5 ms·
The article isn't specific on what the floppy disks have been replaced with other than "a highly secure solid-state digital storage solution". Would this meet m
by kregasaurusrex 7y ago
The article isn't specific on what the floppy disks have been replaced with other than "a highly secure solid-state digital storage solution". Would this meet milspecs for reliability and redundancy in an event where either the reader or storage medium are damaged, possibly to radioactive decay?
I'd been under the impression that magnetic storage was less sensitive to bit-flips or data degradation more than modern storage technologies like flash drives.
- qiqitori 7y agoI guess you've never used floppies? They have _incredibly_ bad reliability. Google for 'floppy disk reliability' if you can't take my word.
- RaiseProfits 7y agoPresumably you’d want to look for a comparison in the context of the state’s needs. Googling for floppy disk reliability won’t tell you much by itself.
- kregasaurusrex 7y agoWhat I had found showed less reliability over time because economics of scale reduced manufacturing costs and thus price of 3.5" and 5.25" ones, where some said that 8" disks were extremely reliable. My thoughts were that well-made disks could have a lifetime comparable to that of LTO storage.
- itomato 7y ago8 1/2" drives are reliable (fast, too) if you're comparing to 9-inch tape.
- robdachshund 7y agoFloppies are just tape in a disc. It can last for 50 plus years. The reason people think floppies are unreliable is because they don't clean their drive heads. I'd bet the disks themselves are totally fine.
- tropo 7y agoThey were reliable prior to 1994, reliable for good brands in 1994, and unreliable after 1994. A few years later, the floppy drives became terrible too. Every computer was expected to have a floppy drive, but the drives were seldom used, so the quality was cut for price competition.