It all boils down to how paranoid one wants to be. The stuff that *really matters* gets (in addition) uploaded to a server abroad (but, unfortunately the storage there is limited to 15 or so GB).
I have a number of CDs and DVDs that I burned a while ago, which have corrupted files now. I wouldn't put too much trust in *any* media. Right now I prefer HDD, simply because I can run a chkdsk on it once in a while and find the problems before it's too late. Then I can be reasonably sure that if my PC disk fries, I have a *recoverable* backup. BTW, does anybody has a recommendation for (affordable, yet convenient, expandable and fast) external RAID5 SATA storage (gigabit NAS would be a plus)? Best, Mishka On 1/2/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2 DVD copies ( different brand media) would be even smarter than a DVD copy > and a hard drive copy. > hard drives just are nowhere near as "trustable" as optical media for > archive usage IMHO. > jco > -----Original Message----- > From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: DVDs > > > I use it for *backup* -- that is, the *second* copies. I consider the > probability of both, external HDD and my internal drives getting fried at > exactly the same moment to be small enough for all practical considerations. > > BUT -- again, the *second* copies. > > I would consider pretty stupid to keep the only copy of any file that > matters, hard drive, cd or dvd. > > best, > mishka > > On 1/2/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't get it, wouldn't a hard drive be far more > > susceptable to a catostrophic failure than a bunch > > of DVD disks? Im sure its more user friendly, but > > is it archival? > > jco > > > > >
