Amazon Glacier would run about $7 per year for 46GB.
> On Dec 13, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can y’all recommend how I might preserve and archive 46 gigabytes of personal > data for the long haul? > > For the past thirty years the librarian in me has been preserving and > archiving my personal and professional data. It started out as a few text > files, a couple of .exe files, the rare MacWrite file, and a growing number > of HyperCard “stacks”. Then I moved away from proprietary word processing > files and migrated to plain text documents as much as possible. These > included scholarly documents, computer programs, and selected email messages > in the form of mbox files. Still various flavors of images, movies, and PDF > crept into my mix. And believe it or not, I print some of my text files, and > I have printed major components of my images. > > For a while 3.5” discs were sufficient as a storage medium, but the pile grew > and grew. I then moved to CD’s — migrating my 3.5” discs along the way — and > the pile grew and grew again. Five years ago I migrated to DVD, and that was > good for a bit (all puns intended). But now, as I catch up I have discovered > that my archival output is close to 46 gigabytes of data just for the year > 2014. Much of this data is really images, but not just pictures of my pet, > but rather a sort of story. > > What medium do you think I should use for archival preservation and storage? > At 4 GB/DVD, I can’t afford to burn more than 10 DVD’s/year. That’s > impractical. I want something that is device and operating system > independent. CD’s were good choices, and I only needed to migrate things > forward. DVD’s are okay, but I believe they write data in a > compressed/encrypted fashion. I shy away from external hard drives because > the are less likely to work with future computers, and besides, they have so > many moving parts and complicated electronics. Just more things to break. > > I’m leaning towards SD disks, but yikes, they are nothing but pure bits. > Moreover, they are physically very small and easily lost. > > What do y’all suggest? > > † My iPhone is to blame. At more than 5 megapixels per image, the amount of > disc space taken up by pictures is phenomenal. I suppose I could “weed” my > images, but then much of the story would be lost, even if I printed. > > — > Eric Morgan
