Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Long term lossless music archive (Read 32942 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Long term lossless music archive

I've filled up my 200GB HD and I'm now wondering what I should do for long term archival of my live recordings' FLAC files.

On one hand I'm just considering buying a new HD (>200GB) because it's very handy to have all my live shows on HD ready to be burned for trades. I look for suggestions about what HD I should buy (size, speed, internal/external, etc.)

On the other hand I also plan to back up on DVD. Is it better to use DVD-R or DVD+R?
Any special care to be paid to the writing speed of the medium and the actually used writing speed?

On the long run what will be the weaker support: HD or DVD?

Thank you in advance for your help

ciao -- Nando

PS I've searched the forums and didn't find a similar thread... if there is already such a thread please point me to that and accept my apologies.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #1 –
Quote
On the other hand I also plan to back up on DVD. Is it better to use DVD-R or DVD+R?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306941"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The main difference between DVD+R and DVD-R for single layer discs is DVD-R uses land prepits (small marks along the groove of the disc) to track where the laser is on the disc, while DVD+R does it by changing the wobble frequency, which remains the same on DVD-R. Some people think DVD+R's tracking method is less reliable, but honestly I think it makes little difference provided you're using decent media.

Quote
Any special care to be paid to the writing speed of the medium and the actually used writing speed?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306941"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Another point of contention. Some people think using the lowest speed possible is best because it's more accurate at lower speeds while others think the speed should be set as close to the media's maximum speed as possible because the media is engineered for use at this speed. Again, I think it makes little difference but I usually opt for a fairly slow speed.

Quote
On the long run what will be the weaker support: HD or DVD?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306941"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you're asking which one will be more reliable, I'd say HD.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #2 –
I wouldn't backup to DVD. The simple facts are:

1. It's almost impossible to play your lossless tracks = you have to keep a lossy (ie. mp3) edition = adds to the price
2. HD space is super cheap
3. Quality DVDs are NOT cheap

I have 2,7 terrabytes of storage and a DVD burner I hardly ever use. I never keep a harddrive for more than 1 year but sell them of at gigabyte price (ie if I have a 160 gig and a new 250 gig costs $120, I'll auction the 160 off for $75). That way it's reliable and I have a method for growth.

(edited for spelling)

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #3 –
I made a 600GB RAID-0 array using two 300GB Maxtor drives (I use a single 200GB drive as my main drive). Why? Why not is my answer! Besides being super conveniant, hard drives are cheap after all, and while I do use the array for storing other stuff besides music (like images of my OS and photos), my main consideration was actually lossless audio storage. Anything of importance, including all my music, is mirrored to another drive on another PC via LAN. As anyone will tell you, redundancy is the key to using RAID-0, plus it's nice to not have to worry should one drive in the array ever fail. Some might say RAID-0 is the creation of the devil, but I've actually been using the technology for a long time now and have never run into any issues. My collection currently takes up about about 115GB in Monkey's Audio format, which is about 409 CD's. At the rate I currently purchase music, it will likely take quite a while to fill up my drive completely. I'm hoping by that time something even better may be available. Overall I feel it was a good investment of cash simply because I won't have to worry about storage for a good long time. Something to consider.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #4 –
What is the point of RAID0 against two 300 GB partition is beyond me. Just because you want to see one contiguous 600 GB. Mmm... Wait until one HD dies. It will make the other was a useless lump of metal too since your data will be gone. Why is it more convenient than two 300 GB is also beyond me. I think it is very inappropriate to talk about RAID-0 for a newbie looking for best practices for archival.

On this forum I've seen people shelling out bucks for RAID5 for music jukebox, which does not make sense either. Also we see people using RAID-0 for archival which is again does not make sense. Now everybody does RAID to the left and righ without much logic.

Triza

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #5 –
Quote
I wouldn't backup to DVD. The simple facts are:

1. It's almost impossible to play your lossless tracks = you have to keep a lossy (ie. mp3) edition = adds to the price
2. HD space is super cheap
3. Quality DVDs are NOT cheap

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306944"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


When you look at the Price, even Quality DVDs are much cheaper thand HD. At my place I spend ca. 30 Euro for 50 DVDs (TDK). A better point might be that the amount of time spent burning 50-100 DVDs might be worth some money as well!
I don't get the point of the impossibilites of playing lossless tracks from DVDs (ok, not without your PC, but you can't use your HD either without your PC).

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #6 –
Quote
What is the point of RAID0 against two 300 GB partition is beyond me. Just because you want to see one contiguous 600 GB.

Or better yet, why not four 150GB partitions? Or how about eight 75GB patitions. Ok, I'm just being silly. I have one single 600GB partition because I can. It's conveniant that way. Besides, I just love how it irritates people like you whenever I bring up RAID-0 heh.

Quote
Mmm... Wait until one HD dies. It will make the other was a useless lump of metal too since your data will be gone.

Hasn't happened yet. Even if it were to happen, I'm covered, so I have zero worries. Oh, and one single non-RAID drive failing equals all your data lost too, same as if one drive in a RAID-0 array were to fail. I don't know why people always use the one drive versus two argument when it comes to RAID-0 failure. That is what really truly makes no sense. If you buy a drive and it's going to fail at some point (which they all will eventually), it doesn't really matter what config it's in; a failed drive is a failed drive.

Quote
Why is it more convenient than two 300 GB is also beyond me. I think it is very inappropriate to talk about RAID-0 for a newbie looking for best practices for archival.

It's not inappropriate, it's just one of several options. Somone had to say it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. He already has one 200GB drive, and may very well have RAID abilities built into his motherboard already. If so, why replace a drive when he could just supplement it with a second 200GB drive for less money than a larger drive? More value that way, plus he did say he backs up to DVD, or would be I believe, so again zero worries about lost data.

Quote
On this forum I've seen people shelling out bucks for RAID5 for music jukebox, which does not make sense either. Also we see people using RAID-0 for archival which is again does not make sense. Now everybody does RAID to the left and righ without much logic.

I've been using RAID-0 for a long time now, a little over two years. I have never had a single problem in all that time. So it looks like it's actually turned out to be a fairly logical choice as far as mass storage goes. The sky hasn't fallen yet, which the nay sayers like yourself keep saying it will, so you should probably keep the FUD to yourself. I'm immune to it as you can see.

Edit: Typos.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #7 –
what is wrong with RAID (say RAID 6)?

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #8 –
Quote
Oh, and one single non-RAID drive failing equals all your data lost too, same as if one drive in a RAID-0 array were to fail. I don't know why people always use the one drive versus two argument when it comes to RAID-0 failure. That is what really truly makes no sense.

I don't understand (your argument, I understand Triza's).

Say the disks were full.
If only one of the 300GB disks in your RAID 0 array failed, the data on the other drive would be essentially unusable and you'd lose all 600 GB of your data.
If, however, the two were separated and only one of them failed, you'd lose only the 300 GB stored on that drive. You wouldn't lose all of your data.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #9 –
Quote
Say the disks were full.
If only one of the 300GB disks in your RAID 0 array failed, the data on the other drive would be essentially unusable and you'd lose all 600 GB of your data.
If, however, the two were separated and only one of them failed, you'd lose only the 300 GB stored on that drive. You wouldn't lose all of your data.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306987"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was looking at it from the perspective of, say, a single 600GB drive versus two 300GB ones in RAID-0, not two drives vs two drives. Nothing wrong, though, with running two drives either way. The important thing is to backup the data you consider important. As long as you do that it doesn't really matter which way you go. That is the point I usually try to make anyways, but whenever people see RAID-0 mentioned they tend to ignore anything else I said and go into a tirade about how RAID is pure evil and has no place in the world.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #10 –
So how do you back up 600GB of data?

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #11 –
Here is another very relevant thread.
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #12 –
Quote
So how do you back up 600GB of data?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307024"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I so wanted to make a smart ass comment, hehe. Unfortunately I don't know if your yet another person wanting to poke fun at me and my RAID array, obviously parroting something they heard someone else say on the net, or were actually serious. Like I said, I mirror my important stuff to another drive, on another PC (I use CopyTo Synchronizer to keep track of any changes). DVD/CD's would also work I suppose which is what a lot of people use for their lossless libraries, as would an external hard drive. Whatever floats your boat. Currently only 210 GB of data on my RAID array is of a nature I would consider important, and only newly added or changed stuff needs to be copied over once in a while. I've been using this system for quite a while and it works great regardless of what anyone has to say about it. The drive cages are easily removed from both PC's, so I can store them off site if I'm going to be away for a while, which is very rarely. It's a good system and works great for me. Obviously, it may not be for everybody though. I don't actually need to backup my lossless audio, but I do since reripping everything would be a pain, and I might as well since I have the space. Hard drives are cheap.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #13 –
Digisurfer,

Unlike you most of us do and use things that make the most sense in a given situation. When somebody asks something around here he or she also expects sensible setups. There are millions of crazy setups for any given situation. We normally should only consider the few that in one way or other make sense in the given scenario. Yours does not.

Similar "I have it because I can" comments make every newbie to build RAID-s left and right and when it comes to backup they run out of money because their spent all their money on "I can" things.

Triza

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #14 –
Quote
Digisurfer,

Unlike you most of us do and use things that make the most sense in a given situation. When somebody asks something around here he or she also expects sensible setups. There are millions of crazy setups for any given situation. We normally should only consider the few that in one way or other make sense in the given scenario. Yours does not.

Similar "I have it because I can" comments make every newbie to build RAID-s left and right and when it comes to backup they run out of money because their spent all their money on "I can" things.

Triza
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307138"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


RAID nowadays is a simple thing. Just some people are very conservative. I also accept new things with difficulty. But RAID is just nothing but a couple of parallel HDDs, and almost every modern motherboard offers it, like it offers a AC'97 codec 
Digisurfer's suggestion is a good one. And reliable.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #15 –
Quote
On the long run what will be the weaker support: HD or DVD?


You won't know when the HDD will malfunction
Its better to backup them to optical media.

Of course DVD will become obselete one day, so always transfer your documents to a newer format when available.....These days CD are still quite future proof, for 5 yrs CD will be there and still readable!

5 yrs later , you might consider backup your files again in BluRay or HDDVD

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #16 –
Quote
Digisurfer's suggestion is a good one. And reliable.


All I am saying that 2 300G HD is equally good and safer because you will loose half of your data when one goes down. RAID-0 is only justified when you need high transfer rate. In fact for the aesthetic pleasure that you have 600G contiguous space Digisurfer could go and implement "linear". That is a tad better if you loose the HD that does not carry the file-system header.

Anyway I give up. Just keep dishing out RAID-0 without any tangible justification apart from that "I can" and my motherboard "has one". To me these are not arguments because what I present are also supported by HW and SW. One day you might realize that "less is more". This is even more true when it comes to PC HW churned out by companies who long forgotten what QA means and all they can do is to churn out zillions of "untested" features. But I digress.

Triza

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #17 –
I agree with Triza. I wouldn't want all my data on RAID-0 unless I had a full-capacity backup. I wasn't trying to make a smart ass comment. I just feel a request for long-term archival suggestions deserves mention of a good backup solution.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #18 –
Well, all I can gather from this thread so far is that it's pretty easy for folks to knock something they fear and obviously have no real long term experience with. My setup is hardly advanced or new. It's tried and tested, and there is nothing fancy about it at all. For comparisons sake, the equivalent of two 300GB drives runnning separately is the same as two RAID-0 arrays made up of four 150GB drives, two large drives versus two large drives. This same logic applies to my earlier comparison, that one 600GB RAID-0 array should be compared to a single 600GB drive, not two 300GB drives running separately. Anything else is irrelevant for comparisons purposes. You can run any number of drives separately if you want, and while that is another completely different option, really has nothing to do with what I'm trying to get through to everyone. My setup is conveniant, simple, works great, and redundant. No amount of arguing will change my mind based on my practical experience. ABX testing is a big part of this forum, and I'm thinking perhaps that same spirit of critical thinking should be applied to other technologies as well. If you haven't actually done anything long term with the technology, then you should have no say in the matter. Opinion is not fact, and neither is parroting something someone else has said somewhere on the internet. Actually prove to me with solid evidence why I should change to what you think is a better way and I will.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #19 –
It seems rather simple: since you've already got two 300GB drives, you'd be better off (reliability-wise) using them separately than in the RAID 0 array you're so happy with. Isn't that right?

And what you're arguing on one side (advocating RAID based on your practical experience, that it is convenient, simple, works great, and redundant) seems to me completely opposite of what you've just tried to advocate on the other (critical thinking, opinion is not fact).

In fact, I can easily link the first argument to the "dreaded" audiophile types (If you haven't actually done anything long term with the technology, then you should have no say in the matter.), whereas the second would be in the spirit of this community (ABX testing).

Just because someone (like me) hasn't used RAID doesn't mean (s)he can't draw logical conclusions about it, based on fact (such as what RAID 0 is, what its benefits and drawbacks are). Same with ABX testing, I don't need to have been in the music business for decades to get a say in matters of audio quality, if I've grasped the concept and the rationale behind it. Granted, someone with such experience and the same logic as me (or better) will get a stronger say, since that someone obviously has knowledge that can expand my own.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #20 –
I also agree with Triza.

RAID 1 - for servers and critical data
RAID 0 - for special purposes (for instancee, my friend uses 925 chipset and RAID 0 with two 1000rpm WD Raptors for graphical production)

The topic is how to store a valuable music a man performs himself.
I would buy a separate removable HD for storage only + a several DVD (or CD) copies. That will do.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #21 –
What it comes down to is that I honestly don't care what other people use. I have no interest in converting anyone, and hopefully my posts don't come across as trying to. My replies are simply me trying to defend my personal decisions. I can never mention RAID-0 without the nay sayers jumping all over me and it's annoying to say the least. I really have to learn to not care what other folks think and not take their attacks personally. So, let us just say RAID in one possible option for the original poster, and that some don't like it it, while some do, and leave it at that. More arguing is only going to end up coming down to semantics, and honestly we're getting too off topic with our silly bickering I think.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #22 –
Quote
So, let us just say RAID in one possible option for the original poster


It is, if he stores AND listens to it occasionally (or needs to process it).
For archive only, probably it would be easier and more safe to store it out of PC.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #23 –
I think HD would be better than DVD in terms of reliability -- at least the odds seem to be there as long as the drive is not actively used. Who knows how long DVD-R (or +R) can last? Remember the first few years of CDR - many of my discs from those days are unplayable already. May be the same situation with DVD. Also you practically need a forensics degree to know what type of disc you get these days with all the cross-branding, etc.

Also, backing up 200 GB onto DVDs is about 43 discs -- that's a lot of time attending to the backup process. If you value your time, you have to consider that as well. How many hours will you be sitting there, figuring out how to break apart your files into DVD chunks (or finding and learning a program that will do that)? Can you print covers that index the disc contents so you know which files are on which disc before inserting into the computer? Just my opinion of course.

I've heard good reviews of Seagate drives. I think my next one will be that.

Long term lossless music archive

Reply #24 –
Quote
Quote
So, let us just say RAID in one possible option for the original poster


It is, if he stores AND listens to it occasionally (or needs to process it).
For archive only, probably it would be easier and more safe to store it out of PC.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307310"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed.

Hmm, all this chatter about DVD has me curious. Which would most of you trust more, RAID or DVD/CD writable media? I don't have much experience with DVD even though I have a burner. I don't trust it much, simply because most of the CDR's burned two or more years ago are full of errors. Brand seems to be irrelevant, especially seeing as I was never loyal to any one in particular (most are Memorex, Fuji, and Kodak). I've been into PC's all my life and I've only ever had one of the many hard drives I've owned fail, which was one of those defective from the factory IBM Deskstars from a few years back that pretty much everybody had toruble with.