13 years old.  So it looks like optical wins so far.  

Hmmm, I have 2 hard drives from Seagate on my desk now that says made in china.  Parts are made in china, and then shipped to the country of orgin.   There is only a few suppliers..  Don't be fooled by the media... Several companies have gone for the cheap labor and failed.   They just don't publish it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Nitro67 said:


> Hmmm, I have 2 hard drives from Seagate that says made in china.  Parts are made in china, and then shipped to the country of orgin.   There is only a few suppliers..  Don't be fooled by the media... Several companies have gone for the cheap labor and failed.   They just don't publish it.



I see, so if two drives are made in china then they all must be.  Gotcha.

I definitely agree, two drives is a large enough sample size to determine that all hard drives in the entire world are made in china.


----------



## Nitro67 (Mar 31, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I definitely agree, two drives is a large enough sample size to determine that all hard drives in the entire world are made in china.



I have a server with 16 Hitachi's in Hardware Raid 6 but they are made in Thailand.  Hitachi bought IBM Desktar and that was the best built drive in the past in my opinion.  I have 4 Seagates 750G running right now in raid 5, but they are relaible too. Must have trashed that 1.5 WD green, so I can't check it.  The old 500G to 750G drives were more reliable.  Seems when the companies started going to more platters they tend to fail more often.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Nitro67 said:


> I have a server with 16 Hitachi's in Hardware Raid 6 but they are made in Thailand.  Hitachi bought IBM Desktar and that was the best built drive in the past in my opinion.  I have 4 Seagates 750G running right now in raid 5, but they are relaible too. Must have trashed that 1.5 WD green, so I can't check it.  The old 500G to 750G drives were more reliable.  Seems when the companies started going to more platters they tend to fail more often.



Sooo...they aren't all made in china?  I'm confused, you seem to be contradicting yourself constantly.



Nitro67 said:


> The max that I got out of a hard drive was 5 years, but lately it is less that a year. Now I am running all enterprise drives. So we will see. I have optical disks that are 13 years old. So it looks like optical wins so far.



And I've got SCSI drives that are going on 15 years and still work, they are rarely used, and stored properly when not in use.  My continuous use drives that I have right now are all older than 1 years old.  I've got optical discs, pressed factory discs at that, that are already showing signs of disc rot and they are under 6 months old.


----------



## Goodman (Mar 31, 2012)

Nitro67 said:


> Hmmm, didn't read the article.  I post a little of it...
> 
> Tapes and Hard Drives are erasable and were not originally designed for use as an archive medium.
> 
> ...



Read somewhere on the net a few years back (~5-6 years) that CD/DVD blanks should have a lifespan of ~10 years but in reality the majority of them will last about 18 months 
they tested few 100's burns CD/DVD's store in optimum temperature & humidity room year round & a few lost data after just a few months & a bit more than 60% lost data after 18 months that is not even half of HDD's lifespan

But yeah! i got a few CD & DVD burned for more than 5 years & still working but these are the old one when they were making good quality blanks & not the cheap ones they make for the past 5 years or so... i got a few new ones that lost data only a day later after been burned :shadedshu

Also HDD'S lifespan are 5-6 years if your are using it 24/7 
The three years warranty got nothing to do with the life spend of HDD's

If you use a HDD for backup only it should last longer (if not defective) as Win7 shut down HDD that is not in use for a while & only the HDD with windows installed on will works all the time so your backup drive should last you longer

Anyhow as for me i always backup my data on 2 HDD's or more (one copy on each) & for the more important data like family video/pictures (~10-12GB) i make a copy on each drive + DVD's (3 backup's min.)

Point is blank CD/DVD's are not 100% safe & slow as hell i wouldn't use that or a single HDD as a main backup file/data

BTW: I got about 20 old HDD's from 850MB to 40GB & they are all working good , noisy but all working


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Goodman said:


> Read somewhere on the net a few years back (~5-6 years) that CD/DVD blanks should have a lifespan of ~10 years but in reality the majority of them will last about 18 months



I remember the Library of Congress did a study in 2005-2006ish, and they came to the conclusion that CDs lasting a lot longer than DVDs for several reasons.  The biggest being the bit density was a lot less, so degradation of the recording dye did not damage the data as much, I would assume Blu-Ray is even worse than DVDs due to the extremely high data density.

For DVDs they found that some failed in under 2 years when stored in darkness at 50% humidity and 25°C, while others lasted significantly longer.  It was a toss up, largely based on the initial quality of the media.

Now on to studies done on hard drives.  Google actually released their hard drive failure statistics a few years back.  The study included hundreds of thousands of drives, in many different usage scenarios, far more drives than anyone on this forum likely has ever had experience with.  The average failure rate for drives 1 year old was under 2%.  The AFR for drives 4 years old was just about 6%, and 5 years was 7%.  Beyond just those basic numbers they also classified the drives based on usage, when looking at drives that have "low" usage(you know, like drives that are only powered on to do a backup then powered off again) the failure rate for drives 5 years old was under 2%.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Mar 31, 2012)

*Regular and frequent backups* is the only way to backup for data security. Any other approach and your backup strategy is NOT a backup but occasional periodic archiving.

Frequent backups is enormously expensive wrt the time it takes.  Do it once, OK. Do it every week or month, and bang... if you cost your time... it is horrendously expensive. Optical required physical intervention.

My solution? Build a cheap low power box (I used an Atom) and set up a RAID1 backup drive.  Stick it on your 1Gb switch. Run Cobian differential Backup automagically every night, and there is not "cost of time" to run your backup strategy.

Original data is on the desktop/workstation. Backup is on RAID1 to be solid. It is physically separated by being in the cellar. Not exactly a different location, but behind a locked barred door.

Better an external eSATA HDD than optical IMO.

Optical WAS the way to go 10 years ago. Times have changed. Now you know why optical drives and media is so cheap... no one wants it anymore.  Even media players use USB sticks now. The only people using optical are copying CDs for their cars or movies for sharing on DVD.

20 Years ago it was tape. 10 years ago tape drives and tape media was cheap. I nearly bought one... pleased I didnt.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 31, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Run Cobian differential Backup automagically every night



rsync + cron = ultimate method to backup. I would use Ubuntu Server and connect into your Windows box by mounting a samba share while using rsync to do a backup (I would use the -aR flags if you're already in the root of the directory you want to backup). Then you don't have to waste a Windows key or buy another Windows license.


----------



## digibucc (Mar 31, 2012)

flash media before optical, imo. i don't even have a permanent optical drive. i plug it in via usb on the rare occasions i need to install something.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 31, 2012)

digibucc said:


> flash media before optical, imo. i don't even have a permanent optical drive. i plug it in via usb on the rare occasions i need to install something.



i dont have an optical drive at all lol....


----------



## johnspack (Apr 4, 2012)

Still find it amusing how hostile people are towards optical backup!  I've backed up 500gbs so far in just a few days.  Like I've said,  I have optical backups from over 10 years ago that I can still read perfectly.  In fact,  I have a decade of data on dozens of spindles,  and I can read all of them.  On top of that,  blurays have the hard coat protection,  so even less chance of data loss.  On top of that,  modern bluray burners have advanced optics that can read damaged discs much better than older burners.  I also mentioned that most of my backups were primary,  in otherwords,  I didn't need subsequent backups.  And if I do,  I still need the primary,  untouched backup for reference.  I don't think many understand the nature of the backups I'm doing.  Also,  I haven't heard a more cost effective,  permanent backup solution.  DAT is still the best for sequential,  but the cost is prohibitive.  I don't trust mechanical hdds for archival backup.  So what is best?


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 4, 2012)

Again, that is nice, all the studies show optical media degrades far faster than hard drives, so you can not trust HDDs for archival backup, but the studies show it is far better than optical.

And Blu-Ray discs have already been found with disc rot, so yeah...


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 4, 2012)

johnspack said:


> I've backed up 500gbs so far in just a few days.



USB 2.0 hard drives do this in a matter of hours and you don't have to swap disks.


----------



## johnspack (Apr 4, 2012)

18mins per 24gbs,  only took a few hours to burn 500gigs total.  And quality bluray disks with hard coat are not going to get rot any time soon.  How silly.  I have 10 year old quality cds that play...  no rot.  Where are they storing these discs,  in a swimming pool?  And cds and dvds don't have hard coat.  Don't understand the logic there,  sorry.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 4, 2012)

johnspack said:


> 18mins per 24gbs, only took a few hours to burn 500gigs total.



USB 2.0 is still about 50% faster excluding overhead of moving media every time a disc is done.




johnspack said:


> I have 10 year old quality cds that play... no rot.



You have MD5 or CRCed every single one of your backups? Wow, you must have a ton of time on your hands.


----------



## johnspack (Apr 4, 2012)

Well,  for the amount of data I have,  I'll need about 10k for a array rack.  Anyone care to donate?  Nope?  Well then,  optical it is......


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 4, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Well,  for the amount of data I have,  I'll need about 10k for a array rack.  Anyone care to donate?  Nope?  Well then,  optical it is......



We've already gone over this, no you wouldn't.



johnspack said:


> 18mins per 24gbs, only took a few hours to burn 500gigs total. And quality bluray disks with hard coat are not going to get rot any time soon. How silly. I have 10 year old quality cds that play... no rot. Where are they storing these discs, in a swimming pool? And cds and dvds don't have hard coat. Don't understand the logic there, sorry.



6 1/4 hours, assuming you were able to burn constantly, which isn't likley.

It is silly to assume your anecdotal evidence is good enough to trust.  The studies show rot, it is a real thing, no matter how many tens of discs you have that haven't had problems yet.  And these are discs stored at near perfect conditions(50% Humidity, darkness, 25°C).  Even media branded as "archival quality" has shown rot.


----------



## johnspack (Apr 4, 2012)

Okay,  say I need to backup 20tbs of data,  ready at any time for retrieval.  What is my cost?  I live on 485 per month after rent,  what do I build that can back up that kind of data,  and present it in an archival manner,  that I can catalog easily.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 4, 2012)

Probably a NAS


----------



## slyfox2151 (Apr 4, 2012)

NAS. would likely be cheaper and faster...

or even DAS.



you can sort by date, versions... its all automatic... no need to search for the right discs... you could set nightly backups. you could even slightly compress the data to save space and not sacrifice any speed. you could encrypt the entire volume for privacy/security.



now i dont know what you pay for your discs... but the cheapest ones i can find of a decent brand is Verbatim Blu-Ray BD-R 25Gb 25pk 6X Speed. $70 

now assuming a 100% success rate... thats 625GB over 25 disks for $70
a 2TB HDD costs between $120-$145

so you need to spend over $210 on 75+ disks + a blu ray burner to get the same capacity as just 1 HDD, and then you need to waste time with burning software. you need to wait for the burn to complete before you can start another one. you need to write on the disc whats on it. you need to carefully store it somewhere... and if you need the infomation from it you need to search for the right disk.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 4, 2012)

In All Honesty though. Id have a hd as fast backup and CD/DVD/HDVD/BDR as a long term slow storage/archive. Less u can afford tape backups


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 4, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Okay, say I need to backup 20tbs of data



You're computer doesn't hold that much and you already said you need progressive backups because you need to keep you backup of your dev stuff current. If you're using that much space then GIT could have been a god-send for you when you first started. Not to say what you're saying isn't true, but I highly doubt you actually have 20tb of unique data and the majority of it is rendant data where a VCS could have made your life a lot easier, because if you're a developer and your backup is 20tb big, then you're doing something very wrong. Take it from a systems admin, who's job it is to maintain regular backups of production servers with realtime data including testing environments, so multiple copies of this said data and it doesn't even get close to what you're describing.

I don't care how long blu-ray disks last, the point is HDD have been around for a long time and as long as you have redundancy on site and at least 1 off site backup, you're fine. With Blu-ray you have to manage the backup, move disks, and wait. Hard drive can be scheduled to do backups and to power down when it is done, you just have to take the time to write the script that runs a backup. There is absolutely no reason why a hard drive is any less reliable or costs any more than blu-ray, that is the bottom line, and in the end a HDD is faster and reusable, where BD-R is not.


----------



## johnspack (Apr 4, 2012)

Verbatim 6x lth discs are going $25 for a 20 disc spindle.  Keep up!  I bought 40 discs for 50 bucks,  that's 1tb of backup.  That is now the current price on ncix.  They are cheap enough now to be throw away as new backups are done.  Sorry,  but it's hillbilly cheap backups!
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=67655&vpn=97344&manufacture=VERBATIM
And also,  yes,  I only have 2.5TBs of hd space,  but I have TBs of backed up data from over a decade.
By the way,  that is my nick:  CamelJock,  it is a gaming nick,  but I used it for the review.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Apr 4, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Verbatim 6x lth discs are going $25 for a 20 disc spindle.  Keep up!  I bought 40 discs for 50 bucks,  that's 1tb of backup.  That is now the current price on ncix.  They are cheap enough now to be throw away as new backups are done.  Sorry,  but it's hillbilly cheap backups!
> http://ncix.com/products/?sku=67655&vpn=97344&manufacture=VERBATIM
> And also,  yes,  I only have 2.5TBs of hd space,  but I have TBs of backed up data from over a decade.
> By the way,  that is my nick:  CamelJock,  it is a gaming nick,  but I used it for the review.



right....


so just ignore the rest of my argument?


----------



## Rhyseh (Apr 4, 2012)

Why not Frankenstein an old machine and purchase 2 x 2TB drives, mirror them and use them for backup purposes?

Burning 80 Bluray's seems a terribly inefficient way to go about doing business. Especially considering there is only a $30 price difference between 2TB of BD-R's and a 2TB HDD....

SAMSUNG EcoGreen F4 HD204UI 2TB 32MB Cache SATA 3....


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 4, 2012)

johnspack said:


> they are cheap enough now to be throw away as new backups are done. Sorry, but it's hillbilly cheap backups!



Except hard drives cost almost the same, you don't have to throw it away, it copies faster, you can have it be unmanaged, and for long term it is fine. God forbid your backup that you need fails, at least in extreme cases, the platters can be removed from a hard drive and put into another to be recovered. It costs a lot, but you can. There are nothing but benefits to using HDDs. Also you even said yourself that you throw the old one away, so why the heck aren't you using a hard drive? You're throwing money out.



johnspack said:


> but it's hillbilly cheap backups!



Except long term you're spending more money than you would if you were using reusable media. Listen to what everyone here is telling you.



johnspack said:


> And also, yes, I only have 2.5TBs of hd space, but I have TBs of backed up data from over a decade.



You just said you throw them out.



slyfox2151 said:


> so just ignore the rest of my argument?


Apparently so.


----------



## johnspack (Apr 13, 2012)

Hard drives do not cost the same,  are you high?  I have dozens of TBs backed up now,  over the years,  but many TBs just recently.  It would cost me 1000s for hds.  I don't think you have any idea how much data I actually have.  I can still read even the first cds I burned 12 years ago.  Every hd I've had in that time has died.  You keep your optical disks in a spindle,  and in a dark place like a closet.  I haven't had a single failure with 100s of optical disks.  I've already backed up 30 blurays since I bought this new drive,  it friggin rocks!  I suspect I will be able to read these discs 10 years from now no problem,  long after the hds I got the data from died.  I've thrown out dozens of hard drives,  I haven't thrown out a single optical disk I've burned in 20 years.  (Yes, remember 1x burning under dos?)  Yes,  the dye can degrade...  boohoo...  over time you should be condensing your collection to new media.. constantly refreshing it.  I started with cds,  reburned to dvds,  reburned to dl-dvds,  and now reburning to bluray.  Static backup to mechanical hd,  no dam way,  sorry,  not safe.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Apr 13, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Hard drives do not cost the same,  are you high?  I have dozens of TBs backed up now,  over the years,  but many TBs just recently.  It would cost me 1000s for hds.  I don't think you have any idea how much data I actually have.  I can still read even the first cds I burned 12 years ago.  Every hd I've had in that time has died.  You keep your optical disks in a spindle,  and in a dark place like a closet.  I haven't had a single failure with 100s of optical disks.  I've already backed up 30 blurays since I bought this new drive,  it friggin rocks!  I suspect I will be able to read these discs 10 years from now no problem,  long after the hds I got the data from died.  I've thrown out dozens of hard drives,  I haven't thrown out a single optical disk I've burned in 20 years.  (Yes, remember 1x burning under dos?)  Yes,  the dye can degrade...  boohoo...  over time you should be condensing your collection to new media.. constantly refreshing it.  I started with cds,  reburned to dvds,  reburned to dl-dvds,  and now reburning to bluray.  Static backup to mechanical hd,  no dam way,  sorry,  not safe.



Im sorry but your full of Sh*t.


cheaper then HDDs? No.
HDDs are faster. 
HDDs are safer.
Less space is taken up with HDDs.
HDDs are falling rapidly in price again. (price hike due to floods in thailand)
If your drives are failing that fast your doing it wrong.


You claim you would have spent 1000s on HDDs if you had of use'd them instead, so does that mean you have spent 10s of 1000s on discs that you thrown out as they are now useless?
You can just overwrite the files with HDDs.


Speed + Security + Reduced file size + reliability are the biggest benefits going with HDDs.


----------



## Jetster (Apr 13, 2012)

Optical media does not last forever. No physical drive or media is fool proof. Upload to multipal servers is the only way.   You need to check you 12 year old media again

Besides if it was best practice to back up on BD then the industry would be using this method. And there not


----------



## xBruce88x (Apr 13, 2012)

want a solid backup? try this

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822501018&Tpk=iosafe

so you paid $135CAD for 1TB that can go up in smoke/ruined by water? for less than that per TB you get 2TB that's fireproof (30min) and waterproof (under 10ft water for 3 days), not to mention a lot faster to transfer your data. I'm sure you'd rather spend time programming the flight sim than waiting for discs to burn. I've done a little math, and at 480Mbps USB2.0 (best case i know...) you can transfer 2TB in under 12.5hrs. Another thing, although not as likely, the more discs you burn with that burner, the sooner it will fail and the sooner you will have to replace the drive for another $85CAD. Heck, there's even a chance that the drive will fail before your finished with all your blank discs! Trust me, I know what its like to buy on a budget, that's why when i get stuff I look in the long term, and a fireproof 2TB drive seems pretty long term compared to optical media. Also, you can power down the unit when its not being used, saving on your power bill (even if its very very little). some other things to consider, they offer

"1-YEAR DATA RECOVERY SERVICE
The ioSafe Data Recovery Service (DRS) provides data recovery, free replacement of comparable ioSafe unit loaded with recovered data together, loss compensation and follow up support. (Subject to ioSafe’s terms and conditions. Please Visit ioSafe website for more information.)"

Also, it probably takes up less space than all those jewel cases laying around. Did I mention it can be locked and bolted to the floor so it can't be easily stolen?

Also, one last question... I know there's an NDA so I don't expected a detailed answer, but is it a game or private use flight sim?

Edit: oh and on the topic of starving yourself... FFS dude go mow someone's lawn for $20 and get a case of Ramen Noodles


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 13, 2012)

xBruce88x said:


> want a solid backup? try this
> 
> http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822501018&Tpk=iosafe
> 
> ...



I just bought a 1tb recertified Caviar Black from a fellow here on TPU on the B / S / T forum for 80 USD and it runs like a dream. It replaced a WD Green that was failing on my raid. You can find a good deal on a HDD if you just look for it. Think of all the time you've wasted burning discs where you coud have just taken a fraction of the time to copy the data to a hard drive instead. I don't know about you, but I value my time and in the long run, you're spending more not on the drive, but the time to manage your backup. How much is your time worth, because I value mine pretty high.


----------



## Derek12 (Apr 13, 2012)

In my experience a hard disk or Flash drive are far more durable than optical media if treated OK.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Apr 13, 2012)

johnspack said:


> But a usb stick can be erased.  If the data is critical,  and you need a permanent,  non-erasable backup,  a 25gb disc is perfect.  Do you know how many discs I can squeeze into a spindle?  Many TBs just in a small one,  and if I drop one,  oops,  it's still okay!



And a disc can scratch, hell your house could explode then what... 

Get with the times, disc's of any kind are slow/inefficient/easily damaged and annoying


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 14, 2012)

ShiBDiB said:


> And a disc can scratch, hell your house could explode then what...
> 
> Get with the times, disc's of any kind are slow/inefficient/easily damaged and annoying



Your hard drives will be gone too if your house explodes, thats a reason for off-site backups, not for magnetic and flash media.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Apr 14, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Your hard drives will be gone too if your house explodes, thats a reason for off-site backups, not for magnetic and flash media.



Off site backup and hundreds of discs are 2 very different things. You can have an offsite server box running in raid with server level HD's with multiple redundancies.. Or you can have a few hundread jewel cases full of easily scratchable cd's.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Your hard drives will be gone too if your house explodes, thats a reason for off-site backups, not for magnetic and flash media.



The difference in that case is that data on a hard drive that has been in an explosion or fire is still highly likely recoverable.  The same can not be said about optical media.


----------



## Bunchies (Apr 14, 2012)

Anyone who wants to backup there shit for a long time watch this vid from Linus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK1yasQlmw8 check the description after watching the video


----------

