--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> > --- In Dan Dugan <dan@> wrote:
> If you're going to make this argument in public, I'm going to ask you
> for better back-up than suspicion.
The study linked in the first article was done by a group of storage experts in
the 90's. The original study link was now dead. The conclusion of the
original study group was that CD-R's were not as archival as claimed by the
companies who made them. I remember when it came out. As to why they failed,
does it really matter? They are subject to scratching, materials defects, etc,
even in the highest standards of manufacturing. Like floppies before them,
they have an achilles heel, as do all storage media. The queston is which is
the most suited for archiving your data?
Nobody can give me a definitive answer as to how long a CD-R will last.
However, almost all the serious tech people I know don't funadmentally trust
them. By the way, I was trying to give an understated response when I said, "I
suspect dye failure". I know why CD-Rs fail.
I have archived my personal and business data for almost 30 years. I have
terabytes of it. Putting them on CD-Rs is totally impractical for me, and
given the lack of rock solid information on how long they will last, I will
continue to put my trust in the stack of redundant hard drives I own.
I use the Black-X drive and my raid1 server both on and off site. As mentioned
earlier, I will continue to be suspicious of CD-R longevity.
|