It seems that a lot of users are, irrationally, opposed to the
use of optical media for long-term archival storage.

What, then, are some alternatives for the general user who does
not command the BIG $BUCKS necessary for enterprise grade solutions.

Tape? Not likely.

Note that magnetic (HDD) or IC NAND (SSD) devices are not to be
considered long-term storage. Consumer SSDs are especially not
long term.

Optical media is still by far the best in terms of cost/benefit
for the general user.

I have hundreds of optical disks that I have produced over the
past years, all with GNU/Linux, and they will last me until the
end of my time.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:

>It seems that a lot of users are, irrationally, opposed to the
>use of optical media for long-term archival storage.
>
>What, then, are some alternatives for the general user who does
>not command the BIG $BUCKS necessary for enterprise grade solutions.
>
>Tape? Not likely.
>
>Note that magnetic (HDD) or IC NAND (SSD) devices are not to be
>considered long-term storage. Consumer SSDs are especially not
>long term.
>
>Optical media is still by far the best in terms of cost/benefit
>for the general user.
>
>I have hundreds of optical disks that I have produced over the
>past years, all with GNU/Linux, and they will last me until the
>end of my time.

Optical disks are good if you want a handheld copy of something, but
external storage or large USB media is what I'd prefer.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Am Fri, 27 Sep 2024 12:40:57 -0400 schrieb Joel:

> Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
> Optical disks are good if you want a handheld copy of something, but
> external storage or large USB media is what I'd prefer.
I don't trust in USB drives, since I had amounts of crashes. My DVD-RAMs
are still working.

Regards
Ralf

In comp.os.linux.misc Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
> It seems that a lot of users are, irrationally, opposed to the
> use of optical media for long-term archival storage.

Having personally experienced failures of both cd-r and dvd-r media
wherein the recorded media became unreadable in a very short timeframe
(only a few years) even with proper storage it is not at all irrational
to be skeptical of claims of significant lifetimes for optical media
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Alternative to Optical Storage????
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:36:29 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <vd6qet$qfrm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <pan$c6999$ff62655a$6baa28da$29b62529@linux.rocks>
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 19:36:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dcce1bb59e982dc772b78d51c33e5b9d";
logging-data="868214"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182Opn3H+bh0FxVSTh7W4Jd"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.1-20211226 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.139 (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TI96qFVL2OjiFjBczBangrROzhk=
Xref: unconfigured comp.os.linux.advocacy:17183 comp.os.linux.misc:2553 alt.os.linux:208

In comp.os.linux.misc Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
> It seems that a lot of users are, irrationally, opposed to the
> use of optical media for long-term archival storage.

Having personally experienced failures of both cd-r and dvd-r media
wherein the recorded media became unreadable in a very short timeframe
(only a few years) even with proper storage it is not at all irrational
to be skeptical of claims of significant lifetimes for optical media
(esp. the user recordable type, pressed disks are a different matter).
Existing user recordable optical systems have, so far, had a poor track
record, so any new system has a higher bar to get over before it is
trusted for any long-term archive use.

Ralf Schneider wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Am Fri, 27 Sep 2024 12:40:57 -0400 schrieb Joel:
>
>> Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
>> Optical disks are good if you want a handheld copy of something, but
>> external storage or large USB media is what I'd prefer.
>>
> I don't trust in USB drives, since I had amounts of crashes. My DVD-RAMs
> are still working.

Also, USB drives (thumb drives) are easy to lose.

--
"Reintegration complete," ZORAC advised. "We're back in the
universe again..." An unusually long pause followed, "...but I don't
know which part. We seem to have changed our position in space." A
spherical display in the middle of the floor illuminated to show the
starfield surrounding the ship.
"Several large, artificial constructions are approaching us,"
ZORAC announced after a short pause. "The designs are not familiar, but
they are obviously the products of intelligence. Implications: we have
been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown,
and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown.
Apart from the unknowns, everything is obvious."
-- James P. Hogan, "Giants Star"

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:36:29 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

>
> Having personally experienced failures of both cd-r and dvd-r media
> wherein the recorded media became unreadable in a very short timeframe
> (only a few years) even with proper storage it is not at all irrational
> to be skeptical of claims of significant lifetimes for optical media
> (esp. the user recordable type, pressed disks are a different matter).
> Existing user recordable optical systems have, so far, had a poor track
> record, so any new system has a higher bar to get over before it is
> trusted for any long-term archive use.
>

My experience is far different from yours.

I have optical disks that I made in 2008 that are still quite
viable, and an associate of mine burned disks back in the 1990's
that are still readable with no errors. (Both cases using GNU/Linux)

Possibly you had selected the inexpensive, "bargain basement"
brands of cd-r/dvd-r which may have much shorter lives.

Also, are you sure that the "r" designation is not actually "rw"
for re-writable disks? The re-writable variety are known to to
degrade much more rapidly.

I always purchased Taiyo Yuden DVD's which have an excellent
reputation for longevity, but since DVDs have a small capacity
I now only use M-Disc bdr.

I am not a professional archivist but I know that libraries
and other institutions choose optical storage as a primary archival
medium.

Of course, one must always be mindful of future technology.
The strategy is to always copy important data to improved
formats but, so far, with optical media, this is not necessary
yet.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 27/09/2024 in message <vd6q9i$24lio$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> Ralf
Schneider wrote:

>Am Fri, 27 Sep 2024 12:40:57 -0400 schrieb Joel:
>
>>Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>Optical disks are good if you want a handheld copy of something, but
>>external storage or large USB media is what I'd prefer.
>I don't trust in USB drives, since I had amounts of crashes. My DVD-RAMs
>are still working.

And mine, although finding a device to read them can be a challenge. Sadly
they have gone the way of Betamax.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it

In comp.os.linux.misc Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:36:29 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
> I always purchased Taiyo Yuden DVD's which have an excellent
> reputation for longevity, but since DVDs have a small capacity
> I now only use M-Disc bdr.

Well most of the concerns with optical media longevity are solved
by M-Discs since they don't have the degrading dye layer, so
whether you believe those concerns are rational or not you've
already chosen the solution to them.

At least provided you don't use the discs enough that they
accumulate scratches like most of the world's DVD-video discs do.

> Of course, one must always be mindful of future technology.
> The strategy is to always copy important data to improved
> formats but, so far, with optical media, this is not necessary
> yet.

If you just wanted to store a little data for distant future
generations, information etched into glass should last longer than
info on plastic M-Discs. You could use a program like Optar to
convert into a printable data representation and then use a glass
etching kit or laser to 'burn' that to a paper-sized pane of glass.

http://ronja.twibright.com/optar/

Of course most likely nobody will ever go to the trouble of reading
it if you do that, but maybe an idea for a novelty glass mug or
something.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 27-09-2024 20:39, Shadow wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:36:29 -0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>> It seems that a lot of users are, irrationally, opposed to the
>>> use of optical media for long-term archival storage.
>>
>> Having personally experienced failures of both cd-r and dvd-r media
>> wherein the recorded media became unreadable in a very short timeframe
>> (only a few years) even with proper storage it is not at all irrational
>> to be skeptical of claims of significant lifetimes for optical media
>> (esp. the user recordable type, pressed disks are a different matter).
>> Existing user recordable optical systems have, so far, had a poor track
>> record, so any new system has a higher bar to get over before it is
>> trusted for any long-term archive use.
>>
>
> I back up to DVD. Some of my backups (CDs) are 30 years old,
> and > 99% work perfectly. Since optical media is dirt cheap, I do
> duplicate backups, and if one gives a read error, I include its better
> half in my next backup.
> I use USB pendrives for very short term storage, and rotate.
> They tend to go bad.
> As to storing sensitive data on someone else's computer, LOL,
> why not give them all your passwords and company secrets too?
> []'s

I completely agree. In at least 25 years I never lost a byte. Mind
you, I make duplicates of really important data.

On 2024-09-27, jjb <jjb@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 27-09-2024 20:39, Shadow wrote:
>
>> As to storing sensitive data on someone else's computer, LOL,
>> why not give them all your passwords and company secrets too?

Seen on a T-shirt:

There is no cloud. It's just someone else's computer.

> I completely agree. In at least 25 years I never lost a byte. Mind
> you, I make duplicates of really important data.

Currently I back up my stuff to external hard drives. I keep the
latest copy offsite, and rotate the previous one back into the
office, ready for the next backup. However, I have archived a
lot of stuff on DVDs. I apply 25% PARs in the hope that if a
disk goes flaky, I'll still be able to pull enough stuff off it
to rebuild it.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | People have become
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | too dependent on
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | the Internet.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | It Clouds their thinking.

On Fri, 9/27/2024 1:33 PM, Ralf Schneider wrote:
> Am Fri, 27 Sep 2024 12:40:57 -0400 schrieb Joel:
>
>> Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
>> Optical disks are good if you want a handheld copy of something, but
>> external storage or large USB media is what I'd prefer.
> I don't trust in USB drives, since I had amounts of crashes. My DVD-RAMs
> are still working.
>
> Regards
> Ralf
>

Once you get up to a certain size, they tend to use SSD controllers
inside, then a USB converter connected to that. This can radically
improve the storage characteristic. The SSD controller has static
and dynamic wear leveling. Very few USB sticks have that in a USB
controller (but there are some).

https://www.amazon.ca/Patriot-Supersonic-Prime-Flash-Drive/dp/B095HZ2S8B

In a review:

"Wrapping this up, the Rage Prime is a really well-built drive leaning
on proven components with a Phison PS2251-17 controller, a controller
that's typically designed for portable SSDs."

It seems the controller has SMART (presumably as passthru over USB), and
it has power-on-hours for example.

http://www.cdrlabs.com/reviews/patriot-supersonic-rage-prime-usb32-gen2-flash-drive/packaging-and-physical-features.html

"That being said, there is one issue with the Supersonic Rage Prime and
that is the amount of heat it generates. At idle the drive is warm to
the touch, and when pushed hard the temperature quickly climbs. The
Supersonic Rage Prime's thermal sensor does a great job of keeping things
in check. However, it does so by throttling the drive's read and
write speeds. You have to transfer a lot of data to reach this point,
but it's something you should keep in mind when considering the Supersonic Rage Prime." <=== scourge of flash...
thermal, and the "SLC" cache

Hey kids, always put plastic bodies on overheating things, OK?

I can't find any mention of wear leveling though. Whether it has both
static and dynamic. Comes in three capacities.

https://pics.computerbase.de/9/9/7/3/0-873f87a2f0cf683f/6-640.4e8906e9.jpg

https://pics.computerbase.de/9/9/7/3/0-873f87a2f0cf683f/5-1080.8636258f.jpg

( https://www.computerbase.de/2022-05/patriot-supersonic-rage-prime-test )

*******

This does not mean I am recommending such a device for "backups".
But if you must do something like this, get a nice one.

Not some $10 thing from Walmart that breaks on the sixth write.

Just the expense of the thing, should drive you towards something
more cost-efficient.

Paul

In comp.os.linux.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> If you just wanted to store a little data for distant future
> generations, information etched into glass should last longer than
> info on plastic M-Discs. You could use a program like Optar to
> convert into a printable data representation and then use a glass
> etching kit or laser to 'burn' that to a paper-sized pane of glass.

Provided, of course, that no one along the eons drops the pane, or
drops something on the pane, shattering it into a million pieces in the
process.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 00:13:51 +0200, D wrote:

>
> Do you do restore tests regularly? If not, it could be that you might not
> have as many backups as you might think. =/
>

Yes. I will do a random sample on occasion, mostly to satisfy my curiosity.
Never had a problem.

But most of this data is not critical for me. I could live without it
or it could be somewhat easily replaced.

My e-books and music, however, are absolutely essential and must be
preserved. Fortunately, these collections are only a few Tb and I
simply make new copies from time to time. I also keep copies on
USB HDD external drives.

What puzzles me is why hasn't implementing a viable long-term storage
solution become a top priority? Digital information is here to stay,
likely forever, and we need a way to preserve it forever without muss
or fuss.

Unfortunately, consumer-grade optical storage technology is in the
hands of grubbing capitalists. As soon as sales fall by 10% they
will start to leave the market in search of a new fad.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:32:07 -0400, Paul wrote:

>
> Once you get up to a certain size, they tend to use SSD controllers
> inside, then a USB converter connected to that. This can radically
> improve the storage characteristic. The SSD controller has static
> and dynamic wear leveling. Very few USB sticks have that in a USB
> controller (but there are some).
>

The fact that wear leveling and trimming are required only indicates
that SSD is an inferior and useless technology.

Superior and stable NAND ICs are available but they are enormously
expensive and the grubbing capitalists that control the consumer market
would never consider them.

This is the reason that I do not use SSDs of any kind and still use
only HDD spinning rust on all my machines.

For long-term storage SSDs are simply unthinkable.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 07:33:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> Consumer SSDs are especially not
>> long term.
>>
> Why not?
>

Because consumer SSDs require wear leveling and trimming which are
both cheap technical gimmicks intended to foist an inferior technology
onto an unsuspecting public.

>
> Provided they are kept powered on
>

Then just keep all your precious data in a RAM disk and never
power down your machine.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 13:04:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> How many 'fixes' have been applied to hard drives?
>
> Checksums. Bad block management, Defragmentaion.
>
> All signs of cheap technical gimmicks intended to foist an inferior
> technology onto an unsuspecting public.
>

True. Consumer-grade technology is inferior in many ways.

But SSDs go way beyond reasonable bounds with their technical
gimmickry.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 27/09/2024 13:26, Nux Vomica wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:36:29 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
>
>>
>> Having personally experienced failures of both cd-r and dvd-r media
>> wherein the recorded media became unreadable in a very short timeframe
>> (only a few years) even with proper storage it is not at all irrational
>> to be skeptical of claims of significant lifetimes for optical media
>> (esp. the user recordable type, pressed disks are a different matter).
>> Existing user recordable optical systems have, so far, had a poor track
>> record, so any new system has a higher bar to get over before it is
>> trusted for any long-term archive use.
>>
>
> My experience is far different from yours.
>
> I have optical disks that I made in 2008 that are still quite
> viable, and an associate of mine burned disks back in the 1990's
> that are still readable with no errors. (Both cases using GNU/Linux)
>
> Possibly you had selected the inexpensive, "bargain basement"
> brands of cd-r/dvd-r which may have much shorter lives.
>
> Also, are you sure that the "r" designation is not actually "rw"
> for re-writable disks? The re-writable variety are known to to
> degrade much more rapidly.
>
> I always purchased Taiyo Yuden DVD's which have an excellent
> reputation for longevity, but since DVDs have a small capacity
> I now only use M-Disc bdr.
>
> I am not a professional archivist but I know that libraries
> and other institutions choose optical storage as a primary archival
> medium.
>
> Of course, one must always be mindful of future technology.
> The strategy is to always copy important data to improved
> formats but, so far, with optical media, this is not necessary
> yet.

+1 for M-Disc BDR. I use the 100GB version.

In comp.os.linux.misc Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
> On 27/09/2024 13:26, Nux Vomica wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:36:29 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Having personally experienced failures of both cd-r and dvd-r media
> >> wherein the recorded media became unreadable in a very short timeframe
> >> (only a few years) even with proper storage it is not at all irrational
> >> to be skeptical of claims of significant lifetimes for optical media
> >> (esp. the user recordable type, pressed disks are a different matter).
> >> Existing user recordable optical systems have, so far, had a poor track
> >> record, so any new system has a higher bar to get over before it is
> >> trusted for any long-term archive use.
> >>
> >
> > My experience is far different from yours.
> >
> > I have optical disks that I made in 2008 that are still quite
> > viable, and an associate of mine burned disks back in the 1990's
> > that are still readable with no errors. (Both cases using GNU/Linux)
> >
> > Possibly you had selected the inexpensive, "bargain basement"
> > brands of cd-r/dvd-r which may have much shorter lives.
> >
> > Also, are you sure that the "r" designation is not actually "rw"
> > for re-writable disks? The re-writable variety are known to to
> > degrade much more rapidly.
> >
> > I always purchased Taiyo Yuden DVD's which have an excellent
> > reputation for longevity, but since DVDs have a small capacity
> > I now only use M-Disc bdr.
> >
> > I am not a professional archivist but I know that libraries
> > and other institutions choose optical storage as a primary archival
> > medium.
> >
> > Of course, one must always be mindful of future technology.
> > The strategy is to always copy important data to improved
> > formats but, so far, with optical media, this is not necessary
> > yet.

> +1 for M-Disc BDR. I use the 100GB version.

Aren't they slow? Burning DVDs and CDs take forever! :(
--
"So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." --Hebrews 9:28. Unlimity slammy colony Friday.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

NONE, really.

If you need long-term, optical is kinda IT.
I'd suggest "M-Disk".

Mag disks can be FAIR - but CAN suffer from
"bit rot" after awhile. There are utilities,
or you can write one, to read and re-write
every so often. Not esp hard to script
something like 'dd' for the purpose. Wrote
a handy friendly util in Lazarus Pascal, but
needed a 'C' helper to deal with large-TB
drives as FPC only *thinks* it has 64-bit
disk functions.

Flash and variants - CRAP.

Magic crystal holograms - CRAP.

Tape, CRAP.

FRAM, good, but very low capacity.

Oh, and VERY important - will there be DEVICES/DRIVERS
to READ your preferred medium even 5 years from now ???
I've got these 8-inch floppies ......

IMHO, your best bet is REPLICATION. Keep moving yer
data to the currently-popular media. Using 'cloud'
can help too - but don't compress/encrypt with
utilities that may not stand the test of time.
Plain-Jane ZIP will last, others ???

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:32:07 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Once you get up to a certain size, they tend to use SSD controllers
> inside, then a USB converter connected to that. This can radically
> improve the storage characteristic. The SSD controller has static and
> dynamic wear leveling. Very few USB sticks have that in a USB controller
> (but there are some).

The thing is, Linux has, included as standard, support for filesystems
(e.g. f2fs, ubifs) that are specifically designed for use on flash
storage, with features like wear-levelling directly built into their
storage-management algorithms.

Consider that SSDs (including USB sticks) incorporate elaborate interface
controllers to pretend to the OS that they are disks and can use
conventional disk-centric filesystems: imagine the overhead that would
simply disappear if you could go direct to the low-level storage and use
one of these purpose-built filesystems!

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 00:43:50 -0400, "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
wrote in <OW2dnZiY0ueaRmX7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com>:

> NONE, really.
>
> If you need long-term, optical is kinda IT.
> I'd suggest "M-Disk".
>
> Mag disks can be FAIR - but CAN suffer from "bit rot" after awhile.

Which is why if you value your time, you'll invest in a decent
NAS, and pay attention to the disks when they complain. If a disk
starts to fail -- swap it out!

I recommend Synology -- not only because of its Linux underpinnings,
but its excellent management software: a desktop metaphor, controlled
through a web browser. You can also ssh into it.

If you do buy one, I recommend getting one with 10G Ethernet (at least),
and making sure your system has a 10G (or better) connection to it.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"My cat makes me search the room for invisible intruders."

On Sun, 9/29/2024 2:28 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:32:07 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
>> Once you get up to a certain size, they tend to use SSD controllers
>> inside, then a USB converter connected to that. This can radically
>> improve the storage characteristic. The SSD controller has static and
>> dynamic wear leveling. Very few USB sticks have that in a USB controller
>> (but there are some).
>
> The thing is, Linux has, included as standard, support for filesystems
> (e.g. f2fs, ubifs) that are specifically designed for use on flash
> storage, with features like wear-levelling directly built into their
> storage-management algorithms.
>
> Consider that SSDs (including USB sticks) incorporate elaborate interface
> controllers to pretend to the OS that they are disks and can use
> conventional disk-centric filesystems: imagine the overhead that would
> simply disappear if you could go direct to the low-level storage and use
> one of these purpose-built filesystems!
>

It would suck donkey balls of course.

Nobody wants their CPU donating a couple cores, to make
up for the ARM cores the SSD has. One of my SSDs has a
three-core ARM, two cores are for error correction on read!
And that is not particularly unusual.

Imagine if your SSD was slowed down by a slack-jawed "raw flash"
storage device. That would be awful.

The partitioning is the way that it is, for a reason.

*******

The faster that storage devices get, the more sensitive they
become to details. This is why I would keep you well away
from my PCIe Rev5 NVMe at 14000/12000 MB/sec. That still
needs an error corrector, and somehow keep up with the
need to correct every sector being read out. It's one
of the reasons those get so hot (and they put toy heatsinks
on top).

That's also how you can have devices like this. You would not
get these sorts of rates, without IOPs in the picture to help.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/21486/highpoint-updates-nvme-raid-cards-for-pcie-50-50-gbps-directattached-ssd-storage

Paul

On 29/09/2024 02:27, Paul wrote:
> The faster that storage devices get, the more sensitive they
> become to details. This is why I would keep you well away
> from my PCIe Rev5 NVMe at 14000/12000 MB/sec. That still
> needs an error corrector, and somehow keep up with the
> need to correct every sector being read out. It's one
> of the reasons those get so hot (and they put toy heatsinks
> on top).
>
> That's also how you can have devices like this. You would not
> get these sorts of rates, without IOPs in the picture to help.
>
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/21486/highpoint-updates-nvme-raid-cards-for-pcie-50-50-gbps-directattached-ssd-storage

So SSDs are safe for long term storage (say, a decade?), even if you
don't access them, so long as you keep them powered on?

On Sun, 9/29/2024 4:23 PM, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 29/09/2024 02:27, Paul wrote:
>> The faster that storage devices get, the more sensitive they
>> become to details. This is why I would keep you well away
>> from my PCIe Rev5 NVMe at 14000/12000 MB/sec. That still
>> needs an error corrector, and somehow keep up with the
>> need to correct every sector being read out. It's one
>> of the reasons those get so hot (and they put toy heatsinks
>> on top).
>>
>> That's also how you can have devices like this. You would not
>> get these sorts of rates, without IOPs in the picture to help.
>>
>> https://www.anandtech.com/show/21486/highpoint-updates-nvme-raid-cards-for-pcie-50-50-gbps-directattached-ssd-storage
>
> So SSDs are safe for long term storage (say, a decade?), even if you don't access them, so long as you keep them powered on?
>

We don't know all the details of the firmware fixes, but
at least in one case where the TLC used to get "mushy", the
fix for that was selective rewriting of some kind, to "refresh"
the device. That might have been a Samsung.

They don't give us constant estimates of archival life, leaving
us to "guess" the number is ten years. After all, it takes
ten years to test :-)

NOR flash chips used to get Bit Rot, between 10 and 20 years,
but that's an example of a device with no error correction
at all. The error correction in an SSD, is "mondo-powerful",
but, it assumes random degradations, not correlated ones.
If all the floating gates head to zero volts, an ECC
can't save you then. It is the archival case, that (eventually)
has to fail.

It's like the Helium disk drives in a sense. We know Helium
will eventually all leak out of the drive. There is no spigot
on the side for refilling them. If I put a 22TB drive inside
a time capsule glass bottle, come back in 40 years, it's
a good assumption the drive will not start. Some of the drives
have a pressure sensor (it's been spotted in SMART but is
not documented). We know then, from "ground truth", a Helium drive
is not archival quality. All we can argue about, is what year
all the helium will be gone. The guarantee is for five years,
but this is not a measured quantity, and if there was any
significant field failure rate attributable to no gas left,
it hasn't made the news yet. But the details of the design,
tell you the gas cannot last forever (it is retained by a
"thick adhesive", not by a gas-tight tin -- clever
people did this). The drives have two lids, the inner lid
secured with adhesive (gas "tight"), the outer welded lid
mechanically protects the inner lid from "finger pokes".
The welded lid is not gas tight. The welds do not really
need to be all that fancy.

The flash is the same way then. We know the floating gates,
even though disallowed, the electrons will eventually leave,
and we will be left with a "deflated feeling". If you did
happen to power up the device once a year, and (somehow)
the device notices a high error corrector rate, it might
choose to rewrite the sectors behind your back. I'd leave
it powered over night, while it catches up on house cleaning.

That's for TLC or QLC. The SLC and MLC drives, might not
even have that chunk of code, for their maintenance. If they
had the code, and the TLC or QLC ones had inherited the code,
we would not have noticed a thing. The fact someone had to
add code, tells you the SLC and MLC rely on the quality of the
floating gates, to make it to ten years. Based on the NOR flash
getting the odd bit corrupted at, say, 15 years, gives you
some idea about how well the SLC device may hold up. At fifteen
years, it can use its error corrector and hide those not
very dense failures. Since TLC and QLC are constantly
using their error correctors, the behavior is not the same.

Would accelerated life testing be valid for TLC or QLC archival
parameters ? Dunno. All we know is, the physics are the same
for the floating gate, but the thresholds are a lot tighter
on the SSDs you and I own, and there HAS to be a consequence
to this. The archival just cannot be as good... unless you
power them occasionally and let them sweep the dust under
the rug. The ECC can count the number of bits in error in
the sector, and based on that, it knows how close to
"uncorrectable" it is getting -- if the power is on.
Leave it in the back yard for 40 years, the cells will be
flat, and rewrites, will not be possible.

I would say that 6TB air-breathing drives (state on the lid
"do not cover this hole), those are archival material. I
would expect to power one up 20 years from now, and it will work.
That's why I own five or six of those, but I only own one
Helium drive.

And with the right optical media choice (not the dye ones),
those could be buried in the yard as well. Just keep the
humidity down. You don't want any biological attacks
on the media. Maybe some Verbatim Gold DVDs would be
good yard material.

Paul

On 28/09/2024 16:14, Ant wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>> +1 for M-Disc BDR. I use the 100GB version.
>
> Aren't they slow? Burning DVDs and CDs take forever! :(

Yeah, my 60 GB weekly backup set takes about 3 hours to get on disc.
DVDs are nothing compared to that.