Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?



Excellent post, Bob. I think you covered the bases completely. :-)

Best regards--Lynn Allen

>From: "Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl & Assoc." <BobKehl@kvernkehl.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
>Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:39:51 -0500
>
>My long and detailed comments are below.
>
>BK
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mark Edmonds <mmje@mmje.demon.co.uk>
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM
>Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
>
>
> > Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to
> > archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone 
>to
> > long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical
>disk.
>
>I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR?
>MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive.
>
>
> > Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof
>medium
> > but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years
> > time.
>
>It really doesn't matter if anyone else has the hardware, as long as you 
>do.
>As an example, although perhaps a poor one.  I have some programs and data
>on 5.25" floppy disks from 17 years ago.  During one of many computer
>upgrades about 8 years ago 5.25" disks were no longer a standard.  I kept 
>an
>old machine with a 5.25" drive (although I could have installed a 5.25"
>drive in a new machine) . The point is: if I want the data I can transfer 
>it
>to 3.5" floppy disks or transfer it through my home office network to a new
>machine and put it on whatever medium is currently popular.  The only
>inportant issue is that I must keep these disks refreshed because they are
>magnetic and I must transfer them to some other medium prior to disposing
>of, or failure of, the 5.25" drives.
>
>
> >
> > So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I 
>am
> > looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM.
>The
> > Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the 
>market
> > but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running
> > NT4.0 by the way.
>
>
>CD-ROM has been around for a very long time. It took along time to catch 
>on.
>CD-R and CD-RW caught on quickly only because CR-ROM had been with us for 
>so
>long.  DVD-Video and DVD-Ram are both new in comparison to CD formats.  As
>the cost of drives and media continue to drop DVD-RAM in some format or the
>other will no doubt be the standard to replace CD-ROM and CD-R.  Iomege 
>will
>probably gain a foothold in specialized markets as they have with their Zip
>and Jaz formats, but because their formats are proprietary they will
>probably never replace DVD formats.
>
>
>I've done a bit of research on storage media.  Here are my thoughts:
>
>CD-R is currently the cheapest format for long term storage.  If your
>storage needs can be met with CD-R it is probably your best low maintenance
>choice, as long as you can afford the time involved with burning CD's.   
>And
>you be sure to keep a CD drive or two available when their popularity
>ceases, if ever.
>
>DVD-RAM, although currenty more expensive, provides more storage per disk.
>If you need vast quantities of storage (for 4000dpi 8/16 bit TIF files
>perhaps) this is a very viable low maintenance choice. This is also 
>somewhat
>time consuming, as writing DVD-RAM is painfully slow.  You will also want 
>to
>be sure to keep your particular format drives available should they ever be
>discontinued in the future.
>
>Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high volume
>storage.  It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance and
>attention.  It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster.  60GB IDE 
>hard
>drives are now selling for about $150.  That's about $2.50 per MB.
>Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that 
>holds
>the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as
>reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the 
>host
>machine and stored properly.  One solution would be to archive to a
>removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for
>redundancy.  Remove both and keep them properly stored.  Refresh them every
>couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or some
>similar utility.  Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive mirror
>raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line.
>This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting
>strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine.
>
>
>As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly, or more quickly, than other
>media, I feel this is the best solution for those who want hassle free, 
>high
>speed, high volume storage.  Like DVD it is getting less and less expensive
>but is not for the faint of wallet.  : )
>
>For me paying $150 for 60 GB of storage is pretty painless since I remember
>not that long ago (for some of us) paying $1000 for a 10 MB hard disk.  Yes
>I said 10 MEGA bytes.  It was new technology in 1984.  Most people only had
>2-5 MB hard drives.
>
>
>Way more than my US $0.02 worth!
>
>Bob Kehl
>Principal
>Kvernstoen, Kehl & Associates
>Star Prairie, WI  54026
>bobkehl@kvernkehl.com
>
>Check out our website: www.kvernkehl.com
>
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.