slower so there’s more hassle swapping discs. One time use media generates trash when the data on the disc is obsolete. Discs are a better fit when the use case calls for read only access or physical copies cheap enough to literally hand out. Such as ransomware resistance or evidence chain of custody. For offline copies you could just be diligent in unplugging external hard drives and testing backups.
reply
Are you sure the physical media is suitable for archival purposes? Many discs degrade over time due to sunlight, oxidation, mechanical damages (scratches etc.) and such. I wouldn't count on them being readable in 5+ years unless the manufacturer has done accelerated aging tests and wants to vouch for their suitability.
It's also doubtful that BDXL readers are going to be available in the future. Physical discs are getting rarer and rarer.
Optical media costs more per GB/TB than hard disks. It’s lower capacity and slower so there’s more hassle swapping discs. One time use media generates trash when the data on the disc is obsolete. Discs are a better fit when the use case calls for read only access or physical copies cheap enough to literally hand out. Such as ransomware resistance or evidence chain of custody. For offline copies you could just be diligent in unplugging external hard drives and testing backups.
I think my age gives me a romantic attraction to the idea of BDXL. Engineering brain says "most likely, no."
Per GB, spinning rust is faster, cheaper, more mature, physically smaller, less fiddly, easier to obtain from Walmart at 10pm Tuesday night, and doesn't require special hardware made by a handful of manufacturers only in a short window of time.
As a small-run distribution medium, BDXL might be the right technology.
All with the caveat that BDXL might be an improvement over an existing archive practice. For clarity not archiving is not an existing archive practice and BDXL is not going to transform anyone into the kind of person who systematically archives their work...
...you will use BDXL as much as you used floppies, CDR, Zip, etc. Good luck.
slower so there’s more hassle swapping discs. One time use media generates trash when the data on the disc is obsolete. Discs are a better fit when the use case calls for read only access or physical copies cheap enough to literally hand out. Such as ransomware resistance or evidence chain of custody. For offline copies you could just be diligent in unplugging external hard drives and testing backups. reply
Are you sure the physical media is suitable for archival purposes? Many discs degrade over time due to sunlight, oxidation, mechanical damages (scratches etc.) and such. I wouldn't count on them being readable in 5+ years unless the manufacturer has done accelerated aging tests and wants to vouch for their suitability.
It's also doubtful that BDXL readers are going to be available in the future. Physical discs are getting rarer and rarer.
Optical media costs more per GB/TB than hard disks. It’s lower capacity and slower so there’s more hassle swapping discs. One time use media generates trash when the data on the disc is obsolete. Discs are a better fit when the use case calls for read only access or physical copies cheap enough to literally hand out. Such as ransomware resistance or evidence chain of custody. For offline copies you could just be diligent in unplugging external hard drives and testing backups.
BDXL is so expensive and low capacity. It seems totally unviable.
I thought Sony's 5.5 TB Optical Disc Archive looked cool but it was probably crazy expensive and AFAIK it's now discontinued.
Interesting question. My strategy for archival backups has been:
- local nas with decent redundancy
- a single external hard drive
- rclone everything to B2
so a lot of redundancy at relatively little cost. I have less than 100Tb but more than 20, so 100Gb would be too small..
The only thing I really want to back up are photos and documents and it’s probably < 200GB.
Anything else digital (like games, movies, music, books, …) I could buy again if I really wanted another copy.
I would think that tape would be better for archival storage. My experience has been that the writeable optical media does not hold up well long term.
BDXL = Blu-Ray?
Aren't they discontinuing the production?
Sony has stopped production but Verbatim is still making them.
I think my age gives me a romantic attraction to the idea of BDXL. Engineering brain says "most likely, no."
Per GB, spinning rust is faster, cheaper, more mature, physically smaller, less fiddly, easier to obtain from Walmart at 10pm Tuesday night, and doesn't require special hardware made by a handful of manufacturers only in a short window of time.
As a small-run distribution medium, BDXL might be the right technology.
All with the caveat that BDXL might be an improvement over an existing archive practice. For clarity not archiving is not an existing archive practice and BDXL is not going to transform anyone into the kind of person who systematically archives their work...
...you will use BDXL as much as you used floppies, CDR, Zip, etc. Good luck.
[dead]
[flagged]