3 ms·

I just added HDD back into my mix of personal backups. I was relying almost entirely on SSD and USB flash drives, and then I read how temperature-sensitive an

by neilv 3y ago

I just added HDD back into my mix of personal backups. I was relying almost entirely on SSD and USB flash drives, and then I read how temperature-sensitive an SSD might be when left unpowered on the shelf: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data-retention https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data... I've used DVD+R DL for backups in the past, but it was painfully slow and coaster-prone, even if I tried to use blanks from a particular factory of a particular brand that was said to be more reliable. Also, not enough capacity anymore. M-Disc BD has the drawback of being Blu-ray, which seems to have gratuitously obnoxious things about it that I don't want to deal with on Linux.

Dalewyn 3y ago
As the old saying goes for backups: At least 3 copies. At least 2 different media types. At least 1 copy off site. SSDs and flash drives are both NAND flash (albeit of significantly different qualities), so that violates #2. As for me? I backup onto a local NAS (1 copy) and forget about it (1 media type [HDD], 0 off site). Why? Because impracticality is a fucking hard mistress, that's why. At least I have more than 0 copies, unlike most people.
TacticalCoder 3y ago
> M-Disc BD has the drawback of being Blu-ray, which seems to have gratuitously obnoxious things about it that I don't want to deal with on Linux. I don't have one yet (still burning DVDs) but what'd be the obnoxious things to deal with when burning Blu-ray discs on Linux compared to burning DVDs?
- vkaku 3y ago
  There are no drawbacks if you have a Blu-Ray drive. Even the software and the filesystem I use to write on them - UDF 1.02 - are supported on computers 25 years older, even Windows 98. Since this is read-only, it makes it a safe choice. It's almost as if one is very comfortable with CDs, and then had to a 6x bump to DVDs, and then a further 6x bump to BDs. And then another 4x bump to 100GB BDs. Only difference is that the FS you may end up using may not have Joliet/ISO9660 portions but just plain old UDF. You can always write any ISOs you want to smaller discs, or avoid long file names etc. and stay compatible - and if you're building data backups, do your research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format There is some concern because some distributions in the past used to deny/disallow the UDF module https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/115269/centos-6-4-unable-to-mount-disc-doesnt-like-udf https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/115269/centos-6-4-u... but I've never run into any problems using a UDF image, like, ever. Linux support on any 2.4.x kernel and above has been fine.
mharig 3y ago
Just my 2 €cents: I have bad experiences with HD and optical, while having positive experiences with Flash. But I've read blog posts claiming exactly the opposite. Nowadays I have copies on at least 2 Flash and 1 HD for the important but not so voluminous stuff.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  For short-term backups flash memories are very reliable. They are unreliable for long-term storage without using them. They are guaranteed for only one year of cold storage, because their memory-cell capacitors will slowly discharge. When the flash memories are new, i.e. they have not been written multiple times, they may hold their data for more than the guaranteed one year, but for archival purposes you should never count on being lucky. You can extend the storage time on flash memories by reading them periodically, because if they have good firmware for their controllers then they will automatically rewrite any sector that has been read with errors.

by neilv 3y ago

Dalewyn 3y ago

As the old saying goes for backups: At least 3 copies. At least 2 different media types. At least 1 copy off site. SSDs and flash drives are both NAND flash (albeit of significantly different qualities), so that violates #2. As for me? I backup onto a local NAS (1 copy) and forget about it (1 media type [HDD], 0 off site). Why? Because impracticality is a fucking hard mistress, that's why. At least I have more than 0 copies, unlike most people.

TacticalCoder 3y ago

> M-Disc BD has the drawback of being Blu-ray, which seems to have gratuitously obnoxious things about it that I don't want to deal with on Linux. I don't have one yet (still burning DVDs) but what'd be the obnoxious things to deal with when burning Blu-ray discs on Linux compared to burning DVDs?

vkaku 3y ago
There are no drawbacks if you have a Blu-Ray drive. Even the software and the filesystem I use to write on them - UDF 1.02 - are supported on computers 25 years older, even Windows 98. Since this is read-only, it makes it a safe choice. It's almost as if one is very comfortable with CDs, and then had to a 6x bump to DVDs, and then a further 6x bump to BDs. And then another 4x bump to 100GB BDs. Only difference is that the FS you may end up using may not have Joliet/ISO9660 portions but just plain old UDF. You can always write any ISOs you want to smaller discs, or avoid long file names etc. and stay compatible - and if you're building data backups, do your research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format There is some concern because some distributions in the past used to deny/disallow the UDF module https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/115269/centos-6-4-unable-to-mount-disc-doesnt-like-udf https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/115269/centos-6-4-u... but I've never run into any problems using a UDF image, like, ever. Linux support on any 2.4.x kernel and above has been fine.

mharig 3y ago

Just my 2 €cents: I have bad experiences with HD and optical, while having positive experiences with Flash. But I've read blog posts claiming exactly the opposite. Nowadays I have copies on at least 2 Flash and 1 HD for the important but not so voluminous stuff.

adrian_b 3y ago
For short-term backups flash memories are very reliable. They are unreliable for long-term storage without using them. They are guaranteed for only one year of cold storage, because their memory-cell capacitors will slowly discharge. When the flash memories are new, i.e. they have not been written multiple times, they may hold their data for more than the guaranteed one year, but for archival purposes you should never count on being lucky. You can extend the storage time on flash memories by reading them periodically, because if they have good firmware for their controllers then they will automatically rewrite any sector that has been read with errors.