[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tapes best for backup?

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> s. keeling wrote:

> > I've never run across a CD I couldn't still read, and I've a few old
> > ones.  DVD, I would expect to be even better.  For me, tape's good
> > enough.

> Why would you expect DVD to be better?  I'd expect it to be worse, for
> the obvious reasons -- smaller physical bit representations, packed
> tighter.

Yes, about 8x tighter, as I understand it.

> Also we don't have as much experience with it, so I take what
> information we *do* have with larger quantities of salt.

Also, there's a complication with evaluating accumulated "experience":
you may know that ten-year-old DVDs are working fine, but you're
burning on to new DVDs that were manufactured this year.  There's no way
to know if some cost-cutting measure has changed their reliability.

Myself, I've been using DVDs for backup largely out of laziness/convenience.
I still have a DAT drive (SCSI, DDS-2... I think) that can do around
2 gigabytes on a tape, which I will probably switch back to for long term
storage.  As for "on-line" backups: I mirror my working files between
workstation and laptop.

Reply to: