Backup solution

[Guest M.I.5¾]

Re: Backup solution

 

 

"RalfG" <itsnotme@bin-wieder-da.de> wrote in message

news:%23f3%23OS40HHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>I think your definition of archiving is a touch arbitrary. The only

>requirement is for the long term storage of the data files, or copies of

>the files, in question.

>

 

Most people's idea of archiving is relatively short term, but that isn't

really archiving. True archiving is where records are held for future

historians to examine. 19th and 20th (and now 21st) century records are

proving to be a nightmare for historians.

> Paper doesn't last, film doesn't last, magnetic media doesn't last and

> CD/DVD media won't last forever either. The point is irrelevent. What you

> miss is that we are not just passive observers of this inevitable decay.

> My photo slides and prints are fading so I scan them to make digital

> copies. I know that my harddrive will ultimately fail so I store copies of

> those files on CD/DVD. I know that CDs and DVDs may eventually degrade so

> periodically I will renew those copies onto new CDs, or whatever medium

> becomes current in the future.

>

 

This is what archivists are having to do as we speak. Unfortunately the

volume of historical records is far greater tham the ability to monitor them

and copy them in time, so it is not a viable solution.

> Production costs naturally go down as sales volume goes up. I think you've

> got some erroneous preconceptions in that regard. Changes in technology

> are making CD/DVD media more long lived, not less. The manufacturers of

> CD/DVD media are talking in terms of 100+ years archival lifespan for the

> current best quality media. Even half of that time would take it well

> beyond my point of caring about what happens to my files.

>

 

The manufacturers can only *claim* such archival lives. But ultimately,

there is only one way the true archival life can be determined. Even

accelerated life testing does not give a true picture. BASF produced blank

CDs a few years ago with long claimed archival lives. It was these that

developed amnesia after just 6 months, so you can't always rely on what the

marketing men claim.

> Not to extend this too much farther off-topic, as long as we're talking

> anecdotes about paper, I have some personal papers that are already more

> than 20 years old (school notes), an encyclopedia set in excellent

> condition that is 80+ years old and a mass-printed one volume history, on

> cheap paper, a bit yellowed and certainly fragile but basically intact, in

> which the original owner inscribed his name and date in 1880. Admittedly

> the last two examples don't neccessarily qualify as "modern" paper, but

> modern paper is also made in archival grades and such are expected to last

> well over 100 years.

>

 

An individual survivor is not guide to archival life. Archival life is a

minimum not a maximum. To be strictly accurate, archival grade paper isn't

made the modern way - it's made the old fashioned way (one of the reasons

it's expensive).