Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #202971 > unrolled thread

blu-ray recommendations?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  blu-ray recommendations? kjonca@poczta.onet.pl (Kamil Jońca) - 2018-12-02 22:00 +0100
    Re: blu-ray recommendations? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2018-12-02 22:40 +0100
      Re: blu-ray recommendations? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 08:20 +0100
        Re: blu-ray recommendations? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2018-12-03 09:00 +0100
          Re: blu-ray recommendations? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-12-03 10:40 +0100
            Re: blu-ray recommendations? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-03 12:00 +0100
              Re: blu-ray recommendations? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:30 +0100
                Re: blu-ray recommendations? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-12-03 16:10 +0100
                Re: blu-ray recommendations? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-03 16:50 +0100
                  Re: blu-ray recommendations? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:00 +0100
                    Re: blu-ray recommendations? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-03 17:10 +0100
                      Re: blu-ray recommendations? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2018-12-03 18:10 +0100
                      Re: blu-ray recommendations? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-12-04 20:50 +0100
                        Re: blu-ray recommendations? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-04 21:10 +0100
                  Re: blu-ray recommendations? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:10 +0100
                Re: blu-ray recommendations? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-12-04 10:40 +0100
                  Re: blu-ray recommendations? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2018-12-04 12:20 +0100
                    Re: blu-ray recommendations? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 08:40 +0100
                      Re: blu-ray recommendations? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-12-05 10:20 +0100
                        Re: blu-ray recommendations? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 00:50 +0100
                  Re: blu-ray recommendations? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2018-12-05 10:50 +0100
              Re: blu-ray recommendations? tomas@tuxteam.de - 2018-12-03 15:30 +0100
                Re: blu-ray recommendations? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-12-03 15:40 +0100
                  Re: blu-ray recommendations? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-03 16:40 +0100
                    [OT]Re: blu-ray recommendations? Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2018-12-03 19:50 +0100
                      Re: [OT]Re: blu-ray recommendations? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 21:20 +0100
                      Re: [OT]Re: blu-ray recommendations? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-04 10:20 +0100
                    Re: blu-ray recommendations? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2018-12-03 23:00 +0100
              Re: blu-ray recommendations? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2018-12-03 17:20 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#202971 — blu-ray recommendations?

I'am  thinkig about external (usb) blu-ray recorder.
It would be mostly used to create backups/archives.
Any hints?
KJ

-- 
http://wolnelektury.pl/wesprzyj/teraz/
Compliment, n.:
	When you say something to another which everyone knows isn't true.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#202972

Hi,

Kamil Jońca wrote:
> I'am  thinkig about external (usb) blu-ray recorder.

Brands or model names change frequently. I am happy with an ASUS BW-16D1HT
which seems still to be available. (My others are older.)
There are no brands with a specially bad reputation. Individual bloopers
happen. So the seller's warranty and replacement reputation matters.

In general, full height drives appear more reliable than half height.
I buy desktop SATA drives and put them into Delock 5.25" USB boxes.
But it seems that one can save a few dollars by buying an USB drive
that is glued into its box.


> It would be mostly used to create backups/archives.

I use my program xorriso. A few weeks ago i was asked to sketch how:
  https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/xorriso-for-backups-on-optical-media-4175640555/#post5915808

For backup tasks which do not fit on a single disc i use my program
suite scdbackup. It demands some individual installation effort and local
disk space. Thus it is not available as binary distro package:
  http://scdbackup.webframe.org/scdbackup-0.9.2.tar.gz
  http://scdbackup.webframe.org/examples.html


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202975

Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> Brands or model names change frequently. I am happy with an ASUS BW-16D1HT
> which seems still to be available. (My others are older.)
> There are no brands with a specially bad reputation. Individual bloopers
> happen. So the seller's warranty and replacement reputation matters.
> 
> In general, full height drives appear more reliable than half height.
> I buy desktop SATA drives and put them into Delock 5.25" USB boxes.
> But it seems that one can save a few dollars by buying an USB drive
> that is glued into its box.

What is the advantage of using blueray disks to using external USB stick or
SSD?

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202976

Hi,

deloptes wrote:
> What is the advantage of using blueray disks to using external USB stick or
> SSD?

They are different in shape, price, ruggedness and safety against
inadverted overwriting.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202981

> They are different in shape, price, ruggedness and safety against
> inadverted overwriting.

Probably also in terms of ecological footprint, BTW.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202984

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 04:37:41AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > They are different in shape, price, ruggedness and safety against
> > inadverted overwriting.
> 
> Probably also in terms of ecological footprint, BTW.

Most probably, yes. But I wouldn't know where to begin to compare the
ecological footprint of a (small) semiconductor chip (or two?) plus
bonding, packaging and connector with that of one big polycarbonate
disk (plus some magic dyes) plus the amortized cost for a drive.

My hunch is that those chips are fairly expensive, ecologically, but
where's the tipping point?

Cheers
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202987

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> Most probably, yes. But I wouldn't know where to begin to compare the
> ecological footprint of a (small) semiconductor chip (or two?) plus
> bonding, packaging and connector with that of one big polycarbonate
> disk (plus some magic dyes) plus the amortized cost for a drive.
> 
> My hunch is that those chips are fairly expensive, ecologically, but
> where's the tipping point?

Last week I looked at about 20 CDs and few DVDs with backups from
2000-2004 - perhaps 1/2 of them had errors. I had also some USB sticks from
that time, that do not work, but most of them still do or CF cards and
similar, I use for 10y+ without issue. I tend to store on CF or SSD
recently - feel better, but I was asking, because I think someone would
have argument for/against.

The ecological footprint is neglectable in the contest and we do not want to
argue ... when people pay 1500+ US$ for a new iphone every 3y avg, I guess
I could spent couple of bugs for a good CF or SSD, which I would keep for
10y.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202993

On 2018-12-03, deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The ecological footprint is neglectable in the contest and we do not want to
> argue ... when people pay 1500+ US$ for a new iphone every 3y avg, I guess
> I could spent couple of bugs for a good CF or SSD, which I would keep for
> 10y.

As everyone was responding "à côté" I was going to say that the blu-rays
were aerodynamically superior to the other two media you mentioned (clear
"shape" advantage), which proves useful in case of backup failure when
flinging them out the window (they sail quite beautifully).

Of course, in corner-case weather conditions (twisters, hurricanes, etc)
results can be unpredictable.

HTH.

> regards
>
>
>


-- 
He used sentences differently from any other prose writer. He always sounded
like a slightly drunk man who is very melancholy, who has no illusions about
life, who is very strong but whose strength is entirely unnecessary.
--Krasznahorkai on Krúdy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202997

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:29:28PM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > Most probably, yes. But I wouldn't know where to begin to compare the
> > ecological footprint[s]

[error rates]

It seems that CDs/DVDs seem to lose single blocks, while flash (sticks, etc)
seem to fail catastrophically, in my experience at least.

> The ecological footprint is neglectable in the contest and we do not want to
> argue ... when people pay 1500+ US$ for a new iphone every 3y avg, I guess
> I could spent couple of bugs for a good CF or SSD, which I would keep for
> 10y.

This is, btw, the counter-argument posed here by conservatives wrt. reducing
the carbon footprint: "But China". They don't know what they are talking
about.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#202998

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> It seems that CDs/DVDs seem to lose single blocks, while flash (sticks,
> etc) seem to fail catastrophically, in my experience at least.

yes indeed, unless those few blocks are part of a tar file :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203000

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 04:51:50PM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > It seems that CDs/DVDs seem to lose single blocks, while flash (sticks,
> > etc) seem to fail catastrophically, in my experience at least.
> 
> yes indeed, unless those few blocks are part of a tar file :)

Hm. Now there would be some utility for an error-correcting encoder
as easy to use as gzip. Perusing the debian repos I do see some
libraries made for that (reed-solomon and friends).

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203003

Hi,

Curt wrote:
> they sail quite beautifully

Not to forget the intrinsic corner protection feature at the time
of landing.


tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> It seems that CDs/DVDs seem to lose single blocks, while flash (sticks, etc)
> seem to fail catastrophically, in my experience at least.

One can squeeze out a lot of semi-bad sectors by using several reader
drives and keeping track of the sucessfully read data. Best is to avoid
the Linux block device drivers and and to rather talk to the drive by
SCSI commands. Additional MD5 checksums give certainty about success.

As for ageing: I cannot speak for the storage conditions of other people's
backups, but under conditions which are acceptable for central eurpeans
a duration of 15 years seems to be no systematic problem.
Backup CDs which verfied in 2001 do still verify today. My experience with
DVD dates back to 2004, BD back to 2008.

The typical risk with backups is that they don't verify immediately after
they were made or that they do not cover the files which were supposed
to be covered. So there should be bulk checksums but also a convenient
opportunity for checking whether the files are there and readable.

Best is to keep lots of old backups.


> Now there would be some utility for an error-correcting encoder
> as easy to use as gzip. Perusing the debian repos I do see some
> libraries made for that (reed-solomon and friends).

Reed-Solomon already serves on the hardware level of optical media.
If it fails, then not enough redundancy survived the physical mishaps.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203031

>> yes indeed, unless those few blocks are part of a tar file :)
> Hm. Now there would be some utility for an error-correcting encoder
> as easy to use as gzip. Perusing the debian repos I do see some
> libraries made for that (reed-solomon and friends).

Indeed, e.g. `par2` (that's what `bup` uses to defend itself against
single-block errors).


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203034

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:49:31PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> yes indeed, unless those few blocks are part of a tar file :)
> > Hm. Now there would be some utility for an error-correcting encoder
> > as easy to use as gzip [...]

> Indeed, e.g. `par2` (that's what `bup` uses to defend itself against
> single-block errors).

Oh, thanks for this one: nice

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203001

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> This is, btw, the counter-argument posed here by conservatives wrt.
> reducing the carbon footprint: "But China". They don't know what they are
> talking about.

well given the capacity of a blue ray I still would need plenty of them to
copy the relevant data, (not in tar.xx format) so that I reduce risk of
corruption (see prev. post) and this carbon footprint is really stupid
argument I would not like to start with. Don't know who are "they" but I
definitely agree with you.

So I conclude the only advantage is the argument with blocks lost vs. whole
device crippled.
Hence the question who does produce valuable disks nowdays. I noticed 2001
CDs Platinum were better than 2004.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203022

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:29:28PM +0100, deloptes wrote:
>Last week I looked at about 20 CDs and few DVDs with backups from
>2000-2004 - perhaps 1/2 of them had errors. I had also some USB sticks from
>that time, that do not work, but most of them still do or CF cards and
>similar, I use for 10y+ without issue. I tend to store on CF or SSD
>recently - feel better, but I was asking, because I think someone would
>have argument for/against.

For this reason, I am gradually moving towards keeping all my data,
including backups, on "live", powered drives, so I can catch failures
very fast. I am mid-way through importing all my old CD-Rs and DVD-Rs,
and finding plenty of unreadable or partially damaged discs in the
process. My current "live" disk regime (one live data disc, one live
backup disc, a hot-pluggable USB backup drive that I sync monthly and
store in a different building to the first two) seems to be working well
but I've only had it up and running for a couple of years.

If I were to consider optical discs again, I would need a bullet-proof
regime that ensured that written discs were regularly read-checked to
catch degradation. This feels like it would be a lot of work.


-- 

Jonathan Dowland

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203023

Hi,

Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I am mid-way through importing all my old CD-Rs and DVD-Rs,
> and finding plenty of unreadable or partially damaged discs in the
> process.

I am interested in exploring the kind and severeness of the damage.
How old is the reader drive ? Do you have a second one in reach for
GNU/Linux ?


> If I were to consider optical discs again, I would need a bullet-proof
> regime that ensured that written discs were regularly read-checked to
> catch degradation. This feels like it would be a lot of work.

To my experience, degradation of once verified media is rare, even long
after they have been written. More probable is drive degradation.
(With re-usable media stored for a long time, there is an increased
 probability that they fail to take new data. But that's a different
 problem.)


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203038

Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> To my experience, degradation of once verified media is rare, even long
> after they have been written. More probable is drive degradation.
> (With re-usable media stored for a long time, there is an increased
> probability that they fail to take new data. But that's a different
> problem.)

I always "verify" after burning a disk, but the nature of the CD/DVD implies
degradation of material. The speed (and lense power) influence the quality
of the writing, of course also the materials used and their quality play
role. But still a disk is very unreliable medium for data storage over long
period of time IMO.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203043

On 2018-12-05, deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
>> To my experience, degradation of once verified media is rare, even long
>> after they have been written. More probable is drive degradation.
>> (With re-usable media stored for a long time, there is an increased
>> probability that they fail to take new data. But that's a different
>> problem.)
>
> I always "verify" after burning a disk, but the nature of the CD/DVD implies
> degradation of material. The speed (and lense power) influence the quality
> of the writing, of course also the materials used and their quality play
> role. But still a disk is very unreliable medium for data storage over long
> period of time IMO.
>
> regards
>

Here's a decade-old (and a little more) opinion from UNESCO (?) about
the matter (although they completely ignore the critical 'shape'
parameter mentioned by TS):

 While recordable optical discs are viable tools in the access to and dissemination of
 digital information of all kinds, it is strongly recommended that professional data
 storage methods, as developed by the IT industry, should be used. All digital carriers
 are to some extent unreliable, however, data tape and hard disc systems are made
 reliable because technological testing, copying and management systems are
 implemented to support the data carrier and the quality of its content, maintain and
 manage the integrity of the data. These systems are feasible for storing critical data
 even under climatically and financially sub-optimal conditions. No viable automatic
 testing and management system exists to make optical disc reliable, and consequently
 any archival use of optical systems must depend on a manual approach using people
 and testing equipment as described in this publication.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001477/147782E.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203059

Curt wrote:

> Here's a decade-old (and a little more) opinion from UNESCO (?) about
> the matter (although they completely ignore the critical 'shape'
> parameter mentioned by TS):
> 
> While recordable optical discs are viable tools in the access to and
> dissemination of digital information of all kinds, it is strongly
> recommended that professional data storage methods, as developed by the IT
> industry, should be used. All digital carriers are to some extent
> unreliable, however, data tape and hard disc systems are made reliable
> because technological testing, copying and management systems are
> implemented to support the data carrier and the quality of its content,
> maintain and manage the integrity of the data. These systems are feasible
> for storing critical data even under climatically and financially
> sub-optimal conditions. No viable automatic testing and management system
> exists to make optical disc reliable, and consequently any archival use of
> optical systems must depend on a manual approach using people and testing
> equipment as described in this publication.
> 
> http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001477/147782E.pdf

thanks - sound unison with my thoughts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web