LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2006

ARSCLIST May 2006

Subject:

Re: Storing digital media

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 8 May 2006 15:14:10 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

At 02:17 PM 5/8/2006, Christina Hostetter wrote:
>Good Afternoon.  I am in the middle of a debate on what is the best way
>to store large quantities of digital media (audio, video, and images).
>I have always been under the impression that for such large quantities
>of information and such large files a dedicated server (or servers) is
>the best way to go as opposed to external hard drives or CD-ROM.

I would think that you're onto something here. A managed central 
store or repository is a process, not a piece of hardware.

What do you consider "large quantities?"

The common large repository architecture today is a combination of 
servers (typically RAID) and redundant data tape copies, with one set 
off site and the active set in a robotic archive.

My personal small-office implementation is triple redundant, 
non-RAIDed 1250 GB of storage, with one store in the adjacent 
dwelling unit connected by fibre optics.

>Our IT manager had this to say: Our servers have only lasted about 5
>years before requiring replacement.  I wonder what makes you think
>servers are appropriate for storing large amounts of data?

My reply to him would have been, "Have you ever lost any data when 
you replaced a server?"

>He is suggesting that we use external hard drives

I would prefer to see these connected even if spun down. I don't like 
the concept of hard-drive-on-shelf. If you do that, three drives that 
are tested annually would be a compromise.

>or CD-ROM

650 MB/disc?
"large quantities"
0.65 GB /disc
"large quantities"

Even at 4700 MB/disc, gold DVD-Rs from MAM-A are small. I just did an 
audio project where my client was waiting for the MAM-A gold discs 
and I sent him 15 DVD-Rs. 4.7 GB is better than 0.65 GB, but still, 
it's not 200 or 400 GB of LTO 2 or LTO 3 data tape.

LTO-3 is 2.5 tapes / TB
DVDs are about 225 discs / TB
CD-Rs are about 1,600 discs / TB
250 GB hard drives are 4 discs / TB

>to store our
>media.  I think it would be much easier to store everything on one or
>more servers and have the files accessible to anyone rather than having
>to come to me all the time to pull materials in the archives.

Yes as long as there is proper digital rights management and/or 
access control installed.

>Plus, you
>could migrate that information to a new server when the old one is no
>longer working.

...BEFORE the old one stops working <smile>.


>
>
>Any thoughts?  I always thought servers that store only digital files
>last longer than 5 years.

5 years is probably an economic end of life.

There are  no simple answers to this.

Cheers,

Richard

Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager