No, not really. Generally as a product ages the quality control goes down since demand isn’t there. You can make archival grade CDs that will last a life time, it just costs too much money for anyone to want to pay for it. Plus business have tape which is plenty good for long term storage.
That makes sense. Why improve the process if it costs more to do so and most people don’t need it to last that long? But at least archival-quality CDs are out there.
SSDs aren’t great for long term archival since the nand needs to periodically be refreshed. You can build a better SSD, but that compromises storage capacity. HDDs are better, but they have other issues from sitting around not being used. Disks like these are a pretty good backup method if produced correctly. If is the big key, 100 layers sounds like a lot of layers to manufacture correctly, and you won’t know your dat is gone until it’s unreadable.
But will it be able to replace tape for long term backup? LTO 9 is supposedly available, and up to 18TB not compressed. LTO-10 is 36, and supposedly LTO-14 is going to be 576 TB but that seems overly ambitious.
At these sizes, you could have one or two error correction layers within the disc to let you read the data through errors. I’d be surprised if that isn’t the case. Sacrificing 1-2% of the storage space for better reliability is an obvious trade-off.
Wasn’t that something to do with the manufacturing process which has been more recently fixed?
No, not really. Generally as a product ages the quality control goes down since demand isn’t there. You can make archival grade CDs that will last a life time, it just costs too much money for anyone to want to pay for it. Plus business have tape which is plenty good for long term storage.
That makes sense. Why improve the process if it costs more to do so and most people don’t need it to last that long? But at least archival-quality CDs are out there.
I wonder if in the context of storing 200 TB whether the added cost now makes sense given what a comparable SSD or HDD equivalent would run.
SSDs aren’t great for long term archival since the nand needs to periodically be refreshed. You can build a better SSD, but that compromises storage capacity. HDDs are better, but they have other issues from sitting around not being used. Disks like these are a pretty good backup method if produced correctly. If is the big key, 100 layers sounds like a lot of layers to manufacture correctly, and you won’t know your dat is gone until it’s unreadable.
But will it be able to replace tape for long term backup? LTO 9 is supposedly available, and up to 18TB not compressed. LTO-10 is 36, and supposedly LTO-14 is going to be 576 TB but that seems overly ambitious.
At these sizes, you could have one or two error correction layers within the disc to let you read the data through errors. I’d be surprised if that isn’t the case. Sacrificing 1-2% of the storage space for better reliability is an obvious trade-off.
Also LTO is rather expensive, way out of range for the home archivist. Discs tend to be much cheaper! Hopefully this is the case for these as well.
Not sure of that, but there are discs which are made for archival purposes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC#Durability_claims