Print

Print


Which brings up the bigger issue -- do they need to keep all that data? We've just seen what happens 
when the government "security" forces build up a huge haystack -- they missed the needle in San 
Bernadino. I'm not convinced about capturing huge amounts of any data, just to keep it. This has 
been my argument about accumulating vs. collecting and archiving. Just because something was put to 
media doesn't mean it's worth preserving. In a world of limited resources, descisions need to be 
made by humans as to what is worthy of the efforts and money involved in digital preservation and 
storage. I would say the same is true of all data. In our world, those decisions are by nature 
aesthetic and sometimes political. It's how human culture works, it's constantly curating the past 
and making value judgements, and media archives are really just cultural archives. I think all of 
this will be even harder in a generation or so, because so much media is being created and thrown 
online every day. There's no effort involved in the "releasing" mechanism anymore -- you just thrown 
your production online and see if it sticks. Your "production" can be an artistic work such as 
music, fictional video, fictional writing, an artfully crafted documentary, or it can be pure 
opinion or noise or something in between. Any of it can be "released" through the same filterless, 
no-cost mechanisms. In the pre-Internet days, when mass media was manufactured physical media, 
humans had to decide what projects to fund through the releasing mechanisms, so some curating was 
taking place from the get-go.

I know, I took this in a whole new direction ...I changed the subject line. I'm interested if this 
line of thought is being addressed in archiving circles and in schools where archivists learn their 
craft. My thesis is that creation of data is easier and cheaper than ever, but there are still major 
costs to archiving and storage, and thus more than ever we need skilled curators to cut through the 
noise and garbage and preserve what will matter in 100 years. For pre-digital stuff, there are even 
greater preservation costs in time and money, so I think more curating is necessary.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Corey Bailey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] LTO vs HDD


> Hi Tom,
>
> The answer is relatively simple: Money
> You and I think about storage in terms of a Terabyte or two. General Motors and corporations of 
> that size have to think in terms of multiple Peta-bytes. LTO becomes the least expensive method. 
> After the data is on the tape, verification and migration is done robotically.
>
> Those that are considering LTO need to know that the format (drives, etc.) is only backward 
> compatible for two generations and LTO-7 is on the horizon.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Corey
> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
> www.baileyzone.net
>
> On 1/27/2016 4:36 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> Could someone explain why a somewhat antiquated magnetic tape-based storage system is preferable 
>> to several copies across several hard drives? I just can't see any sense in using tape systems 
>> anymore for data security, but I'm not a computer-storage expert, just a guy who stores a lot of 
>> data.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hood, Mark" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] LTO vs HDD
>>
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Thanks as always for sharing your experience and insights on all of these
>> topics.
>>
>> Would you be comfortable sharing the make and model of the RAID-6 NAS
>> units you are using, and any comments about how well they have performed
>> to your expectations?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark Hood
>> Associate Professor of Music
>> Department of Recording Arts
>> IU Jacobs School of Music
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/16, 3:36 PM, "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List on
>> behalf of Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, All,
>>>
>>> I saw this thread and was going to ignore it, but decided not to once I
>>> found out that RDX was HDD-in-an-otterbox merci, Henri, and thanks for
>>> the image, Lou. Otters are wonderful--see "Ring of Bright Water" (The
>>> book) and Point Lobos State Park.
>>>
>>> LTO was around while I was still doing broadcast consulting and, at the
>>> time (late 1990s, early 2000s).
>>>
>>> I struggled long and hard about how to store things and realized if I
>>> were going to become involved with LTO, I would need two drives (how
>>> else can you be even remotely certain that your tapes are readable once
>>> your single drive dies--I certainly saw that in the early days of PC
>>> tape backup. At that point, the cost becomes excessive.
>>>
>>> My philosophy now is: Any data I want to keep does not live solely on a
>>> PC.
>>>
>>> I have two in-house RAID-6 NAS units,  one backing up the other; an ammo
>>> case of 2.5-inch HDDs off-site (2 TB 2.5-inch USB 3.0 drives are pretty
>>> economical these days and are USB-powered).
>>>
>>> One son has been migrated to the cloud where Dropbox backs up and
>>> mirrors his two on-site laptops. Here, I harvest all new files (but not
>>> updates to prevent pollution of existing files) and store them on my
>>> RAID-6 NAS units to protect against a Dropbox failure or hacking. The
>>> other son will do it soon,  but the first one is potentially going far
>>> away to school next fall for his Masters (Wichita and Edmonton are on
>>> the list) so I wanted to get some closer-in history with the system.
>>>
>>> RAID-6 allows the failure of any two disks without losing data and the
>>> data does not have to be chopped up into 1 or 2 TB chunks as it does
>>> with HDDs.
>>>
>>> I do not keep CF/SD cards, I copy and verify the copy and then recycle
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>
>
>