On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 04:01:11PM -0500, Stephen Wiley wrote: > I was messing with blueray a couple years ago for archiving. Last I checked > it's pretty marginal in terms of cost when compared with SSDs.
Archiving to SSD? You can't be serious. I've seen more spurious unreported bit flips from SSDs than just about any other storage medium. SSD would be beyond my last choice for long term storage of anything I cared about. And is cost really the main or even most important factor when deciding on a backup strategy? > I don't think the larger capacity disks I bought are all that > high quality either. I haven't checked on them lately but I suspect they won't > be readable in ten years. Why not? (Unless you're using LTH discs, of course) Did you verify them at the time of writing? Manually verify, that is, not relying on the automatic read after write that blu-ray usually does if you have sparing enabled? At the end of last year, I did a comprehensive write-up about using blu-ray recordable on OpenBSD, and as part of that I checked around 100 BD-R discs that had been written about 10 years previously and verified as good at the time. Ten years laster, I found exactly ZERO bad discs. All data was readable from every single disc, (and returned the correct checksums). This is not the same technology as DVD-R. Good quality HTL blu-ray media does not, in my experience, deteriorate in the way organic dye based optical media deteriorates. > When you add to that the complexity of the whole multisession recording thing Huh? You can just write a _tar archive_ to the bd-r and read it back as if it was a tape. Where is the complexity in that? > I'm just not sure it's an improvement over hosting whatever disk is common at > the current time and periodically running rsync via some mechanism to keep > fresh > copies of your archives. So your 'archived' data is actually locally on-line and re-writable at any time? Silently overwritten by a faulty disk controller, for example? That sounds like a very bad choice to me.
