Blu-ray disks as Backup

[DaveU]

Can I use Blu-ray disks, specifically 25GB Verbatim BD-R LTH Type disks as long term storage / backup? Is this a viable option, or am I missing something, Do these things just "go bad" after a period of time? Things change sooo fast It's hard to keep up to the technology. I'm concerened with HDD Failure as long term storage. Lots of digital photo's and graphic design files. *sigh* I just can't seem to part with the stuff =)

 

[razel]

HDDs, Blu-ray's can all fail. Your best bet is to backup your backups. The good news. Storage is cheap. So you're just left to choose based on convenience, overall speed, and budget. Here's my current breakdown:

COST   /  GIG = cost/gig TYPE
$ 60    / 750 = .08  2.5" HDD USB
$ 38   /  500 = .076 2.5" HDD DRIVE ONLY

$100   / 2000 = .05  3.5" HDD eSATA/USB
$  .35 /  8.5 = .041 DVD9
$80    / 2000 = .040 3.5" DRIVE ONLY

$  .10 /  4.7 = .021 DVD

3.5" HDDs are about half the cost of the 2.5" HDDs, but 2.5" HDDs don't require a wall plug. Those prices are also the best prices I've encountered, not typical sale prices. You'll also have to consider that the HDDs are arguably much easier/faster to read/write from compared to Blu-Rays. It's all up to you.

 

[JonathanYoung]

We use BD-R at work because I'm paranoid about having all our backups on magnetic storage. What used to take dozens of DVDs now takes only a few BD-Rs, so I'm happy with the result. You can't have too many backups. Think of it another way, how would you feel if all your data were lost?

 

[Soundmanred]

I'd still go with hard drive backups.
Faster, no reader needed if used somewhere else, etc.

 

[JonathanYoung]

^ Oops, forgot to mention that we have plenty of hard drive backups at work, that I just wanted something in addition and different from magnetic storage.

 

[htwingnut]

Use extra hard drives. I don't trust burnable media at all. I have a Windows Home Server for backup, and back that data up on an external drive that is stored in a different location entirely, not to mention the most critical stuff (pictures mainly) in a dropbox account for worse case scenario. So it's triplicate really, on local computer (real time), on Windows Home Server (real time, well delayed a day), and remote on external hard drive (about every couple months), plus dropbox periodically.

 

[Modelworks]

What is wrong with magnetic storage ? Tape backup still is the way to go for backups of large amounts of data. 200GB on a $13 tape.

 

[Echo147]

I've used them for a couple of years, they're fairly affordable now too - I order direct from Japan at around £45/$70 for 10 x 46GB discs.

Despite the inconvenience, I've always preferred CD/DVD/BD for primary backup - adds protection against power spikes, viruses, hacking, magnets(!), and now fire/theft as I have an additional partial disc set of critical data in a different location.

Reliability-wise, I've burned/verified about 220 R/RE/DL/DL-REs over the years and only had one RE go bad - and this was reported during a burn, so no data loss.

Can't stress enough to stick to Verbatim and stuff in a similar price range though, the cheapy ones are quite hopeless.

 

[taltamir]

Can I use Blu-ray disks, specifically 25GB Verbatim BD-R LTH Type disks as long term storage / backup?

you can use them as backups, but not for too many years.

Is this a viable option, or am I missing something

it is a viable option... just keep in mind that bit rot can introduce errors over time, especially in burned media (since they are poor quality to begin with).
the solution is to either use par2 parity, or make more than 1 copy of everything. (aka, rolling backup).

Do these things just "go bad" after a period of time?

everything goes bad eventually, its entropy. with optical disks you should have quite a few errors after a few years, hence parity is recommended.

Things change sooo fast It's hard to keep up to the technology.

First release of optical media:
CD = 1982
DVD = 1996 (japan), 1997 (USA), 1998 (Europe), 1999 (Australia)
BluRay = 2003

I'm concerened with HDD Failure as long term storage.

As you should be, this is why we use backups and redundancy.
HDD are a little more reliable than optical media you burn yourself, and a lot less reliable then pressed optical media (factory made).
However, everything fails, you just need to have sufficient backups and redundancy not to lose data WHEN it happens. (not if, when)

Lots of digital photo's and graphic design files.

Doesn't matter what its for. Storage is storage and reliability remains the same.

*sigh* I just can't seem to part with the stuff =)

You shouldn't have to, storage is getting ever cheaper and more plentiful... so go ahead and indulge yourself by keeping all of it, forever.

The http://dvdisaster.net/en/index.html DVDisaster project is a program that automatically handles making parity data for your disks and recovering data from them (can only recover data from disks that were burned with parity to begin with), it works with CDs, DVDs, and BDs... So you don't have to make par2 files yourself for everything before burning it, much easier to handle. It also provides protection against corruption of file table (which renders the whole disk unreadable... which happens alarmingly often unfortunately). it uses the same Reed-Solomon algorithm as parchive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed-Solomon_error_correction

BTW, you will notice it says on the download page "Binary for Windows: coming soon" for version 0.72.2. Don't get the 0.70 version (from 2008), instead click on "Show older releases in the 0.72 version branch" and then download the windows or macOS binary for version 0.72.1

 

[corkyg]

I have used mag tape, optical disks, and HDDs. When I finish a photo job, these days, I burn them to opticals - several copies. I keep all my photos on my HDD plus 4 other HDDs that are all external and never on unless I am using them. They are not "backlups" per se that require restoration, but duplicate drives. Really important photos are on optical copies stored in my bank safe deposit box.

The key to good backups is a plan that features planned redundancy.

I no longer use tape - too slow and not directly accessible.

 

[taltamir]

I no longer use tape - too slow and not directly accessible.

people use tape because it is by far the cheapest. being very slow and not directly accessible is a sacrifice you make for cost... but if you are willing to spend more, then other forms of backups are indeed more convenient. I also do not use tape... I am willing to spend more money to save my time.

 

[corkyg]

Agree! My time is worth more than such cost deltas.

 

[tinpanalley]

I continue to access music, photos, important documents I burned onto discs over 10 years ago. In that time I've had over 5 HDDs die with irreplaceable data on them. Each one of those HDDs was the top of the line for its time.
The only discs I've ever had go bad on me were burned DVD films on those crappy Memorex discs that were everywhere about 8 years ago and I only used them because I got them for free. I have Verbatim and Taiyo Yuden DVD and CD media that are 10 years old and still load up in no time. Everything important goes on disc media for me. Now, I'm transferring things to single layer bluray discs and I'm going to start getting dual layer BD-Rs. And since everyone is SSD crazy now, these discs keep dropping in price.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Redundancy is the key to backing up your stuff. I use both hd's and optical media and both have served me well. I like bd's for the simple fact that they hold so much compared to dvd's and if you buy the media at the right time/place you can get it very reasonably priced.

 

[jkauff]

The Library of Congress standardized on BD50 for backup of digital assets, after an exhaustive study of alternatives. That's a pretty good endorsement.

 

[Mark R]

BD-R is designed for archival/long-term backup use.

BD-R LTH is a cheaper non-archival version intended for short-term backup.

Grrr. Necrothread.

 

[jkauff]

BD-R is designed for archival/long-term backup use.

BD-R LTH is a cheaper non-archival version intended for short-term backup.

Grrr. Necrothread.

In actual use, BD-R LTH seems to be a cheaper way for people to make copies of their Blu-ray movies for friends and family. :sneaky:

 

[tinpanalley]

Forgive my ignorance, but what are BD-R LTH and hw do they differ from regular BD-R?

 

[taltamir]

Forgive my ignorance, but what are BD-R LTH and hw do they differ from regular BD-R?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_recordable#BD-R_LTH_.28low_to_high.29

TLR version:
it lets manufacturers reuse older manufacturing equipment to produce lower quality blu ray disks.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I'd use 2.5" drives myself. Cheap, fast, and lots of capacity. You can also buy about a 1TB of cloud storage for about $100 a year these days as well. Could be an option as long as you don't mind the NSA reading it :whiste:

 

[ArisVer]

I don't understand why you say that CD/DVD (and most likely BR; don't own one and have no experience with them) are not good enough. I have CDs and DVDs that I burned around the year 2000 and I can still read them and access all the files that were burned. That's 15 years with older technology and materials. Is anyone trying to imply that a normal HDD will do better than that? Keep in mind that I store them in a nice box, away from sources like sunlight, heat, pressure, etc.
Like other posters I keep at least two local backups on HDDs, a DVD copy and a Cloud copy. That is good enough for me.

 

[Nashemon]

I don't understand why you say that CD/DVD (and most likely BR; don't own one and have no experience with them) are not good enough. I have CDs and DVDs that I burned around the year 2000 and I can still read them and access all the files that were burned. That's 15 years with older technology and materials. Is anyone trying to imply that a normal HDD will do better than that? Keep in mind that I store them in a nice box, away from sources like sunlight, heat, pressure, etc.
Like other posters I keep at least two local backups on HDDs, a DVD copy and a Cloud copy. That is good enough for me.

I'm puzzled, too. Does failure rate include factors like losing or breaking discs? For any type of disc, the main cause for any disc failure I've encountered has been scratched discs. A CD might skip due to a small scratch at the right angle. Data discs are much more resilient and have to be very heavily scratched to fail. From my experience with them at work, they get torn up (slid across metal counters) and still work fine. You look at them and wonder how they still work, but they do. And they are Memorex, even. BD's are supposed to be nearly impervious to skipping due to scratches.

From http://arstechnica.com/information-...lu-ray-discs-are-perfect-for-the-data-center/

"Each disc is certified for 50 years of operation; you can actually get some discs that are certified for 1,000 years of reliability," Coglitore said. "Because the media is separate from the drives, if you ever have a drive issue, you simply replace the drive, and you won't have to replace the data within a disc. From a reliability and operational standpoint it's quite elegant and efficient."

1 year old article. Wonder how that's going nowadays. For archiving, I don't see a better alternative.

 

[tynopik]

people use tape because it is by far the cheapest

that's not true any more

 

[taltamir]

I don't understand why you say that CD/DVD (and most likely BR; don't own one and have no experience with them) are not good enough

Because they aren't good enough.
Your typical write once disk (those who are not specifically archival grade, which are better but still vastly inferior to disks stamped in a factory) is rated to have 10% failure rate after 10 years of PERFECT storage (no light, no contact outside center ring, controlled temp and humidity). Home users do not store it perfectly, and even if they did the failure rate is unacceptable. Not to mention many disks not meeting the specs which they claim (they promise 10% failure rate after 10 years, but have a higher failure rate).
And my own experience with thousands of disks from many manufacturers has shown to me just how bad it is

Data discs are much more resilient and have to be very heavily scratched to fail

Scratches have nothing to do with it. I am talking about chemical degradation of the readable layer in disks that have 0 scratches

"Each disc is certified for 50 years of operation

1. archival grade disks of unknown make, not off the shelf disks
2. specialized storage (specifically cold storage, no UV, no contact with humans, etc)
3. only discusses blu ray disks (thus has nothing to do with cd/dvd disks)
4. rewritable disks not write once disks
5. its certified for 50 years by the manufacturer. That doesn't mean it will actually last that long.
CD/DVDs have been notorious for last significantly less time then they were certified for. You can choose to just take their word on it, but keep in mind that there is no such thing as a 50 year old BDRW so this is an educated guess as to how long they would last

 

[blastingcap]

Listen to taltamir, he knows what I know. Consumer written Blu-ray and DVD are not as sturdy as you think. The only reason why you can play your (legitimately purchased) DVDs from 20 years ago is because the mechanics of how high-volume DVDs are pressed are completely different than how consumer-grade DVD-Rs are written. Mass-produced DVDs are actually mechanically stamped--not chemically changed--so there is no chemical degradation so you don't have to worry about water molecules in the air or whatever getting in and ruining the chemicals in the dye.