| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Florian Philipp |
| 2 |
<lists@f_philipp.fastmail.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> As for my photos, I can back all the collection to a single DVD (and |
| 4 |
>> to a second one, since I keep hearing that DVD-Rs are unreliable), and |
| 5 |
>> since I don't take new photos every week, this solution is fine. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> A second DVD-R won't solve the problem because optical disks degrade over |
| 9 |
> time and the second one will degrade just as fast as the first. What you |
| 10 |
> need to do is to check the disks periodically (once a year is a good time |
| 11 |
> frame). |
| 12 |
I know DVD-Rs degrade, but it is unlikely they would fail at the same |
| 13 |
time, so copying twice does significantly alleviate the problem |
| 14 |
(AFAIK) |
| 15 |
Once a year isn't overkill? Isn't once every two years fine? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I myself would add a textfile with md5sums for all files to the DVD so you |
| 18 |
> don't have to check them visually. |
| 19 |
Sure. I am doing that since some time now. Unfortunately I didn't do |
| 20 |
so for some old backups. But data DVD-Rs have a considerable amount of |
| 21 |
correction code, and if the copy from DVD to hard disk proceeds |
| 22 |
without a single error message, there is a quite good chance that the |
| 23 |
files are good, right? |
| 24 |
(If they were burnt correctly in the fist place, that is. The manual |
| 25 |
of my DVD-RW drive warns that the burned disk should be checked before |
| 26 |
being trusted as a backup, and even then it - as usual - disclaims all |
| 27 |
warranties). |
Archives