[ale] Recommendation for off-line storage?

[Geoffrey]

Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:02:36 -0400 Geoffrey wrote:
> G> > Another option, which would be much cheaper, would be a dual-layer dvd
> G> > burner. A little more time consuming up-front, but cheaper and much more
> G> > portable than tape. And given the unknown reliability of burned media,
> G> > i'd verify/re-burn once in a while (again, depending on how paranoid you
> G> > are).
> G> 
> G> Let's see, let's do the math...  800GB / 14GB = ......  That's going to 
> G> be a lot of burning.  What's the price for 58 dual layer disks these 
> G> days. :)
> 
> 800GB was the tape capacity - he said he had 400GB. So, even if it was single
> layer discs (4GB), a 100 pack can be had for less than the cost of one of the
> 800GB tapes. Eliminate the cost of the very expensive high-end tape drive,
> and any concerns of having to track down another should it fail (one of my big
> complaints about tape drives and hardware raid controllers).

Okay, my post was tongue in cheek, but if you want to go this route, how 
long do you think it would take to burn the 29 dual layer disks (400Gb) 
or the 58 single layer disks?  It's not even remotely a possibility.

> Of course, my slant here is of a home user w/too much data. If he's talking
> corporate bucks, sure, spring for a fancy tape drive.

Regardless, the time it would take to burn the disks would, in the long 
run, justify the cost of different hardware.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
security will deserve neither and lose both.  - Benjamin Franklin