Re: Cassette Capacity

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On Dec 1, 11:33 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> Alex Freed wrote:
> > winston19842...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> I've actually had good results with both C60s and C90s, and have found
> >>> both to be reliably readable after 28 years of storage.  ;-)
>
> >> Try *that* with your CDs and DVDs!
>
> > If you use the stone (as in a cave wall) as recording media and a piece
> > of flint as a recording tool the data retention rate has been shown to
> > be at least 20,000 years. Tooth marks on bone while not left there for
> > information storage remain for hundreds of millions of years.
> > Unfortunately high density recording methods have adverse effect on
> > longevity.
>
> > On a more serious note the pits on a "real" CD should be quite robust.
> > The CD-RW is likely a lot less so.
>
> I agree completely.
>
> My primary archival medium is at least two copies on recently-
> manufactured hard disk drives, each of which is verified at least
> once a year.
>
> I find that any other medium is so much less convenient to use and to
> verify that I do not verify them.  Hard disks are now very cheap,
> very dense, and very fast compared to the alternatives--and it's
> trivial to migrate data to newer drives/interfaces every few years.
>
> With 1.5TB SATA drives now regularly on sale for less than $90, it's
> hard to justify any other medium.

That's my strategy too. I run a pair of those in RAID1 and that stores
everything we need with room to spare.

Ideally I'd back up that set to another machine somewhere, but all
'critical' data is replicated on 2 laptops and my server in the US,
and the bulk of the data can be recreated in a weekend by reloading
the CD's etc.

Matt