Do you still burn DVDs for hoarding your torrented shit or whatever?
Are they actually reliable as long term storage or should I start transferring them over to portable hard drives or something since they're all so cheap anyways
>>55622833
Yes and yes.
They're also cheap.
>>55622833
transfer them to The Cloud
also it's ultimately cheaper
Lol how do you even burn CDs? And why would you just get a USB thumb drive.
>>55622833
Why portable hard drive? Just stick an internal drive in your pc case. If you only own a laptop you should get out.
>>55622873
you need to be over 18 to post here
>>55622833
not using cassettes
I still do for backups. Got some really cheap in a clearance sale (DL too which aren't common).
Optical discs can last for a long but only if looked after. If kept away from direct sunlight and store in a dry place that doesn't vary in temperature much then they'd be no reason for them to not last 50 years. Of course, you could just go and buy those M-Disc types that apparently will last 1000 years as they have no reflective layer.
>>55622922
i feel safer knowing my porn isn't actually in my desktop. i'm in canada
>>55623005
Pedo.
>>55622833
DVD-Rs are extremely reliable.
I still have completely recoverable file backups that have been exposed to direct sunlight on the dashboard of my Packard since the early '50s.
>>55622993
Almost this.
Just use tape. You have tar and dd on your computer for this exact purpose.
>>55622833
Can someone explain why you wouldn't just use a hard drive?
>>55623122
dump your 50's files or gtfo
>>55623157
Hard drives can stop working after less than a year of inactivity. CDs last decades
Eh, 6TB HDDs are finally cheap enough I just don't have to care anymore.
Stuff I'm keeping forever goes on M-Discs though.
>>55622833
No, however i still use an optical drive to rip Music CDs into FLACs.
>>55623157
100 dvds: ~20$
500 gb hdd: ~50$
I am sorry yall have no idea about the durability of dvd or CDs. Yes pressed CDs can hold data for 50+ years, but self burnt shit does not. Look at the statistics.
>>55623213
More like 1TB HDD for $40. They're getting cheap as shit now.
Yes to all of those.
I burn CDs to have in my car, 2-4 isos of DVDs that have perfectly functioning software that I liked enough to make that exception, and then the rest is all linux distros and a copy of DBAN
The bad thing is those distros burnt onto DVD outlive their usefulness, but I don't want to throw them away since they're still perfectly functional.
Always have a good 1-2 tb external hdd with everything on it though OP.
>>55623213
>500 gb hdd: ~50$
6000 GB HDD: ~210$
>>55623193
This. Hard drives can be damaged easier too since there are more parts to break. CD/DVD are optical media, they last forever unless you scratch them or damage them, and they're not that easy to damage unless you drop them a lot.
>>55622833
I use CDs and DVDs mostly for burning (mostly older) PC games depending on how big they are.
D I S C R O T
I
S
C
R
O
T
>>55623762
I've heard a lot of talk about discrot, but for some reason I've never seen it. I have CDs I burned ten or eleven years ago that still read perfectly.
>>55623814
It's not really an issue if they're kept in a cool, dry, dark place unless they're super shitty discs.
>>55623122
>Early 50s
U wut m8
During my last vacation a few months ago, I digitized my dad's entire CD collection into iTunes/the shared iCloud library he has with my mom in preparation for his first smartphone, and of the 700 albums he had, only two or three of them had actually degraded into an unreadable state.
They were storebought albums from the 90s, as opposed to his hundreds of secondhand and friend-burnt copies of stuff. I was surprised at the low fail rate and the lack of any DIY ones that were dead.
Anyway, data rot is definitely a thing but influenced heavily by time and storage, so maybe not now but in the next five years or so it'd be pertinent to start moving older archived stuff on optical to cloud storage/local HDDs.
>>55623213
Enjoy storing all this dvds and shifting through 100 of them for one file.
Also the time it takes to burn all the shit instead of just transferring files to a HDD.
>>55623814
I have HDDs I used ten years ago, every day and they still read perfectly too.
>>55623248
A good deal on a terabyte is $20 these days. Refurb SMR drives hitting the market should drop that even more.
>>55622857
Nice try, FBI
>>55623920
>not organizing your physical data storage alphabetically in a cd/dvd cabinet
>>55624168
How will you go on about programms? You can store a lot of the smaller ones on a dvd, can't write each of them down.
>>55622833
>Do you still burn DVDs for hoarding your torrented shit or whatever?
I never did, I just add more HDDs
>>55623498
>CD/DVD are optical media, they last forever
Storebought still lasts far longer than burned media. When you buy something in a store, the data is physically pressed into the disk. When you burn a disc, you're just changing the colour of dye that degrades over time.
iirc even the best burned discs are only rated for 50 years or so.
>>55622833
>Do you still burn DVDs for hoarding your torrented shit or whatever?
No, I just buy a new hdd.
>>55622833
>Are they actually reliable as long term storage
depends on the DVD and the environment. some brands/models/series are very reliable, some aren't.
>>55622873
>USB thumb drive
flash drives are actually more expensive than DVDs
>>55622993
how do you find cheap cassetes/tape?
>>55622857
>transfer them to The Cloud
>The Cloud
kys
>>55624205
>burn the dvd
>print a list of contents on a paper
>store that paper with the dvd
How can you even type a question like that without coming up with an answer for it yourself?
>>55624272
>50 years
m8 if you go for 15 years without looking at your data you clearly don't need that shit anymore.
>>55622857
Which cloud?
>>55624969
>moving goalposts
50 years is FAR from forever.
>>55623239
>CDs
You illiterate nigger we're talking about DVDs. You know the one with the reflective layer sandwiched between plastic not just glued on top.
>>55624992
I'm not the guy you were talking to retard.
But I would guess he didn't actually meant they last forever as in actually forever.
Sometimes people use words in a non-literal way. Try to keep up please
>>55622833
i have a few OS's on dvd and cd just in case. Also my favorite movies so they dont take up space. I'll never have a computer without some type of optical drive untill tech gets better. my next computer will have a blu ray drive.
I would use a BD-Rs to store shit but they're just too pricey still, never went down. Hard drives are just cheaper and will last longer for archival purposes. burnt discs just dont last that long, especially with how cheaply they're made these days.
>>55625050
Eat a dick, my point is that DVDs are far from permanent storage.
>>55624992
actually any number is far from forever by the nature of infinity
>>55623213
>>55623248
more like
2TB = 6$
they're literlly dirt cheap
>>55625123
If you don't buy cheap shit, and store them properly they'll last at very least 15 years.
If you have data that you can spend 15 years without missing, you don't need that shit anymore.
>far from permanent storage
Nothing is permanent you cunt
>>55625166
>If you don't buy cheap shit, and store them properly they'll last at very least 15 years.
I never said otherwise.
>If you have data that you can spend 15 years without missing, you don't need that shit anymore.
Entirely untrue.
>Nothing is permanent you cunt
I never said otherwise, you twat.
>>55625183
So what are you even fucking arguing?
Obviously no form of storage will last forever. The person you were originally replying to was using forever in a non-literal way but you're an autistic fuck that didn't understand that so I tried to explain.
>>55625207
That DVDs are a shitty choice for long term data storage.
>>55625224
But they're not. They are a great choice on top of being extremely cheap
>>55625237
But they are. The only thing they're good for is disposable storage
>>55625248
Provide us with a better choice for long term storage that comes even close to being as cheap as DVDs.
>>55625248
proof?
i guess all those 90s cd's have all eroded. somehow vinyl and tapes have outlasted Cds/dvds/blurays
>>55624955
So you have to sift through paper, find the one with the right software, then take out the right DVD, then put it inside, wait till PC recognize it and install it.
vs plugging external drive in, waiting 5 sec, picking the program out and installing.
>>55625269
Tape
>>55625303
I'm talking about burned optical media while you're talking about pressed optical media. There's a big difference.
>>55622833
>Are they actually reliable as long term storage
Yes, I have a decade long DVDs laying around, they still work. Just keep them away from direct sun light and humidity.
>>55625340
>Tape
Hahahaha
>>55625411
Wow anon you sure blew me away with that rebuttal
>>55624272
Unless its an M-Disk, but you need a special drive that supports burning them
>>55625430
Oh... You were serious?
>>55625651
Why would I not be?
>>55622833
I literally just threw away like 400 discs because I never use them anymore.
>>55622833
they scratch with each use, so unless you plan on using it more than a few times it'll die.
issue with cds is that you can never tell when one of those scratches will ruin the data on the disk.. could last years could break after first use.
Well a lot of my movies exceed 4.xGB so no and BluRay media is too expensive and slow anyhow.
I just buy HDD's and fill them up.
>>55625678
I thought it was a joke! Tape is much more expensive than dvd-r
>>55625777
One hdd fails you lose a ton. One DVD-r fails you don't lose as much
No. I just go to the store and buy another hard drive for $40 bucks.
>>55625724
>they scratch with each use, so unless you plan on using it more than a few times it'll die.
Wow, you must have no idea to to handle discs if your scratching them every time.
>>55626434
If one hard drive fails, you replace it and sync it with your backup drive. There is no reason not to buy 2 HDD at a time when they are so damn cheap.
>>55626494
Holy fuck, it's like you don't even realize a needle comes into contact with the disc every time you play it.
>>55626561
poor troll/10
>>55624272
Finally someone making sense in the thread.
Burnable CDs/DVDs degrade physically over time. There is no way to prevent this. In fact there isn't even a way to detect this, other than doing periodic full reads of each disc. CDs can survive longer; but DVDs can kill themselves in just a few years.
Pressed CDs/DVDs may suffer from bitrot or similar problems, depending on the quality of the materials and the pressing. There were cases where archived, unopened store bought discs turned up unreadable after 20 years due to an error. As I recall it was something along the lines of small oxygen bubbles getting stuck inside the disc, and slowly oxidizing the data layer over the years.
CDs are a godawful idea for archival.
HDDs, for all their faults, at least can be easily monitored for faults, and can be set up for much greater error tolerance (up to 2 entire HDDs in RAID6 can die and be replaced with no data being lost).
i doubt anyone in this thread actually still burns dvds
it's depreciated, and i dont care how many posers in this thread claim they still use them/claim there's still a reason to use them.
>>55626434
>One hdd fails you lose a ton. One DVD-r fails you don't lose as much
If you have one hdd, you can check the SMART data every once in a while for suspicious read/write errors, to see if the health of the drive is good.
If you have 200 DVDs, it would many days of non-stop reading to check all of them... and they have far less life expectancy than HDDs. That stack of 50 DVDs you burned a few years ago? Chances are that at least a few of them have read errors by now.
>>55624329
>how do you find cheap cassetes/tape?
Finding cheap tape is actually the easy part. I find that most computer-part vendors sell good tape for cheap. The hard part is finding the actual tape drive for less than what you could get 100 hard drives for.
>>55622857
>cloud
enjoy when your internet connection goes down
>>55626778
HOLY SHIT your right.
>>55626673
I sometimes burn PS1 ISOs to play in the console
>>55626673
I'm surprised anyone "tech savvy" would even consider any form of compact disc today. I haven't had a system with any type of compact disc drive in 8 years.
I mean, I've got a USB one in a closet somewhere, but I've never used it.
I do that on top of HDD storage. In case one fuck up I'll always have the other to fall back on. And considering how dirt cheap both DVDs and HDDs are I'm willing to pay a tiny bit more for some extra security.
No they aren't reliable, you will end up throwing them all away in a decade.
Network speeds get so fast it doesn't matter if you horde.
>>55626494
That's why they are making dem laser turntables or 3d scan the older records to not damage them, eh? Somebody should just teach people how to not damage disks made of malleable plastic when scratching them with a needle.
>>55622833
about 40% of my burned cds and dvds from the 2000s are completely unreadable.
>>55627704
This. I had to pay someone in Arizona to fix them all. I ended up backing them up to Bluray. Supposedly they're more reliable but who knows. I also store them in HDDs.
>>55627675
They go bad even if you store them and never touch them.
>>55627457
and hope you have the cash to fork out for a new drive when new versions of the tapes are released
>>55627723
while blu rays are more scratch resistant, they still degrade just as fast as dvds
I have 1300+ of these fuckers that I need to digitize. They are cheap when you add all the other shit associated with them. If you are trying to keep something safe then you need a case. Those fucking wallets will scratch the living shit of anything if there is any usage at all. Also, I have 7 giant bins of these fucking things. When I lived in an appartment these fucking things took up too much room.
Yes all the time especially when someone asks me reinstall Windows on their computer
>>55622833
they are a cheap way to give stuff to old people
i can get 50 disc for like $20 in kangaroo land i assume it's cheaper in burgerland
>>55627723
how much is data recovery per disc?
>>55623193
Bull fucking shit on that absurd claim about hard drives. I've plugged in hard drives that have been sitting on a shelf for 3+ years and had 0 issues with them. 12 months of inactivity does not hurt a hard drive.
Probably going to throw away my sata and ide disk bays
Backed up all the dvds last year onto a hard drive.
>>55622833
I burn CDs to put in my car. That's about it.
>>55622833
Hard disk failure is extremely predictable and with backups, you can reclone data in time before your backup fails, ensuring no data loss. Why do I say they are predictable? Hard disks usually work or they don't, and bad sectors shows up easily in software. Checking whether all 8TB-16TB of disks are working without bad sectors is a matter of minutes.
Imagine stacks of DVD pr BDs lying in your boxes takes days to read all data for bad sectors as there are no error checking mechanisms like hard disks. If you don't want to take days to check them, your only last resort is to place your religious faith in them that they are still working, that they will last.
>>55626673
dumb cunt live discs are a thing
>>55622833
>Do you still burn DVDs for hoarding your torrented shit or whatever?
No because I've my TV directly connected through HDMI to my PC so I don't need an external DVD player.
>Are they actually reliable as long term storage
They're relatively reliable, I've plenty of DVDs from the early 2000s that still work 100% you just have to keep them clean and stored in low-humidity places.
>or should I start transferring them over to portable hard drives or something since they're all so cheap anyways
Portable drives are a scam IMHO if you want a reliable portable storage solution, get a SATA to USB3 box and put a 3,5" HDD in it. Why 3,5" well that's because they've lower density than 2,5" and tend to live longer while still providing a moderately large capacity.
>>55623239
>pressed CDs can hold data for 50+ years
With what proof?
CDs are not 50+ years old to know this
>>55628017
>Checking whether all 8TB-16TB of disks are working without bad sectors is a matter of minutes.
If you're trusting S.M.A.R.T. to provide this info, boy you're doing it wrong. A surface scan of an 8 or 16TB drive would take hours, not minutes, a lot of hours.
>>55628652
Even so it's machine hours and man hours.
>>55628707
*not man hours
I use them even more now than ever before.
After my external hd randomly died on me I've been moving everything on to dvds now.
I use them a lot at work too.
>>55622833
>Do you still burn DVDs
No. I deleted my shit once I'm done with it because I can always redownload it if I want to.
>>55622833
I quit burning optical disks almost 8 years ago.
I started around 1998, since than 50% of my CDs nd DVDs are unreadable. NO matter the manufacturer of the disk.
For the last more recent years i've been looking on the internet for second handed 2.5 HDDs, since SSD came a reality there's plenty of spare HDDs removed from newly purchased laptops. My last acquisition was a 2.5' CaviarBlack, 500GB for 15euros.
HDD hare WAY more reliable than optical disks,
if you really need to bkup data fo a long time :
http://www.mdisc.com/
>>55623239
>>55623239
This.
When you burn a CD, the laser isn't etching directly in the plastic. It etches a little bit of fucking ink inside the disc. That shit decays over time.
If you compare failure rates of CDs against hard drives and maybe flash drives and then factor in how much data you can put in them, I really doubt CDs will come out very good,
I don't burn them anymore but I have a huge stash from the 2000s. Most of them still work. A few were shitty and didn't hold up.
Finding my old favorite pornos is always so much fun.
>>55622922
>Bust PSU fries your mainboard and all the harddrives are bricked
>Your backups are gone
That's why
I know it's not the cheapest option but I buy 5TB external drives 2 at a time. They can be found for $100-$130. I fill up one, copy it over to the second as a backup and then try to triage data until I can't part with anything else. Then make a final backup and store the backup in the fire safe.
Rinse and repeat.
DVD-R may be much cheaper but are limited in capacity and the time sink to burn 5TB of data....You could probably earn the money to buy a 5TB drive at minimum wage.
>>55628901
>I know it's not the cheapest option but I buy 5TB external drives 2 at a time. They can be found for $100-$130. I fill up one, copy it over to the second as a backup and then try to triage data until I can't part with anything else. Then make a final backup and store the backup in the fire safe.
This is more or less what I do, although I have a folder dedicated to shit I'm willing to part with (which is basically my torrents folder).
You claim that this is not the cheapest option, I'm willing to contest that. What backup mechanism can you think up that provides the same level of redundancy for cheaper?
The fact that this is the cheapest thing to do is pretty much the reason why I decided to go with it.
>>55628922
You're right. When you factor the opportunity cost of wasting your time taking hundreds of DVD-R discs in and out of the drive I'm probably doing it the smartest way.
I wouldn't make it to a hundred disc swaps before I wanted to kill myself.
someone use Mdisc ?
>>55622833
What the hell do you people have that takes up 1-5TB of data that's worth keeping, that you use daily or will need in the future?
I don't get it. I've never been able to fill a 200gb HD. I'm at about 120gb right now. That's a few games I play regularly, like maybe a gig of documents, 200mb of photos and my OS and utilities.
I suppose if you were into editing videos or made games or something but hasn't your company got hardware to store that on?
The fuck man. If I can't fit my entire life into two boxes, minus car and apartment, and less than 200gb, i'd feel like it was too much.
>People unironically talk about burning terabytes of data onto DVD-R
>mfw you can just use DL Blu ray and only need 20 discs per terabyte instead of 215
>Or 40 SL, if you want to be a little cheaper.
>>55627523
>>55623203
>not writing the 0's and 1's on a granite slab
it's like you don't want your grandchildren looking at your porn 1000 years from now.
>>55628974
>200mb of photos
kek must be nice to be this underage
>>55628988
even blu-ray is not enough.
why not just buy external big HDD
>>55622873
>Lol how do you even burn CDs?
typical /g/ poster.
DVD-R is a pretty solid storage technology if you buy okay discs.
Fuck burning like fourty disks of data though.
>>55628974
Raw photo files. Video editing projects.
My camera shoots 14 20megapixel raw image files a second.
I can fill up hard drives quickly. It might be a month or months during the NFL season before I can clean drives.
When shooting video it's even worse. Then when I back up every Blu-ray movie I buy.. Yeah.
>>55627940
> my anecdotal positive experience means that statistically analyzed results of a large-scale study are meaningless
>>55628974
>200mb of photos
The fuck?
I recently had the joy of archiving my photos from the past 5 years so I wouldn't have to look at them when I use the HDD they've been sitting on. That was 15 GB, all of them compressed, most of them from just one year (I got photo-lazy after 2012). Literally just family snapshots and shit, I'm not even a hobbyist photographer.
If you are an actual hoarder you'll switch to tape since you can have ridiculous capacity for a low cost
>>55622833
The only good thing about DVD-Rs is that you can't delete them accidentally.
Other than that they're much slower and more expensive than HDDs.
>>55629439
A tape drive itself costs more than 50TB of external hard drives.
>>55629466
But then the storage is ridiculously cheap and can come in any size
Simply no. Rotational velodensity will gradually fuck your shit up
>>55627811
But the data on CDs / DVDs is already digital. You can't digitize digital data.
>>55628881
>Finding my old favorite pornos is always so much fun.
YES.
>>55628944
I have about 12 TB of data to back up, there's no way I'm doing that using DVDs. Completely out of the question. It needs to be at least realistic.
>>55622833
I used to, but I don't bother anymore. In most cases I can still find and download something again if I've deleted it.
>>55624955
Ok grandpa. I prefer just typing a word in the search bar and finding what I need in 2 seconds.
You are an idiot.
>>55626778
>>55627457
Ive never heard of people storing their data on tapes.
How does this werk?
>>55628881
I read that as poems at first.
Nah, they decay too quickly to be useful, it would be an endless cycle of burning shit every 3 years or so before the dye breaks down too much. And besides, my mind would be tormented wondering if the data is still exactly the same as before or if there was bit-rot due to dye degradation.
I wouldn't mind using those M-DISC writers that are guaranteed to last a long time though. The issue is just the writers are pretty expensive and so are the discs.
>tfw my physics teacher says cds get wiped by magnets
>>55631882
Sure, if your magnet is strong enough :^)
>>55629576
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitizing
>"Digitization" is also used to describe the process of populating databases with files or data. While this usage is technically inaccurate, it originates with the previously proper use of the term to describe that part of the process involving digitization of analog sources, such as printed pictures and brochures, before uploading to target databases.
Well played summerfag. Maybe when you are in the real world for a while you won't need to be technically correct, but actually correct
>>55632182
>Maybe when you are in the real world
I'm on 4chan right now, why wouldn't I correct someone by being technically correct? This is what an anonymous imageboard is for. Just admit you used the wrong term and stop being butthurt about it.
>>55632211
not seeing anything to back your shit up.
It is the right term. If I was copying to equivalent files systems you might have an argument, but I still moving from one format to another converting to to 1s and 0s.
Also, most of them are direct copy DVDs. So unless I copy raw for unknown reasons I am digitizing.
put a h.264 on a usb and plug into my plasma
won't play h.265 though obviously
>>55632321
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
>>55632321
>While this usage is technically inaccurate
>While this usage is technically inaccurate
>inaccurate
There you go. The data is digital, it is represented by discrete values. Whether it's printed on paper or stored on a hard drive or disk is beside the point.
Relatedly, there can never be a "physical" copy of the data, there can only be a physical representation of that data.
> It is the right term.
Wrong, it would be the right term if the data was analogue (pressure levels, electromagnetic field strength etc) and you were removing redundant and unnecessary information to create a time-discrete and value-discrete representation of that data. That's what digitization is. Converting one form of digital data into another is just conversion.
> converting to to 1s and 0s.
Digital is not restricted to just binary, funnily enough. For all you know the digitized data could have values of {-1, 0, 1} or {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}.
> direct copy DVDs
> copy raw
What is that even supposed to mean? I think you're referring to compression. This is a process seperate from digitization.
>>55622833
>dvd
bd is much more cheaper. 50cents a piece for 23GB.
>>55626641
If my RAID ever start looking full, I will offload some of the bulkier source files to M-DISCs. The 25Gb versions are reasonable but the 100Gb version would save space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC
>>55628974
I'll probably never use them again, but I'm a hoarder.
>>55626778
>>55627457
>>55627760
how is this not a fucking scam?
DVD+R or DVD-R?
>>55632795
That's a question I haven't pondered for a very long time. What was the difference again?
>>55632518
It would be more of a scam if the drives were really cheap and the cassettes expensive. This way they're actually quite up-front about the prices.
>>55627760
They're actually still selling the older tape formats just as cheap as the newer ones.
>>55626686
SMART has been proven time and time again a false indicator. Most HDD's just give up and die without any warning whatsoever.
>>55632518
>>55633149
The definition of a scam is tricking the customer into thinking something is not as it is. (e.g. trying to sell a cheap tape drive for a high amount of money)
But this is not a cheap tape drive that they're trying to sell for a high amount of money, this is literally just an expensive tape drive.
If you don't think it's worth that much, you're free to keep your money - but it's not like you're going to get the same drive for dirt-cheap elsewhere (which you would be able to if it was an actual scam).
>>55633217
smart is useless. I have an 80GB maxtor drive that i've used since 2003 that has failed SMART almost since day one and still works fine.
The only data worth keeping is personal and business data. Everything else is throwaway. We hoard tons of worthless crap. We can't take it with us when we die and nobody will probably care to retrieve it after us anyhow.
>What is HEVC and USB Flash Drives
Go back to bed grandpa
>>55622833
Yes. I have some CD's with stuff I acquired ten years ago.
>>55622873
>Lol how do you even burn CDs?
you can use a bic lighter but i prefer using a bunsen burner. it makes the sound quality more natural and widens the sound stage.
Honestly saving movies that you may only see once or twice in your life. Just delete most of the movies after you've seen them, and free the space on your hdd /usb drive.
>>55633654
OR encode them with 22 CRF, fast preset, 10-bit HEVC. You can cram most 720p movies to like 1-2GB that way and they'll look better than youtube videos which is really more than enough to archive movies.
You can store like 1000+ movies on a ~$60 2TB HGST HDD that way.
>>55633710
The point of archives is not to be able to watch them at "good enough" quality, but to be able to recreate lossy copies to watch at will without cumulative degradation (copy of a copy of a copy...). HEVC is unfit for that.
Movies aren't the only thing people back up on optical media; a lot of data does not tolerate bit errors (or at least not as many errors).
> HDD
Hard drives degrade and fail faster than DVDs, they're not meant for long-term storage.
>>55633654
I do that but there's shit I'd rather not part with, like family photos. I'm not willing to throw them away, and I would love to show my kids or grandchildren how we lived, or go through memories of my first girlfriend or whatever. I'm not going to look at those in the next 5 years, most likely, but I will eventually. Discovering that these pictures are lost forever because lol Korean QC would be kind of annoying.
>>55622842
tapes are cheaper
>>55633654
Who the fuck backs up movies? You can just redownload the rereleased 4K UltraHD version the next time you want to watch it.
>>55622833
>Do you still burn DVDs for hoarding your torrented shit or whatever?
Yes, for stuff that I know/want to get back to.
Otherwise I have a server that I archive the files to.
>Are they actually reliable as long term storage
Yes, nearly 50 years.
If taken good care of.
Put them in plastic bags and away from heat and sun.
>should I start transferring them over to portable hard drives
Meh
>>55623048
I'd gladly be called a pedo than have my family see my collection of shitting dick nipples futa
>>55623157
>DVD =4.5~9 GB
>100 DVD = 20 $
>100 * 4.5 = 450 GB
Also mechanical/electrical failure proof
>>55634568
>not blu-ray
enjoy your dvd rotting after a year or two
>>55622833
hoarding shit?
nope
mostly because my main machines don't have DVD drives, so it's not convenient to burn DVDs
I have a stack of DVDs and a machine with a burner in it, but only for if I really, really need to burn something (usually OS rescue discs for people with machines that don't like USB boot or movies on DVD or shit like that).
>>55628974
loads of photos (too lazy to go check how much)
decent bit of porn (like, 32GB, mostly pics, would be bigger if )
I've hoarded quite a bit of video and ISOs and shit after I started noticing sites disappearing and shit being taken down from Youtube and other sites. Got a 1TB drive right next to me with about 300GB free.
and then I've got quite a few VM images
honestly, I probably could live with less space if I had to (shit, for like ten years, I pretty much subsisted on a 10GB HDD that would have anywhere from 100MB to 2GB free depending on what I did that day, and I was pretty fucking glad when flash drives got cheap and big -- zips were too small, my CD burner died on my laptop and I couldn't be arsed to replace it or get an external, and either way, you couldn't really rewrite to a CD, CD-RWs weren't really considered too reliable for multiple rewrites, etc)
I just don't want to bother now that disk is cheap. You can get a 1TB HDD (or a 200GB SSD) for less than $60.
probably gonna pick up another external drive next paycheck
>>55634682
never had that happen
>>55633149
>>55633225
I bet you think the prices for TVs and monitors are good, faggots.
of COURSE the tape drives are too expensive, it's clear that they only want to sell to corporations.
>>55622833
No, because I don't have a hoarding problem. Growing up with piracy has taught me that digital information is worthless.
>>55635177
You will.
>>55622833
1. 4.7 GB is usually too little for anything I would want to archive
2. Hard drives actually cost less
3. The idea to manually burn 100 discs to backup merely 470 GB of data is ridiculous. My time is worth more than that.
4. It's a pain to organise. If you really want to have a neatly organised library of DVDs, then need to invest even more money and time.
5. If we're honest, we don't need to hoard all that shit. At least I don't. I don't feel like I own a lot when I look at a collection of information. It's just not worth it.
>>55624980
THE Cloud
>>55635311
>I bet you think the prices for TVs and monitors are good, faggots.
Well, with monitors you pretty much get what you pay for. You can get cheap displays in the $1000-2000 price range but they tend to suffer from QC issues, terrible firmware, etc...
I wish they were cheaper, but I don't think I can influence the market.
>>55635469
lel
Is microSD a good option then? Say a 32 or 64gb one.
>>55635515
hint: they are overpriced.
>>55635385
I've got CD's and DVD's 10 years or so old and they still work.
>>55622833
>not having everything in the cloud
is this 2005
>>55635593
What are you going to do about it? Buy some TN piece of shit?
No thanks
>burning and keeping a metric shitton of dvds is convenient
Just get large hard drives, burning the fucking dvds is also a massive waste of time.
>>55635620
see >>55633385
The cloud is now officially obsolete. Just throw a 256GB USB Flash drive filled with your most important shit in a safe and call it a day.
>>55635975
>this guy thinks his shitty usb replaces the availability-everywhere cloud in any way
>he thinks i'm gonna carry that usb with me everywhere like a nerd
>>55622833
DVDisaster software.
/thread
>>55636001
>availability-everywhere cloud
the internet isnt available everywhere.
>>55636033
Maybe not in your 3rd world country
>>55636042
It's not in yours either.
>>55636130
yes it is. even buses have wi-fi. even london underground has wifi spots. and giffgaff has 3g coverage pretty much everywhere i've been in uk
>>55636185
I am 100% positive there are dead zones.
>>55636242
insignificant tho
>>55636273
Not in the slightest.
>>55636285
kys
>>55622833
vendors where i used to live torrent games burn them on cd's and sell them for like 1.5$ each lel
>>55636291
no u
Seems like a good thread to ask this question.
Should I buy a NAS or HDD for backups? I intend to store images, audio and video on there and use it for entertainment here and there.
>>55636338
Just get a flash drive. 256-512GB is fucking plenty of space unless your one of those data hoarders. Write speeds have shot up like crazy on flash drives and are more reliable than mechanical hard drives.
pic related is pretty much as fast as a laptop hard drive.
>>55633616
Fucking died
>>55636481
>flash
>512GB
>$150
>HDD
>1TB
>$40
are you retarded or just pretending?
>>55636618
HDD:
>explodes into millions of pieces if you tap on it
>2-4 year lifespan before mechanical failures
>slow as balls, somehow slower than a fucking USB flash drive
SSD
>very durable
>lifespan usually 10 years+ especially on 512GB models before NAND wears out
>fast AF
Have you ever heard the saying, "You get what you pay for."?
>>55636721
>HDD for backup
>>slow as balls, somehow slower than a fucking USB flash drive
>flash for backup
>70 MB/s
>USB
>>very durable
>not buying many HDDs for backup
yes, you are retarded
>>55636786
Go back to your room and play with your VHS player grandpa.
>>55636786
I think he was talking about read speed. 380MB/s read speed is pretty fucking fast an I've never heard of a HDD with that read speed.
>>55636911
>VHS player
spotted the underage
>>55636721
Link to video from which that image was taken?
>>55636939
>backups
>caring about read speeds
/g/
>>55636939
No hard drive in existence today can provide those kinds of read or write speeds; the hybrid models that have some Flash-based storage (SSD type stuff) can provide such speeds for cached files but not directly off the platters.
Best speed on a hard drive today is about 190MB/s from one of those Hitachi 6GB NAS drives, proven in testing at various tech review websites but that's sequential reading of data at the very edge of the platters (the fastest part) which means not a whole helluvalot of data there except inside the first 20 percent of the capacity.
>>55626641
>look kids, he hasn't heard of M-Disc technology
>>55637136
We weren't talking about M-Discs, we were talking about regular discs.
>>55626686
>That stack of 50 DVDs you burned a few years ago? Chances are that at least a few of them have read errors by now.
I have CDs burned 20 years ago, I have DVDs burned 15 years ago, no issues. My burning strategy ensures that they're not going to go bad: I only use Taiyo Yuden media (under several brand names), I burn at half the rated speed of the media (regardless of how fast the burner is rated), I use PAR technology for redundancy and data correction just in case), I do a double verify (verify after the burn and then verify all the MD5 checksums for every file on the media including the PAR files), and I keep them stored safely in paper sleeves which protect them from direct exposure to light along with keeping them in closed containers as well.
20+ years of burning optical media, I've never had a bad burn from the media, the burner, or just not doing things correctly.
Just recently started using Blu-ray with the same strategy. Found a great price on actual Panasonic BD-R media (the best there is, period) and loaded up while I could afford it. I've got plenty of storage space for the future but I'm not a fucking digital hoarder like so many of you punks are.
>but HDD is only (extremely low price)
yeah, enjoy that 1 year lifespan
>>55637227
>Just recently started using Blu-ray
damn I want to jump into that but I always forget to buy a burner
>>55623122
Are you like 72?
>>55637161
It's optical media which is what this entire topic is about, your point is thus rendered moot.
>stupid fucking people will be the death of us all
>>55633135
DVD-R is more reliable in the long term, DVR+R was designed for compatibility meaning you could burn a DVD movie copy and then play the copy in a set top DVD player (where a DVD-R wouldn't even be readable because of the technology involved).
Been using DVD+R for a very very long time and never had issues but since I don't give a shit about actual retail movie DVDs anymore I switched over to using DVD-R, no issues noted over the past few years, they work pretty much exactly the same as DVD+R when it comes to just data archiving and storage purposes.
It's only when it comes to actual DVD video purposes where DVD-R and DVD+R matter.
>>55637345
>use optical media because it's cheap
>but you're a retard for saying it's not a good idea, there's this stuff that's actually good except I'm not mentioning the part where a 10 pack of 4.7GB DVDs is almost as much as a 1TB HDD
>>55637227
>I burn at half the rated speed of the media
Does this make any difference at all?
>>55637647
It makes the burn take twice as long as it could
>>55637486
>10 pack of blank DVDs is like $4-5 at best
>1TB hard drives still in the $50 range
>still thinks 10 blank DVDs is roughly the cost of a 1TB hard drive
You really need to work on your math, son.
>>55622833
yes because i live in 3rd world country and external or internal drives are expensive and you dont want all your precious cp to btfo in one go
>>55637812
We were discussing M-Discs.
>10 pack of M-Discs is $29.99
>1TB HDD can be found for as little as $37.50 on Newegg
>>55622833
DVD Philips is reliable for 5 years.
>>55637461
>DVD-R is more reliable in the long term, DVR+R was designed for compatibility
if anything, it's the other way around.
>>55637915
>trusting a $40 offbrand 1TB HDD from newegg for long-term storage
>>55639110
>implying WD is an offbrand
>>55636721
>picture
wait, that's a song?
>>55633654
lel city dwelling faggot.
>>55639580
spotted the underage
Yes and yes.
>>55635593
By what standard?
>>55622833
Just as an anecdote, I found a couple of DVDs that I burned 11 years ago and haven't touched since. They seem to work just fine now.
Different makes of discs will of course last differently well, though.
>>55639827
i'm 26
