<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Refreshing Data Storage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/05/refreshing-data-storage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/05/refreshing-data-storage/</link>
	<description>Wesley R. Elsberry&#039;s personal weblog, talking about falconry, science, antievolution, computation, and the broken body he lives in.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:25:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Austringer</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/05/refreshing-data-storage/comment-page-1/#comment-312647</link>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:13:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1952#comment-312647</guid>
		<description>So far, I haven&#039;t had an issue with the data CDs as far back as 1999. I have had some difficulty with a DVD written about the same time. All the CDs were verified for read-back at the time.

Yes, two hard disk copies that are not a RAID will be kept. Separate locations are a good thing. I have had a RAID where the operating system had a glitch, and it instantly took out data we had on both copies. So my ideal setup for internal storage would be a mirrored two-disk RAID and a third, non-mirrored disk that gets synchronized daily.

About Blu-ray: Last I checked, the cost per unit was still high, and burners were still multi-hundred dollar investment. Going with hard disk also means that the data is readily accessible for analysis, and that is a big plus on that account. Blu-ray would have also meant a significant amount of time spent re-mastering for the new layout per disk, and involved temporary hard disk storage of all the data anyway.

Unless you use some sort of glass platen for scanning film, I don&#039;t see a big difference in flatness between a good slide mount and the 35mm film holders that come with most slide scanners. If you have a warped cardboard slide mount, remount that slide in a Pakon mount. I think you can still get that. I got an Epson V500 scanner a while back that does a nice job. You can certainly do better if you are willing to spend $1000 or more instead of $170, but the Epson allows me to be actually scanning my aging collection of media rather than thinking that I will get to it someday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So far, I haven&#8217;t had an issue with the data CDs as far back as 1999. I have had some difficulty with a DVD written about the same time. All the CDs were verified for read-back at the time.</p>
<p>Yes, two hard disk copies that are not a RAID will be kept. Separate locations are a good thing. I have had a RAID where the operating system had a glitch, and it instantly took out data we had on both copies. So my ideal setup for internal storage would be a mirrored two-disk RAID and a third, non-mirrored disk that gets synchronized daily.</p>
<p>About Blu-ray: Last I checked, the cost per unit was still high, and burners were still multi-hundred dollar investment. Going with hard disk also means that the data is readily accessible for analysis, and that is a big plus on that account. Blu-ray would have also meant a significant amount of time spent re-mastering for the new layout per disk, and involved temporary hard disk storage of all the data anyway.</p>
<p>Unless you use some sort of glass platen for scanning film, I don&#8217;t see a big difference in flatness between a good slide mount and the 35mm film holders that come with most slide scanners. If you have a warped cardboard slide mount, remount that slide in a Pakon mount. I think you can still get that. I got an Epson V500 scanner a while back that does a nice job. You can certainly do better if you are willing to spend $1000 or more instead of $170, but the Epson allows me to be actually scanning my aging collection of media rather than thinking that I will get to it someday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: j a higginbotham</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/02/05/refreshing-data-storage/comment-page-1/#comment-312646</link>
		<dc:creator>j a higginbotham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1952#comment-312646</guid>
		<description>Any problems reading old cd&#039;s? Were they burned with write-verification?
[Our X-ray data are backed up on CD&#039;s going back to 1998, but a number did not burn properly despite no error messages.]

So you are keeping two hard disk copies (not RAIDEed?) in separate locations?

Did you consider Blu-ray?
------------
Do you know anything about backing up pictures?
The slide scanners don&#039;t require removal from holder, but wouldn&#039;t that be better? [I have a bunch of personal (usually out-of-focus/movement blurring) I&#039;d like to back up sometime.]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any problems reading old cd&#8217;s? Were they burned with write-verification?<br />
[Our X-ray data are backed up on CD's going back to 1998, but a number did not burn properly despite no error messages.]</p>
<p>So you are keeping two hard disk copies (not RAIDEed?) in separate locations?</p>
<p>Did you consider Blu-ray?<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
Do you know anything about backing up pictures?<br />
The slide scanners don&#8217;t require removal from holder, but wouldn&#8217;t that be better? [I have a bunch of personal (usually out-of-focus/movement blurring) I'd like to back up sometime.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

