Time to Purchase a DVD-R? 307
Evanrude asks: "With DVD writers having significantly come down in price over the past year more companies are coming out with their version of the DVD-R. My company has a large file archive of documents and data that don't necessarily need to be stored on read/write media, but need to be kept online. I want to accomplish this with online DVD storage but is this the right way to go? Who has the best value with the most features of all the DVD-R's on the market? What are some things to look for and things to avoid when purchasing a DVD-R? Is it even time to purchase one, or should I wait another six months?"
No (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No (Score:2, Informative)
Well, lucky you! You can buy one now! Over 2 months ago microsoft decided to back DVD+R/RW. ;)
As for DVD management software in "Longhorn", here's a quote for ya: "Microsoft will be adding support for DVD+RW into a future version of Windows, code-named Longhorn, according to the site."
A good hardware site... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A good hardware site... (Score:2)
They require that you call up your credit card company and register your work address (or wherever) as a valid shipping address. This is a common enough requirement that the Citibank rep I talked with immediately knew what I was talking about. I've had lots of stuff shipped to my work address from both mwave [mwave.com] and Newegg [newegg.com] (which has the same requirement) and recommend them both. Between the two I can usually find the gear I want.
Go for it (Score:3, Interesting)
Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
EXACTLY my sentiment. I was an early adopter of both CD-ROM and CD-RW drives, but in both cases I didn't have a regular use for them until about two years later. And I'm one of the lucky ones, if you really think about it. If I had been an early adopter for Laser Disc, Divx, or any of the failed writable DVD standards, I would've wasted several hundred dollars on a stupid mistake.
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
Details... (Score:4, Insightful)
The best place for long-term storage is in RAM! (Score:2, Funny)
Too many types... (Score:3, Insightful)
So I think it'd be better to wait till they got a format that was agreed upon by all. Otherwise it reminds me too much of the k56flex vs. X2.
Besides, the longer you wait, the more favorable the price will be...
Re:Too many types... (Score:2)
Re:Too many types... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm thinking perhaps one purple laser...
Re:Too many types... (Score:2)
BTW, my Half-Life directory alone is 9 gigs, with mods, skins, level, movies, sounds. My entire Game directory fills a 80 gig PC. We need larger media NOW.
If it needs to be kept online (Score:2, Interesting)
Hard Drives are best for online storage (Score:4, Insightful)
I just picked up a few 120GB disks for $110/each. That will hold a lot of DVD's worth of Data. If the data needs to be kept on-line, HD's are much faster than any DVD drive. You'll also need another DVD drive for each 5-10GB of data, if using DVD's. So, the HD solution is much cheaper too.
DVD's are fine for backing up that data, but for real-time access, they are not ideal.
DVD drives *are* economical (Score:2, Informative)
Re:DVD drives *are* economical (Score:2)
I'm not sure what this means.. If noone needs to access it, it doesn't need to be online.
4*200=800. To get 800 gig out of hard drives, you'd need at least 6 160gig
Hmm.. 6 * 160 = 960; 5 * 160 = 800;
Or, 7 * 120GB = 840GB; $770.
So, I either have fast access for lots of files I don't need fast access for
Why do you assume that there is no need for fast access? Even if fast access is not an issue, how about concurrent access.. if a few people in the office need access to data on DVD's, that jukebox will be doing some major thrashing.
Also, you don't account for the cost of the DVD Media, or the time required to burn hundreds of DVD's.
Re:You are shopping at the wrong places (Score:2)
Re:Hard Drives are best for online storage (Score:5, Informative)
That's silly. A jukebox only requires one DVD drive for X number of DVDs, depending on your requirements X could be as large as 400 - that's the size of the largest consumer DVD *movie* jukebox - a Kenwood something or another.
As for data jukeboxes, take a look at the Powerfile C200 Studio [dvdjukebox.com] which is $1000 MSRP (not street) for 200 DVDs. With blank DVDs runing about $1.25 in quantities of 100 that puts you at no more than $1250 for 940GB of online data and probably closer to $1K if you buy from a discount hardware place.
The equivalent space in hard disks is going to run you more than that - according to pricewatch, the cheapest 120GB is $136 for the IBM models. Ignoring the reliability questions regarding recent IBM hard disks, that puts you at about $1100 just for the drives alone, you are looking at another $500 or so for an IDE controller that will handle 8 drives (3ware escalade 7850) plus you then need some sort of case to hold the drives and the computer in one since IDE cables aren't suppossed to get much longer than 18".
So, at least $1700 for an equivalent disk-based system, without redundancy. The DVD approach will give you a full mirror in offline storage for another $250 but to put redundancy into the hard disk system you are going to need either raid-5 or mirroring - both of which will significantly push up the price because 8 drives is the limit for a 3ware controller so you could go with larger disks (160GB) but they are about 180% the price of the 120GB drives or you could go to two more controllers controller and maybe five 120GB drives per controller which is going to be another $500 for the 2nd controller and another $270 for the extra drives pushing the total up to $2500 or so for the cheapest raid-5 system.
Sure, online storage of a disk array is going to be a whole lot faster than near-line storage of a DVD jukebox, but the guy who asked the original question only needs near-line speeds and the price with DVDs is a about half that for sizes around 1TB.
That's a bit skewed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that you need a computer system to connect the storage to either way; but interfacing would be really affordable with the model of jukebox you suggest, since it uses firewire (IEEE-1394). (I had sort of assumed that any high capacity changers would use FC or SCSI, requiring a significant chunk of cash for the interface, but apparently they don't.)
Also, any decent full tower case should be able to handle 8 3+1/2" standard height drives. (The fact that the majority of the world banishes themselves to bad mid or mini tower cases doesn't mean that everyone has to). My cheap-assed A/Open ATX full tower has 5 internal 3+1/2" bays (3 front, 2 rear), so I'd have to convert 3 of the 5+1/4" bays to hold the remaining hds, but there would still be 2 5+1/4"s and a 3+1/2" external left. Yes, this is quite a stretch, because my case isn't suited for the crapload of cooling you would need for all of those drives. Also the power supply would need to be fairly high capacity, as it might be difficult to stagger the drive spinups to avoid power problems without using SCSI. But it still shouldn't require especially rare/expensive casing, PS, or ATA controllerage.
I don't see why you're bringing RAID (especially hardware RAID -- very expensive and unnecessary when high throughput isn't crucial) into the equation. The jukebox wouldn't do mirrored reading in the RAID sense, because it only reads one disc at a time. And, although especially capabale bundled media jukebox software may prove me wrong, I doubt that it could automatically switch to an online backup disc when encountering a read error. So you would probably just keep the mirror set offline on the shelf to reclaim the jukebox capacity. The equivalent HD solution would have backup tapes on the shelf too. (the Jukebox may have less repair downtime, more than software RAID's none, but more cost competitive also.)
more later...
Re:That's a bit skewed... (Score:2)
Re:You're ignoring latency (Score:3, Informative)
The time is right? No way. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The time is right? No way. (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) make DVD's that play on your settop box
(2) burn 4450 megs of file onto a platter.
What more do you need? I love my A03.
Re: Pioneer DVD drives (Score:3, Informative)
I originally had a Phillips DVD+RW drive, and quickly learned it wasn't compatible with anything but itself, and some of the DVD-ROM drives in computers out there. I returned it promptly.
Then, I read all the hype about the Pioneer A03 (and now A04) being the only sensible choice, since the write-once DVD-R media it burns is much more compatible with the average set-top DVD player.
I bought my A03, and while the drive seems to be great quality -- I haven't had any luck making a DVD movie that plays on anything other than a computer's DVD-ROM drive.
My Sony Playstation 2 makes a pretty valiant effort to play the DVD-R movies - but they seem to start getting read errors as you near the end of the disc. This is really frustrating when you're watching a 90 min. long or so movie, and right when it hits the action-packed climax - it stutters and quits playing with an "invalid media" message on the screen!
I also own a Samsung set-top DVD player (the model 812). It refuses to play anything on DVD-R discs I create. It seems to read the disc and recognize it as valid - but then it typically gets errors trying to bring up the initial menu screens. If you ignore that and press PLAY, it starts playing but skips large portions of the movie, freezes occasionally, and the sound stutters.
In my experience so far, the people tabulating lists of which DVD players are "compatible" are simply dropping DVD-R discs in the devices and seeing if it recognizes them as a movie. That's only the first part of the battle, folks. If it can't play the entire movie error-free, what's the use?
Re:The time is right? No way. (Score:2, Informative)
-Bill
DVD+RW (Score:5, Informative)
I've just been thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, there are a couple of competing standards out there now: DVD-RAM, DVD-RW and DVD+RW. The first, DVD-RAM, seems to have no future that I can see, and is apparantly a superclass for several different standards. Apple's DVD writers are the second kind and probably have the largest installed base. But it looks like the big players are going for the third ("+"). In addition, one of the -RW format's big supporters was Compaq and HP supports +RW. I'm assuming that Compaq will switch camps, leaving Apple more or less isolated. That has me leaning toward +RW.
One thing to watch out for -- the "first generation" of +RW drives can't handle write-once media. They're RW only, and the disks are more expensive. HP, for one, is releasing a second-generation writer (maybe called the 200i?) this month, that can do the write-once archival thing.
If I really needed it now, I'd go for a newer +RW format. But it would probably be less risky to wait 6-12 months to see how things shake out.
Re:DVD+RW (Score:4, Insightful)
All that said, yes, all the big Wintel companies will probably successfully force DVD+RW on the marketplace, and eventually win out. You're sold yourself: referring to +RW as "3rd generation" (it's not) and "newer" (which it is, but you're using it to imply "better" or "more mature", which it's not). +RW is a COMPETITOR to DVD-RW, not a generation ahead of it. DVD-RW is the accepted DVD Forum standard, but apparently the Wintel crowd just couldn't stand Apple being first[1] to the table with a new technology again.
[1] As in, the first big player to mainstream it, akin to 802.11 with AirPort.
Re:DVD+RW (Score:2)
The DVD Forum backs the DVD-R format, the DVD Alliance backs the DVD+R format, and consumers couldn't give a damn about either of them, except apparently you. The DVD logo is only usable by DVD Forum-approved products, the DVD+RW logo is only usable by DVD Alliance-approced products, and again you dredge up another meaningless legal distinction.
But where you get the idea that DVD+RW products "technically" aren't DVDs and can't even be called DVDs, I still don't know. The letters "DVD" are not a trademark, so it's not even a legal issue. Technically, since DVD+R discs more closely resemble [dvdplusrw.org] DVD Video discs due to how they're written, that makes them more a DVD that DVD-R, but again - who cares. They're both equally compatible with DVD Video players & DVD ROM drives, even with each other - they both read each other's discs.
Since "better" is a very subjective term, it's pointless arguing over that. One could say that DVD+R/RW writers are faster [dvdplusrw.org] & more [dvdplusrw.org] flexible [dvdplusrw.org] than even the 2nd gen of DVD-R/RW writers, but then DVD-R/RW writers & media are still a little cheaper, so maybe that's "better" for some. Or maybe just that Apple is backing DVD-R (since it was available first) and not DVD+R, is enough for you.
In any case, get over it. Both standards have their advantages, and since each will read the other's discs, the only real concern consumers need have is where to get the appropriate media. There's no need for such blatent FUD, even here on /.
Re:DVD+RW (Score:3, Insightful)
Philips no longer part of the copyright industry (Score:2, Insightful)
You might also say Sony, but Sony only cares about not paying as much in royalties and they have their whole video/audio sections as well just like Philips.
Actually, Philips sold its entertainment-industry holdings to Polygram, so unlike Sony, it's not torn between selling CD burners and selling uncopyable CDs. Philips does hold patents on key CD and DVD technologies, along with the trademark on "Compact Disc".
Re:DVD+RW Support (Score:2)
Many modern DVD players already support [vcdhelp.com] DVD+RW, and I'm sure support will only grow.
CD "x" != DVD "x" (Score:4, Informative)
Also, it can burn CDs at 12X. DVDs only burn at 2.4X
Actually, 2.4x DVD is faster than 12x CD. 12x CD transfers at 12 times 150 KB, or 1800 KB/s, while 2.4x DVD transfers at 2.4 times 1152 KB/s (I think) to make 2700 KB/s.
Re:DVD+RW (HP DVD Writer dvd200i) (Score:2)
Then go through your startup programs group and the "Run" keys in your registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Windows/CurrentVersi
Wait a little longer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a little longer. (Score:2)
Use hard drives... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Use hard drives... (Score:2, Insightful)
DVD? Why? (Score:2, Informative)
A 80gb IDE drive costs less then $100, and holds more then 5 DVDs. If you need speed, go SCSI, it'll end up costing as much as the opticial solution and be easier to manage. But really, optical media has been obsoleted by todays harddrive sizes. If it needs to be portable, then there might be a reason to go for it, but even then you should look at removable harddrives.
You said it yourself... (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone once said, that's the great thing about standards, there are so many of them. You might want to wait and let the dust settle rather than risk a heavy investment in a possible orphan format. Already HP and a couple of other makers are weasling on drives that were supposed to be software upgradeable to record more than one DVD-R or RW format, but it turns out it's not going to be that simple and the hardware will have to be replaced.
Re:You said it yourself... (Score:2)
If history repeats itself... (Score:2)
After all, look at 56k modems... two incompatible standards when they first came out, but now every 56k modem supports 56k-Flex and X2. Similar situation with CD-RW drives; the format is incompatible with CD-R, but manufacturers quickly saw the importance of selling burners that support both formats.
It'll happen, I guarantee it.
Re:You said it yourself... (Score:2)
If your using it for backups.. who cares if it's an orphan format, as long as you can still purchase the media/drive.
The problem is that orphan formats tend to disappear entirely or become very expensive. Manufacturors know that if you're buying an orphan format, it must be because you have to. Their pricing strategy for media changes from "must be competitive" to "just barely less painful than porting to the dominant format". The drives are even worse. There, they can use the strategy of "just barely less painful than losing all of your archived data to date".
A couple of years ago, I saw refurb. 100MEG RLL HDs available for only $600. At that rate, it would only cost $18,000 to replace my 30Gig.
I wouldn't go this route. (Score:2)
safe storage or a bunch of coasters? (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM and DVD (Score:2, Interesting)
Just get an external/removable HD... (Score:2)
Really. The cost per gig on an extra hard drive is no longer prohibitive to just use one to back up your data, then store it in a safe location. It's faster in transfer than a CD, and depending on setup, could work very well with a central server in your network used to back up files. There are various caddy's available from various companies, so the process would be to plug in, and synch up with the server.
Just one example of such a product [devdepot.com]
If I needed to set up a comprehensive backup, I'd definetly choose a secure central server for important data with a nice RAID setup, and have a set of external HD's synched up daily and stored offsite.
The major disadvantages to CDr/DVDr's would be vulnerability to magnetic damage, and lack of a true history due to the write-once nature of CDr/DVDr's. You'd still want a CDr drive also, for things like mailing data to people, and perhaps for special backup situations with limited data. I still see no major role for a DVDr drive though.
Ryan Fenton
Magnetic Damage?? Not quite... (Score:3, Informative)
The material that "holds" the data in most audio CD's is usually aluminum, and the way that the data is stored is through "pits" or tiny holes in the media. Other types of CD's use dye layers to
"expose" these pits, and still others use gold and other substrates to hold the data. As such, most CD's are basically immune to magnetic fields unless they are *extremely* powerful. There are
other types of CD's that do use magnetics (the Magneto-Optical CD for one) that could theoretically be affected, but it would need a
far higher strength magnetic field for a long period of time than you would probably have. It is improbable that you would come into
contact with these media in a music library (unless perhaps they are CD master pressings which are used to actually make the CD's at the
factory).
I have no Idea what you think a "True History" wold be on a non write once media type. Do you mean like a Journal in a File System?? Not needed due to the unchanging nature of the write once media. History as far as backups?? Well, write once means it can't be overwritten, so properly stored it could concievably hold the history of a file system much better than a Tape backup that gets overwritten every third week.
DVDr is great for archives that do not need to be accessed often, and are more convenient that using 7 CD's for the same purpose. Law and Real Estate firms can use them for storing scanned contracts, Graphic Artists can use them for storing large layouts, or an entire portfolio.
Goes to prove, don't believe everything you read on Slashdot.
Hammy
Re:Magnetic Damage?? Not quite... (Score:2)
I meant the only disadvantage [compared] to CD/DVD's in response to the first complaint, not that CD's were at all vulnerable to magnetics as HD's are.
The "true history" would mean that you get a real snapshot of what was on the drive at that time, each day's image kept on record. With source control, for instance, older versions may even be removed or altered. Having distant history kept on CD would also prevent damage from having files deleted long ago that weren't discovered until much later, and were outside source control. The problem with a rotation of HD's would be that you lose this long-term history.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DVD still not up to Par (Score:5, Informative)
4.1GB per disc (with double sided support not looking promising...) at 100 DVDs = 411 GB storage
100 CDs = 65GB storage. (roughly)
Our first look was at the costs associated. The Price difference between a DVD Jukebox and a CD jukebox was not insignificant, but was not a breaker. The writers have come down in price, and the Media is expensive, but not prohibitively so. So, from a simple cost perspective, the system was feasable.
However, when working with provided demo models, we found a 25% CHANCE OF BURNING A COASTER, with the write times being ridiculously slow. We then recalculated for the extra media expense and extended staffing. (The admin would need to keep a longer watch less often, but the CDs could be burned during the BU guys shift, now they will go past.)
With the addition of two hours employee time and planning for the purchase of 10% more media, the costs of DVD were slightly more. Then the vendor called, the DVD jukebox requires new switching Software that runs some $5,000.00.
So, we looked for used CD jukeboxes, found one for almost 1/2 the price of the hardware alone, and it still works with our old software.
Now, we did all of these calculations based on price per MB, and condidering the the DVD system has 7x the storage space, that also means it is 7x the cost. I feel confident that when we revisit this upgrade in 2 years the prices will be dramatically lower and the quality will be better. I still think you can't beat a $50 CDR and 0.20 media costs.
Unless you work for a company that enjoys having the latest and greatest (OOOH! I can access the SAN from my PocketPC with wireless.) I think you'd be better off sticking with the tried and true methods, wait for the writing SW to get more stable and wait for the standards to crystalize.
01 - That's my two bits
01110110 - That's the Byte I took out of "Crime"
Hammy
Re:DVD still not up to Par (Score:3)
Re:DVD still not up to Par (Score:5, Insightful)
Great idea. All they'd need then is some sort of terabyte backup system. Do you recommend CDs, DVDs or tape?
This keeps coming up again and again. No matter how cheap HDs get, they just don't have the durability, portability, or lifetime of "real" offline storage. Sadly, backup technology just isn't keeping up with HD capacities. When >1GB drives first came out, you could get 20GB tapes. Now that we've got 100GB drives, the world needs a TB archive media.
Re:DVD still not up to Par (Score:3, Funny)
As for the backup, well, the original CDs that were loaded onto the jukebox can act as the backup of music data, no?
Re:DVD still not up to Par (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DVD still not up to Par (Score:2, Interesting)
Backup with tape made sense when a tape cartridge was larger than a typical hard drive, and also cheaper than a typical hard drive, not to mention that hard drives used to be extremely expensive as compared to the present day.
If you want portability, there are quite a few ways to drag a hard drive around and hot swap it wherever you might need it.
And "real" offline storage? WTF do you mean by that? I've seen far more tapes die than HD's. I still have two hard drives over 15 years old and they still work. The typical life of magnetic tape is 10 years. I've had plenty of CDs die too.
Maybe you mean punchcards? Those suckers last forever so long as the overhead plumbing holds up! Maybe I should hook the old card reader back up? I'm sure I saw it around here somewhere just the other day...
I'm waiting for the standard :D (Score:2)
And then they'll change it on you. (Score:2)
DVD Jukeboxes (Score:5, Informative)
If you do go the DVD route, watch out for:
Running out of discs (these things go faster than you think)
Jammed discs
Depending on the client software, inane Windows error messages - quite a few programs don't know how to handle waiting for a disk to move into an active drive.
...and if you don't use Windows, well... lucky you. Just my experiences - everyone else's will undoubtedly vary.
Is this some kind of a trick question? (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly know:
What kind of answer do you expect on a question like that? In other words: A friend of mine has a saying: "The sky is blue, computers get cheaper." If a DVD-R is worth the money for you now, you need it and can afford it - then buy it. If not, don't. It's that simple.
For your application, wait. (Score:2, Informative)
I've had a DVD-R for nearly six months and after having used it, I think it's a technology that's best suited for a few things (IMO, of course):
If I were in your situation, I'd go for a large drive -- 120GB drives are around $200, last I checked, which is a steal. Plus it's faster and generally less hassle. DVD blanks are at a minimum $5, but usually more expensive (RWs definitely are, I think Rs are around $5)
Alternatively, if you're looking for portable but large-volume storage, I'd definitely consider a firewire drive. (and depending on your needs, this is an excellent opportunity to justify the iPod purchase... ;) )
Recordable DVDs seem to be most convenient as a large-scale archiving medium; smaller stuff can go by the 'net or CD-R.
Just buy more hard drives. (Score:3, Informative)
I just finished costing out a 3-petabyte database for a NASA project, and by far the cheapest way to back up data is to write them to hard drives, unplug the hard drives, and stick them in the closet. It's not an archival solution but archival media cost so much more and are so small compared to hard drives, it's ridiculous. For archival stuff we're holding out to see whether Blu-Ray takes off.
I went for DVD+RW (Score:5, Informative)
I had to take the plunge due to my having many GB's of digicam generated photos. My DLT backups were just using too many tapes.
Some random thoughts:
The second generation DVD+RW drives are just coming out. The only one availasble is the HP 200i. Here's [dvdplusrw.org] an overview of the 2nd gen drives, and here's [dvdplusrw.org] an overview of the 1st gen drives.
The 2nd generation drives support DVD+R, many of the 1st do not.
TheNerds.net [thenerds.net] have the best media prices. I looked a lot and could find no better.
The HP drive, which I bought, comes with "drive letter access" software. Basically, a packet writer so you can just use the Windows explorer (yes, where I use the drive) to drag and drop files onto it. I have the suspicion that my McAfee VirusScan 4.5.1 stopped working when I installed the HP software. McAfee has not been able to figure out why their software is not working (service error 5011, which is a timeout of some sort).
I've been trying to author some DVD's, and I had good luck playing my DVD+RW's in my DVD player. I used a trial of Uleads DVD Workshop.
I held off until the 2nd gen drives were available, and was forced to purchase the HP because it's the only one out. I would have prefered the Philips DVDRW228 over the HP, but no one has the Philips drive in stock, that I could find.
So far, I'm happy, and I'm hoping HP will update their drivers and VirusScan will start working again.
Re:Notes from a Mac-basher (Score:2)
Two tangents that worry me (Score:3, Informative)
#1. I want to be able to access this material 5-10 years from now. With CD-R's, if you want to protect your data we now know that you are best off with Tayio Yuden or Kodak. With DVD mediums though . . . no one has any clue what the real life on these discs are, especially since most are apparently using a different dye then CD-R's do (if you've never seen a DVD-R, on most the bottom is a light blood red).
#2. Cost. CD-R's are pretty much the cheapest backup medium now. DVD-R's are still fairly expensive, but the third option is what intrigues me. IDE drives are easily available now for $1/gig. A hot swappable IDE drive bay from Vantec runs you about $40 retail. I have seriously considered just buying IDE drives for backup, and using the hot swappable bay to change them. Much easier, much faster. What makes me nervous about this is the 'all your eggs in one basket' problem, but from my experience with hard drives, if they survive the initial part of their 'bathtub' failure cure, they are good for years.
Re:Two tangents that worry me (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Kodak is getting out of the CD-R business. Which is a damn shame - if anyone knows about archival properties of dyes and plastics, it's them, as they've been doing similar stuff for over a hundred years.
Right now if you go to shop@kodak on Kodak's home page [kodak.com] you can get some "closeout" deals on their remaining stock. Most of the online wholesalers have already run out of existing stock.
I think Mitsui is planning to remain in the high-quality CD-R media business for a little while longer.
Double bladed lightsaber (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe the next paycheck will purchase this DVD-R technology, but probably not because of the mortgage payments or the fact that you can easily spend and equal amount of money on gas for six months. Better win the lottery or cross your fingers if you want that new toy movie recorder.
Don't worry, this doesn't really apply to you at all! You probably got a job and can pay your bills. Cherrish what you have because it has been taken from so many.
Where is the pot of gold? The ninjas of plutocracy have stolen it away during the night and the daimyo is pleased.
Peace to all.
Re:Double bladed lightsaber (Score:2)
Focus on Media -- not (Score:2)
If you have this big archive you need to keep online, "Should I use DVD-R?" is the wrong question. DVD-R is just a kind of media, and there are many choices here. The basic issue is "What kind of application is this, and what is there to support it?"
The answer to that is that is that this is a Hierarchical Storage Management [techtarget.com] application. I won't pretend to be an expert on HSM, but there's a lot of different HSM technology. The choice of media here (and there are lots of alternatives to DVD-R and CD-R) is probably less important than jukeboxes or other robot hardware you have to buy to manage them, and the software you have to buy to manage to hardware.
Near-line vs. backups vs. archival... (Score:5, Informative)
There are really three seperate categories you get into once you're considering moving data from primary storage. You seem to be asking about the first, but I'll cover all three for completeness.
Near-line (a.k.a secondary storage)
Primary storage almost always consists of the fastest hard drives directly attached to your data source (file server, SAN, workstation, whatever). Historically, near-line has been some medium where the end-user could access the data required in the same manner as primary storage, but at a slower rate. The old solution used to be either a different server using older/slower disks, or an RW optical jukebox. Near-line storage almost always is very high read-usage, but the occasional write isn't unlikely, so you generally want a media that can support writes.
Backups (a.k.a. save-your-ass storage)
Backups are a place to temporarily save data in case of an emergency. The criteria generally don't include re-writability, but do concern with ease-of-access in the case of a recovery. In addition, Backups expire - after a certain period of time, the data is no longer available. Tape has been the choice for this for a long time, with it's high storage capacity and low cost. Higher-end solutions have been the "on-line snapshot" capabilities of SAN and NAS devices (essentially to make a static mirror of data on extra storage space). CD-R and even floppies have been popular for the low-end. Whatever the choice is, the main concern is reliability, and the ability to backup the data within a set time window.
Archival (a.k.a save it for the history books)
This is a big one, and one frequently misunderstood. The two major criteria for Archival purposes are Survivability, and Retrievability. That is, the solution has to make sure it does NOT degrade with time (i.e. it doesn't introduce errors after sitting on the shelf for 20 years) and that you will realistically have a method to retrieve the data over it's lifetime (e.g. are they still going to have devices that can read your data media in 30 years?) Magnetic tape is a BAD THING for Archival purposes, despite its common usage. It fails on both tests. Mastered CDs (NOT CD-R) and Optical Disks are generally the preferred method here.
In the modern world, I would recommend a backup server using RAIDed IDE drives for Near-line these days. The relative cheapness of IDE drives, combined with the newer IDE RAID cards provides an unbeatable cost/storage/reliability ratio (far superior to CD, DVD, Tape, or Optical Disk), and it's by far the easiest to maintain and use, since it's simply another fileserver. Don't scrimp, however. A good one of these should probably run $3-$4k with 8-10 100GB drives, redundant power supply, and hardware RAID.
Backups are a bit more complex, and the variables make a one-size-fits-all recommendation unrealistic. And you didn't ask for that anyway, so I'm not going to make one. :-)
Archival really means you want to keep (or are required to keep) the data around, but don't need access to it much. If you don't intend to keep the data for more than 15-20 years, you can probably get away with CD-R. Otherwise, look into having your data pressed onto CD (i.e. real mastered CDs). They last a good 100 years or so, and it's relatively cheap. In either case, you want multiple copies of each disc, and the good-old CD-jukebox is your friend.
As you imply (and other posters have noted), DVD-R/RAM/RW/+RW isn't quite stabilized yet. Despite their larger capacity, I wouldn't change the above recommendations, other than replacing CDs with DVD when it settles down - DVD mastering isn't anywhere as cheap as CD mastering is (and if you do master DVDs, make sure that you specify UNENCRYPTED DVD so you don't get CSS put on accidentally).
As a side note: there's a whole industry built around Hierarchical Storage Management (HSM) which deals with automatically moving data between the various storage levels, and recovering it as need be. It's a bit beyond what you describe you're looking for, but look at one of the big UNIX storage players' (Sun, HP, IBM, EMC) site for a whitepaper on it. They're a good read for concepts which you can apply, even if you're not using their multi-million-dollar hardware/software packages.
Best of luck.
-Erik
Re:Near-line vs. backups vs. archival... (Score:2)
That's a good summary.
It's sad these days that traditional near-line solutions (CD/TAPE/DVD) jukeboxes are inevitable more expensive than just expanding the online storage.
It seems that pricing dictates going from 3 tiers to 2 tiers. A very large online storage saved to DVD or CD (without jukebox) for archival backup, along with software that allows for extended incremental backup. If the online is RAID, the archival backup decently unlikely to ever be called upon, so can be handled with at most a couple of 4 disc changers for burning new data. If a reload ever does need to happen, that's what unskilled labor is for (consider a temp agency).
Given that, I don't see the point in a jukebox at all (other than it looks cool). If more enterprises realized this, their price would fall in line I suspect.
The TCO of IDE-RAID is much better (Score:5, Informative)
Hard drives on the other hand are very cost effective:
Under 1TB $1000-$1500
1-10 TB $4,500-$45,000 10+ TB $45,000+ Since you are looking at optical you are probably looking for a system in the 1 TB range. For this I would recommend a single UltraTrak. The purchase price will be a fraction of what a optical library would cost, the reliability will be better, and the maintenance will be cheaper. Maintenance of these things is very simple: when a drive fails the alarm goes off. Buy a new drive and put it in. That's it!Optical may not look that bad when you look at the purchase price and the idea of a robot is cool but you also have to look at the cost of maintaining a machine like that in terms of time and money. When you add it all up, hard drives win every time.
Buy a 60 gb hard disk instead. (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, the solution I have gone for is to put together a 1/2 terabyte server on my network. For the cost of $80 for a case, $80 for a motherboard, $80 for a cpu chip, $80 for memory, $640 for 8 60 gb disk drives (at $80 ea), and $80 bucks for 2 more ide controllers, you can get a ~1/2 terabyte server for $1040. Run a Linux and put up Samba and Appleshare for free. Super high performance, not. But enough to do storage of infrequently used files and backup space.
If you can afford to wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
For data storage, this will be a godsend - and the prospect of a 1080i high-defintion movie on a single disk has me salivating.
The problem with the format, as I see it, is twofold:
Anyway, my $0.01 (the Canadian exchange rate sucks)
"Don't critisize. Create a better alternative."
Re:If you can afford to wait...(somewhat offtopic) (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Because film is progressive, not interlaced. When they convert the film to NTSC video (using equipment/process called telecine), they have to convert it to interlaced format, using a process called 3:2 pulldown. This splits each frame into two interlaced fields, which raises the effective rate from 24 Hz to 48 Hz. Then they duplicate some of the fields, to get from 48 Hz to the video rate of 60 Hz. Actually the NTSC rate is 59.94 Hz, but usually they ignore that detail, and the running time of the resulting video is off by 0.1%.
This results in a big difference compared to the output of video cameras. With a video camera, the two interlaced fields that make up a frame are not captured simultaneously. Instead, the camera captures a separate field every 1/60 of a second. Thus if the camera or the scene is moving, you will not be able to merge two consecutive fields into a single coherent frame. When the video is played back at normal speed, this is not a problem; in fact, it makes the video "smoother". However, if you try to display a still frame, you will see the image oscillate between the two time-independent fields at 30 Hz, which is incredibly annoying.
With telecine output, however, consecutive fields come from the same film frame. And the MPEG-2 video stream takes advantage of this by avoiding encoding the duplicate fields that were inserted by the 3:2 pulldown. So the DVD actually contains 48 fields per second, with flags that tell the player which fields to duplicate for the pulldown. A progressive-scan DVD player simply uses those flags to reconstruct the original non-interlaced frames.
For DVDs from a video source, a progressive player does have to do some "magic" in order to get reasonable deinterlaced output. This is not an exact science; different players use various techniques to do this, so the resulting quality can vary quite a bit.
Note that for PAL and SECAM video, the field rate is 50 Hz, so 3:2 pulldown is not used. But it is still possible for the DVD player to do perfect deinterlace of DVDs mastered from film.
Some are quite inexpensive.DVD+RW on the cheap (Score:2)
Anyway, the burners are sweet. It takes about a half hour to toast a DVD, but hey - it's 4.7GB per side. The media is kina expensive, more than twice CD-R for storage, more if you do the +RWs. Teamed with a Plextor, I'm covered.
It's really not economical to put my TV shows on DVD yet. Besides, most are coming out now in DVD collections and I'd rather have those than go to the trouble of archiving. But for mp3 they're sweet. Do you have any idea how many mp3s fit on a DVDR?
DVDs hold a lot of promise for storage. I'm hopeful that BlueRay will be cheap (and uncrippled) enough to be ubiquitous. Still, it's obvious that DVD will not be the format of choice for backups. Already, IDE drives outpace the storage capacity of DVDs, tape, and other backup mediums. Storing an image on a network drive still seems the best way.
I have one - depends on what you want to do (Score:3, Informative)
And 4.3 GB really aren't a lot. It's not even enough to store one hour of DV video (13 GB).
In a few months or a year you will have a) much cheaper DVD-Rs and b) new optical discs, likely to be over 10 times bigger than DVD-Rs.
On the other hand, if you do want to make video DVDs, make sure you buy a drive that will record in a format compatible with most readers. Mine is a Pioneer (DVR-A03) and so far all discs have worked fine in all set-top players I have tried. From what I've heard, DVD-RW and DVD+RW have problems with a lot of players (especially old ones, but also some recent models). There is a nice list of formats and players here:
VCD Help DVD players compatibility list [vcdhelp.com]
Also, most "consumer" DVD authoring programs are crap. Be ready to pay at least an extra 1000 dollars / euros on software if you want to be able to do any interesting stuff like multiple audio tracks, animated menus, etc..
To do the MPEG-2 encoding, I use TMPGEnc (slow but has the best quality, IMO). I wrote a small guide that you can find here [netcabo.pt].
RMN
~~~
This early adopter of DVD-RAM is sorry... (Score:3, Interesting)
The media started out being very expensive--$40 for 2.6 gig. Now the price of the media is reasonable, but the format is all but orphaned.
I'm using DVD-RAM as my backup medium, but I have to wonder whether any future machine I buy will actually be able to read the things.
So, I jumped in too soon and I'm sorry.
Is it time for DVD-R, or DVD+R? Don't ask me. I thought it was time for DVD-RAM and I was wrong.
Oh, well, at least I bought a ZIP drive when a colleague was buying some kind of magneto-optical 135-megabyte device that was faster/cheaper/better/orphaned...
FYI ... blanks are just US$1.20... (Score:3, Informative)
I've been buying them from esbuy.com, for about $1.20 each.
If you search pricewatch.com, you can find the DVR-104 (OEM version of DVR-A04) Pioneer drive for $260.
The burn speeds are decent (beats DVD-RAM!), and it's compatible with (nearly all) DVD Video players that are less than a year old.
Error 101: not enough data to process request (Score:2, Insightful)
- what data do you want to store (video, databases, images...)
- what do you use it for ? Which client programs (and, in which OS ) need the data ? Which OS do the server run on ?
- what is the amount of data you need to store ? (to start with, and periodic updates thereafter)
- how long to you need to archive it ?
- what is the access pattern (frequent access to all and any data, just in case the Hd fails, if we have an audit...). Derived question: do you want full automatic acces to your backups, or is a long delay or even Restore operation OK ?
- is what you are looking for part of a multi-tier data system, or just a plain backup system ?
- what is your budget ?
- what human ressources do you have, both in terms of time and competence ?
- if you're investigating DVD, what is your take on the more classic media (HD, Tape, CD) ? What do you see are their strong and weak points ?
Best regards, Olivier
DVD-R.....WHY? (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, ONLY after I just bought one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, the Pioneer drive is supposedly the top of the line, consumer version of the A04 (for general use DVD-R disks)--and it also burns CD-R's at 8x, so you get a 2-in-1 drive if you don't already have a CD-R burner. I also looked at the prices of the media, which have drastically dropped in price, down to about $2 a disk. Now, is this all worth it? I don't know--if enough ppl ask, I may post a review with this comment after I get my drive this week. In the meantime, I will say that I ordered my drive for $275 using PriceWatch.com as my guide. I remember getting my SCSI Yamaha 4x CD-R burner for almost $400, and spending $2-3 for the media, which was only about 3-4 years ago. I know I've been an early adopter, but I think DVD is the way to go for a lot of people--just give it some thought as to whether it's for you or not.
multiple DVD-R formats? (Score:2)
There does seem to be uncertainty about DVD-RW/DVD+RW/DVD-RAM, but that is a different matter.
No proponents for tape systems instead? (Score:3, Informative)
Tape is still the cheapest media and most widely used and will continue to get more dense and less expensive over the next 4-5 years. You can currently buy LTO1 and AIT3 tapes for less than $100 per 100GB tape in large quantities. Sony has a 500GB half-inch format (S-AIT) coming out within a year. The jukeboxes and libraries are still expensive compared to CD changers, but if you have alot of data to backup, their up-front cost is not as significant. If you have lots of small data sets (600MB) to archive, it might make sense to use something random-access like CDs or near-line disk. If you have large databases or filesystems to archive, it's alot easier to manage one 100GB tape rather than 153 CDs or 20 DVDs for the same data. How are you going to manage and inventory all of those CDs? If you need to store more than 1TB, consider disk or tape solutions instead.
ATA disk-based technology might seem inexpensive at first. I've seen FCAL/SCSI solutions lower that $20/GB. I've seen commercial ATA RAID5 subsystems as low as $10/GB. One can build-it-yourself using off-the-shelf cheap parts ($3/GB white box system?), but would you trust your data on the cheapest disk technology? What happens when a disk dies or when the filesystem becomes corrupted? Consider, also, how you might scale a disk-based solution beyond 1TB (if that's what you need to do). Think about power, cooling, managing failed drives, etc. Also, do you really need to keep disk drives actively spinning for data you might not access again for at least 6 months?
In short, if you have less than 2TB of data to backup and small data sets, CD is inexpensive, but building an ATA-based archive system could work better, especially for managing the data. If you need to archive more than 10TB, tape is still the best proven way to go. In between, it may be possible to mix and match technologies to be cost-effective and still provide good performance. For example, you might keep 3-6 months of data on disk and archive the rest to a tape library.
-ez
Wait until the burn speed increases (Score:2)
This was a brand spankin' new drive that had just hit retail like a week prior (I think it was a Philips), so I wondered if it was really the state of the art. Anyway, personally I'd wait until the burn speed increased to the point where I wouldn't have to wait most of the day to do an entire disc.
Re:They're nice, but not for you (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They're nice, but not for you (Score:3, Insightful)
Lastly, as to 20 year old harddrives being incompatible with today's, yes that is true. But you have no crystal ball, and you can't say that today's HDDs will be inaccessible in 20 years, nor can you be sure that CD and DVD will continue to be familiar formats. Besides, if the data is important enough to be kept around, chances are the hardware to access it will be too (or haven't you seen machine rooms that still use tape backups from X years ago?)
Re:They're nice, but not for you (Score:4, Informative)
That's a valid point. As long as you leave the harddrive in place, that's true. But if you have it in a swap mount, things look different. The point is, a DVD is a plastic disc. A harddrive contains a lot of moving parts and sensitive electronics. The data on a DVD is burnt into a layer of dye. On a harddrive, the information is encoded as tiny magnetic fields, which decay over time.
[DVDs] Are also proprietary. Are you sure your DVD-R can read the DVD you burned on another company's DVD-R?
Almost every DVD drive or player you can buy right now can at least read DVD-Rs. Older ones probably too. I don't know about the other standards, but DVD-R seems to be the most agreed upon.
Data on a DVD-R can't be intentionally erased, or even modified. This isn't necessarily a good thing. Depends on how up-to-date you need your data to be, doesn't it?
Of course, depends on the type of data. To quote the original poster: "My company has a large file archive of documents and data that don't necessarily need to be stored on read/write media [...]"
Lastly, as to 20 year old harddrives being incompatible with today's, yes that is true. But you have no crystal ball, and you can't say that today's HDDs will be inaccessible in 20 years, nor can you be sure that CD and DVD will continue to be familiar formats.
There's very good reason to assume that. The DVD is not only a standard for computers, but also for consumer appliances, i.e. DVD players. As long as there are going to be DVD movies, there will be DVD-ROM drives. And probably even after that. Ever wondered why a DVD is the size of a CD? Because it allows the DVD drive to read CD-ROMs. I'd bet that 10 years from now you can still buy a drive that reads CD-ROMs. The same will be true for DVDs: drives will be backward compatible.
Besides, if the data is important enough to be kept around, chances are the hardware to access it will be too (or haven't you seen machine rooms that still use tape backups from X years ago?)
Well, tell that to the guys at the JPL: "For example, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is facing a crisis due to the huge libraries of data from space probes like Pioneer that are stored on aging seven-track tapes for which readers are no longer made."
(I believe there was a story about this on /., but I couldn't find it. The quote is from this article. [networkcomputing.com]
)
Re:They're nice, but not for you (Score:2)
Then again, how sure are you that the CD-Rs/DVD-Rs you burn today will be readable in 20 years' time? Don't CD-Rs deteriorate and become unreadable within a number of years? And will DVD-Rs be any better?
Not much protection (Score:2)
As a protection system, this doesn't work - it would take most hackers just few seconds to figure out what happened, and about the same amount of time for word of it to circle the globe on the Internet. The work around is obvious for most users - write the CD on the CD-RW drive and then run it from a CD or DVD drive. However, if the user doesn't leave the new disc open for further writing when making the copy, you can't write on it anyway.
One has to wonder though, why there are all the lame hacks to attempt copy protection for data CD's (games mostly) when the right "fix" would seem to be to simply determine if the media ID matches that of a CDR or CDRW media rather than the original pressed media. Can't any of the protection programmers figure out how to get this basic information from the drive?
Re:Not much protection (Score:2, Informative)
You can decide if its a CD-R by reading out the so called ATIP-field where the manufacturer of the CD-R and other things are recorded. Pressed CDs are lacking this field, and you can only read it with a CD-burner, not with CD-ROM readers.
Some protections (like Safedisc2) even check for it. The problem is: CloneCD, the #1 software used to make copies comes with a small program for your systray which prevents the copy protection from getting the ATIP-field data. So copy-protection is back to square one as usual.
Re:Not much protection (Score:2)
Product activation over the Internet (Score:2)
Have you checked what is the price people are willing to give for the program and the like?
What if there is a large group of professionals willing to give $3000 but a much larger group of home users willing to give only $100?
Why not just add a "internet" license verification at runtime?
Proprietary payware web browsers and online games already do this. But if you have a desktop-oriented application or a single-player game, good luck getting users to set up an Internet account just for verifying the license, especially in an area where AOL is the only ISP. Microsoft Windows XP and Office XP have an Internet-based product activation system, but they also allow it to be done via telephone (insert 50 cents to maintain anonymity).
It seams to me that the majority of the "pirates" aren't actually "buyers" but just "testers"... people who grabs a program to try, train and the like and then use the program (not the copyed, but a original) in a job.
In that case, if most of the people pirating the software are learning or evaluating the program, I'd conclude that the publisher went too far in crippling the program's freely downloadable demo.
(and please... never make your clients mad... they can have the last word!)
Unless you have a monopoly under a federal administration that doesn't care <cough>GW Bush</cough>.
120 gig / $100? (Score:2)
Re:They're nice, but not for you (Score:3, Informative)
1. I've already lost three disks full of information because HP's software cannot seem to handle system crashes. Windows crash = Lose all of your data. (remember I'm using DVD+RW).
2. A big hard disk with a firewire or USB2.0 enclosure is cheaper, faster, and more portable.
3. The lack of a standard has resulted in sketchy compatibility with home DVD players so burning video is a real problem.
4. The lack of a standard also affects PC DVD drives. Sometimes disks work and sometimes they don't. I have experienced complete BSOD's on Win2K when putting a DVD+RW in a friend's player (never seen one before).
If you are still set on buying a DVD writer, then I suggest the following:
1. If you want to burn video, look at your existing DVD player (and those of anyone you want to share with) and check this chart to see which style of drive to get (DVD-R or DVD+RW) http://www.vcdhelp.com/dvdplayers.php
2. If you want to do data backups, remember this when using DVD+RW:
Only backup or restore data after a cold boot. Even then you may lose everything if something untoward happens during the process.
3. Really think hard about the external hard disk.
$130 120 gig hard drive
$ 60 Firewire external enclosure
or
$350 DVD Writer
$216 24 DVD-R disks (@ 120 gig)
You can always buy the DVD Writer next year with the $350 you saved getting the hard disk and probably end up with better technology, faster write times, a better shot at compatibility, and a cool 120 gig hard drive with external firewire enclosure.
Re:Here's a hint... (Score:2)
Re:Pioneer DVR-A04 cd and dvd burner (Score:2)
Works fine with Linux and dvdrtools [fsf.org].
Re:Pioneer DVR-A04 cd and dvd burner (Score:2)
Red Hat 7.3 includes a package called "dvdrecord", which is a fork of cdrecord that has been patched for use with DVD-R drives. (The official cdrecord program does not include DVD-R support because the author sells that as a commercial product.) If you're not using RH 7.3, you can build dvdrecord yourself from source: dvdrtools [fsf.org].
Thus far I'm just using them as if they were higher-capacity CD-ROMs, using the ISO 9660 file system. It seems to work fine. There is some early UDF support in mkisofs, but I haven't yet tried it.
Re:For me, it's the speed. (Score:2)
There is however another way to look at it. a 4.5 GB DVD-r can fit ~2 hours of mpeg-2. that means at '1x' speed it's the equivalent of a 2x high-speed dub for copying movies. So no, 1x and 2x are not slow by any measure. In fact, 1x is the fastest drive you can connect to usb 1.1 with 2x or better you have to go to firewire or usb 2.0 (for external connectivity). If 'half an hour' is too long for your to record a 2 hour movie, then maybe you shouldn't own any kind of VCR like device, as they're all restricted to 1x (.5x DVD speed) recording from broadcasts.