AlbertEinstein Posted January 12 Posted January 12 I have this intuition inside me that says it's best to first compress hundreds of small files into single larger files before backing up and burning this data to optical media. And the reason is the horrid noise making that occurs from my past experiences when Windows has to browse through a folder of small files, especially folder/files that are images. I hate the constant grinding noises that occur when browsing optical media full of small files. So, I guess what I am saying (or asking) is should I be using my optical media to archive only and not browsing the data on it as though it were an acceptable device for browsing the data it holds, other than possibly video files which would be written, and likewise, read mostly sequentially anyway. And therefore be larger files by the same token.
ThaCrip Posted January 12 Posted January 12 I use optical media for backup purposes, not for general usage. helps keep wear on the drive less this way and it's not like one really need to use CD/DVD etc much nowadays besides data backup anyways given one can get plenty of hard drive space for reasonably cheap for quite some time now. p.s. if you wanted you could say make a single uncompressed rar/zip file with a bunch of smaller files if you wanted. but I guess it depends on how small and how many as to whether it might be worth doing that or not. like if it's a bunch of smaller txt files, I would probably create a single '.7z' file with compression here. but if the files are not too small and you don't have tons of them, just burn them to CD/DVD straight up.
dbminter Posted January 12 Posted January 12 It also depends on how you copied the backup files, like if you just did a direct copy or used an archive application. For instance, my file backup application, Macrium Reflect, writes an index of all files to the end of the backup. So, even if the backup is split across multiple discs, I just need to read in one portion of one file from one disc to get the list of files. Then, it asks for Disc X if I need to restore anything instead of asking to read in all discs in sequence until it gets to the files necessary. I mostly use USB SSD's for backups nowadays. I use optical media mostly for things like CD Audio and DVD Video, discs I have to write to specific kinds of media. I do backup a few things to BD-R because of the sizes and faster speeds.
ThaCrip Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2024 at 11:05 AM, dbminter said: I mostly use USB SSD's for backups nowadays. While not bad, personally I would not rely on that too much as since SSD is basically a memory chip. so if it does fail, it can be sudden. that's why I prefer regular hard drives over SSD for long term storage for general backup purposes of most things. another bonus with optical media is one can't accidentally delete anything. On 1/12/2024 at 11:05 AM, dbminter said: I use optical media mostly for things like CD Audio and DVD Video I use CD-R's for creating standard Audio CD's (maybe for a very small amount of data backup in addition to DVD-R/+R). so I guess I should have said CD-R for standard Audio CD's and DVD for a smaller amount of higher importance data backup is my general thing.
dbminter Posted January 13 Posted January 13 I use BD-R because it will last longer than an SSD. But, you have to have 40 BD-R to equal the storage capacity of one 1 TB USB SSD. So, you run into a storage space issue. But BD-R cannot accidentally have content erased, as you said. However, given the steady decline of optical media, there's no guarantee they will still make optical drives to read your backups from some years in the future if you need them. A USB SSD should work as long Windows has the necessary drivers for it. I use the USB SSD's for "temporary" storage, and by that I mean content I only intend to retain for a year at the most. USB SSD's write faster so for those backups, I don't need longevity and faster write speeds are preferable. I'm talking things like monthly and yearly file backup archives and monthly and yearly partition image backups. And they do make 1 TB flash drives now. While slower writing than a USB SSD, they are just as universally ubiquitous. As long as Windows has the necessary drivers, it should just be a matter of inserting a flash drive and it works. And they take up less space than a USB SSD. Plus, you need a cable to access the data on a USB SSD. With a flash drive, it has its own connection constantly. I use CD-R exclusive for Audio CD and DVD-R/DVD+RW/DVD+R DL for DVD Video. All of my other optical disc backups are to BD-R because they write faster and they last much longer than dye based recordable media. Plus, they're like $1 each in bulk. I don't paying a little extra for the speed benefits and the longer life.
ThaCrip Posted January 14 Posted January 14 19 hours ago, dbminter said: However, given the steady decline of optical media, there's no guarantee they will still make optical drives to read your backups from some years in the future if you need them. Yeah, I get eventually drives that read optical media will be more difficult to come by. but at least currently I would say we should be safe for at least another 10+ years from now. because I figure as long as the SATA connection standard remains common in desktop computers we should be safe for a while because even if they say stopped making optical drives in 5-10 years time, it will be a quite a while after that before finding a optical drive will be a problem. but for more general backup... yeah, quicker storage is preferable like HDD's etc as that's what I do for most of my data backup. DVD backup would be largely for family photos/videos and the like, which is much more limited. 19 hours ago, dbminter said: All of my other optical disc backups are to BD-R because they write faster and they last much longer than dye based recordable media. Plus, they're like $1 each in bulk. I don't paying a little extra for the speed benefits and the longer life. Fair enough as there are definitely some advantages there. I would say my main thing is DVD's are a bit more time proven and it's much easier to find a drive that can read DVD's unlike BluRay and drives are much cheaper that can read DVD to. even with longevity... quality DVD recordable discs will most likely last atleast decades given I have some around 15 years old with no real signs of degradation as I figure if they are still pretty much like how when I burned them after 15 years or so, they will likely remain reliable for decades to come. because when it comes to disc longevity... the main thing is as long as they can last a large portion of someones life span or so as if they pass this standard, I think one could argue that's what matters most. so if, for example, a DVD lasts 50-100 years and Bluray say lasts say double that, while good in paper, in real world it probably won't matter and this assume we still have drives that can read this stuff in 50-100+ years etc, which I figure by then this stuff might be much harder to come by. but purely from discs point of view... I get your point with $1 each at 25GB for BD-R vs $0.20-0.30 for DVD's 4.7GB (so roughly 14.1GB to 23.5GB per $1 or so) and it's more convenient/faster transfer speeds on BluRay. I guess a lot of it comes back to how much higher importance data one has to backup and how much up front costs someone is willing to pay. because if one has many TB's then DVD's really start to lose their appeal just from a practical point of view. but if you only have say hundreds of GB's or so, then it's a option.
dbminter Posted January 14 Posted January 14 For some practical real world tests, 2 or 3 years ago, I copied over my DVD's that had been written onto other media that were not MCC DVD-R so they would be on the proven higher quality media. Some were unreadable. Seems Maxell's weren't the most reliable. But, most that weren't CMC or bottom of the barrel stuff were still readable after 18 or 19 years. And some of those failed reads may be down to the WH16NS60. I did not know at the time I did this project that the LG drives tended to sometimes not read discs other drives would. I just inferred given their age that the discs had become unreadable. They might, in fact, have been readable on a non LG device.
Recommended Posts