506
Sony is killing off recordable Blu-ray, bidding farewell to disc burning | TechSpot
(www.techspot.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
506 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59288 readers
3816 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really wish there was a viable alternative for physical backups. Blu-ray just doesn't have enough storage space, tape is expensive, and hard drives need to be periodically read.
I've read about holographic WORM media, but I just don't think there's enough consumer demand for the hardware and media to ever be as affordable as blu-ray.
Once upon a time, I could back up all my important data to a stack of DVD-Rs. How am I supposed to back up a 100TB NAS, though? The "best" alternative is to build a second NAS for backup, but that's approaching tape drive levels of cost.
By spending money. 100T is a quite a lot of data and big data sets cost money to properly maintain.
Checkout AWS S3 “Deep Glacier Archive”. It’s perfect for data you only “read” in recovery events, since you have to wait up to 12 hours to retrieve the data. I backup my Plex this way.
Based on their 100T of data the .00099 per GB pricing will have them spending $99 a month, or $1200 a year, for backup.
You have to ask yourself if that’s worth it to you.
For me? Yeah, I don’t want to rebuild these datasets.
After a few years, it'd probably be cheaper to get a second NAS and store it at a friend/relative's place.
I have a few friends that do that too!
Yup, that's why I don't bother backing up media to places like S3 or B2, I only back up important stuff like family pictures and tax documents. Replacing my DVD or Bluray collection is feasible, it just costs time and money, but I can't replace pictures and whatnot.
A NAS is supposed to be redundant. You can use offline HDDs as NAS backup.
I just double my HDDs and put them in RAID1. Not foolproof against data loss, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if I lost my Plex library. For important docs I add a cloud backup.
3-2-1 is the way to go.
It's the answer. It's the reason.
I'm trying to do a 3-2-1 but instead I'm doing a 4-3-0. Original is on SSD with scheduled backups to two separate HDs so that I have 3 copies on two different media (if SSD + HD counts as distinct enough) so then I added in BDR as an infrequent 4th manual copy for my most irreplaceable data (and I'm very strict with what counts as irreplaceable so that the total is just over 100GB at this point). Eventually I need to get a copy of the disks off site but for now they are in the basement.
I have no illusions about how long the BDRs will last. (Seems like it is anywhere between 100 days and 100 years).My aim is to just have another copy that is distinct from magnetic or flash storage. My plan is to burn new updated copies so that any data on an old disk will get burned to a newer disk at some point. Maybe in ten years I'll abandon this approach but for now it makes me feel better.
You really should have offsite backup as well. If your home catches on fire, everything will be lost. That can be as simple as taking those BDRs to a friend's house.
Cloud storage is relatively cheap if you limit your storage. You can get 1TB for $6/month from B2, and I think it scales down as well (e.g. 100GB should be $0.60/month).