Tape Backup

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

I am looking for opinions on what a decent tape backup for a PC
workstation might be, somewhere around 40 gigs or so, speed is not the
biggest issue, mostly being reasonablly priced and around 40 gigs (give
or take a few). I'm wondering what people think the better brands are
for this type of applications, and if possible, a suggestion on a
model.

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

On 01/13/2005 4:00 PM chrisisasavage@hotmail.com wrote:

>I am looking for opinions on what a decent tape backup for a PC
>workstation might be, somewhere around 40 gigs or so, speed is not the
>biggest issue, mostly being reasonablly priced and around 40 gigs (give
>or take a few). I'm wondering what people think the better brands are
>for this type of applications, and if possible, a suggestion on a
>model.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
What do you consider "reasonably priced"? I used to use an Onstream
tape drive for backups. But it died and Onstream has been out of
business for two years. I am currently looking at external HDD for
backup. I shopped around for tape drives. I found the least expensive
being $1,099. and that was for a 10 GB tape drive.

--
________
To email me, Edit "xt" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

 

[lynn]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

> What do you consider "reasonably priced"? I used to use an Onstream tape drive for backups. But it died and Onstream has been
> out of business for two years. I am currently looking at external HDD for backup. I shopped around for tape drives. I found
> the least expensive being $1,099. and that was for a 10 GB tape drive.

Whoa, Travan tape drives are very reasonably priced ! 20/40 GB
for $299 and the tapes are $40 each.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=40-113-121&depa=0

But, I would use an external hard drive with Robocopy.

Lynn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

I am a fan of hard disk storage used for backup, BUT, I was recently in a
computer store and saw a product marketed by ZIP that had a storage capacity
of (I think) 35-90GB. I think it was tape. Knowing ZIP products are
marketed towards the average PC user (and priced accordingly), you might
want to browse their website and see what they have to offer.

--Dan

<chrisisasavage@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105650059.340774.306560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I am looking for opinions on what a decent tape backup for a PC
> workstation might be, somewhere around 40 gigs or so, speed is not the
> biggest issue, mostly being reasonablly priced and around 40 gigs (give
> or take a few). I'm wondering what people think the better brands are
> for this type of applications, and if possible, a suggestion on a
> model.
>
> Thanks
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

dg wrote:

> I am a fan of hard disk storage used for backup, BUT, I was recently in a
> computer store and saw a product marketed by ZIP that had a storage
> capacity
> of (I think) 35-90GB. I think it was tape. Knowing ZIP products are
> marketed towards the average PC user (and priced accordingly), you might
> want to browse their website and see what they have to offer.

It's an Iomega product but it's not a Zip and it's not a tape, it's called a
"REV" and it's a removable-media disk. The drive is 300 bucks and the
disks cost about the same as hard disks of slightly larger capacity.

> --Dan
>
> <chrisisasavage@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1105650059.340774.306560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>I am looking for opinions on what a decent tape backup for a PC
>> workstation might be, somewhere around 40 gigs or so, speed is not the
>> biggest issue, mostly being reasonablly priced and around 40 gigs (give
>> or take a few). I'm wondering what people think the better brands are
>> for this type of applications, and if possible, a suggestion on a
>> model.
>>
>> Thanks
>>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

In article <cs71p4$ofh@library1.airnews.net>, Lynn <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.com>
writes

>Whoa, Travan tape drives are very reasonably priced !

They're also a pile of unreliable shite.

> 20/40 GB
>for $299 and the tapes are $40 each.

I pity you if you think $40 per tape is "reasonably priced".

--
..sigmonster on vacation

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Arno,

Why are CD-R and DVD+-R unreliable and short lived? I really don't
know. You say HDD are reliable and medium life. I have never dropped a
hard drive, but I have dropped a lot of backup CD-R, and I am guessing
that the CD-R tolerate physical abuse a lot better. Now granted, I have
burned many a Drive Image CD, only to find that they don't verify
correctly. I never did understand where exactly the problem was in
that, was it software, burner, or medium? I guess that would qualify as
unreliable. It was be pretty devastating to try to restore a CD-R image
only to find that it was invalid and was your only backup. Actually, I
think that has happened to me before, I seem to remember. Is a
validated CD-R still unreliable and short-lived?

I have some old HDD on a shelf in anti-static bags, and I don't
consider them particularly convenient. Also, how long does a HDD hold
data before it starts to corrupt?

IMF

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

On 14 Jan 2005 08:06:40 -0800, "Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Arno,
>
>Why are CD-R and DVD+-R unreliable and short lived?

CDR and DVDR are more reliable if verified, as you stated, but the
long-term life of them is unpredictable. If you're only counting on
them for 3 month lifetimes, you're probably OK, but if you want them
to last for a few years or more, you're playing with fire.

I like using HD as the primary backup, then archiving the backup files
to DVDR every now and again. This gives you several levels with
different failure mechanisms, and the DVDRs don't age enough to be a
very high risk.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Thanks for the info. I actually thought that CD-R were permanent and
lasted forever, even if the plastic surface was scratched, while the
magnetic info on a HDD degraded eventually. What happens to the CD-R
after 3 months? Do they lose data?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell@intel.com> writes:
> CDR and DVDR are more reliable if verified, as you stated, but the
> long-term life of them is unpredictable. If you're only counting on
> them for 3 month lifetimes, you're probably OK, but if you want them
> to last for a few years or more, you're playing with fire.

High quality CDR (e.g. Mitsui Archive Gold) have undergone a lot of
testing and seem to be quite stable for long periods. The jury is
still out for DVDR. Hard drives contain all kinds of seals, filters,
lubricants on mechanical parts, and flash memory parameters and
firmware dependent on floating charges, all of which can decay over a
period of years. Hard drives are quite unreliable for long term
storage.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Gee, this is terrible. According to the NIST thing, I am doing so many
things wrong. I write on them with a broad permanent marker which sure
smells like it uses solvents, sometimes with fine tip markers, and I
store the recorded media horizontally for years, sometimes in their own
cases laying down piled on top of each other, but usually just back in
the spindles they came in.

Funny thing, though, I have never, ever noticed a disc lose data it
once held. Could it all just be a lot of hype? Wouldn't be the first
time. So now I have to go back and try a few. Of course, figuring out
what was supposed to be on there and whether it is still good or not
won't be easy!

Wish me luck,
Irwin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Irwin wrote:

> Arno,
>
> Why are CD-R and DVD+-R unreliable and short lived?

Whether they are or not depends on the particular chemistry--some last a
good long time when properly stored but don't count on it unless you're
sure you know what you're getting.

> I really don't
> know. You say HDD are reliable and medium life. I have never dropped a
> hard drive, but I have dropped a lot of backup CD-R, and I am guessing
> that the CD-R tolerate physical abuse a lot better.

Some kinds yes, others no. A hard disk shock-mounted in a removable tray
will take quite a lot of abuse, a laptop drive even more. One thing you
are not going to do is scratch the data off a hard disk by dragging
something across it.

> Now granted, I have
> burned many a Drive Image CD, only to find that they don't verify
> correctly. I never did understand where exactly the problem was in
> that, was it software, burner, or medium? I guess that would qualify as
> unreliable. It was be pretty devastating to try to restore a CD-R image
> only to find that it was invalid and was your only backup. Actually, I
> think that has happened to me before, I seem to remember. Is a
> validated CD-R still unreliable and short-lived?
>
> I have some old HDD on a shelf in anti-static bags, and I don't
> consider them particularly convenient. Also, how long does a HDD hold
> data before it starts to corrupt?

Put those disks in inexpensive trays and they become a lot more convenient.
You'll find that disk is actually competitive with travan tape in cost and
is much more flexible in terms of options for backup strategies (you can
use anything from xcopy to high end enterprise backup software, you can
back up to RAID, can do all sorts of things that you can't do with tape)
and vastly superior in terms of transfer rate and scalability (when you
need 200 gig of backup, if there is a Travan that large available at all
it's not going to be cheap and won't use your existing tapes, but stick a
250 gig disk in a tray and it plugs right in where your old 40 came out,
with no changes at all needed.

As to how long a hard disk holds data, I don't know a specific answer to
that--I've never had one lose data that had not failed outright. Since
they depend on magnetic servo tracks for their operation they should hold
data uncorrupted as long as the drive operates.




> IMF

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> writes:
> As to how long a hard disk holds data, I don't know a specific answer to
> that--I've never had one lose data that had not failed outright. Since
> they depend on magnetic servo tracks for their operation they should hold
> data uncorrupted as long as the drive operates.

I've had numerous hard drives fail, resulting in any of data
corruption, specific sectors failing, or the whole drive failing. Any
serious backup system should include enough error
correction/redundancy to recover from sector and media failures.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> It's an Iomega product but it's not a Zip and it's not a tape, it's called a
> "REV" and it's a removable-media disk. The drive is 300 bucks and the
> disks cost about the same as hard disks of slightly larger capacity.

....and they also use non-standard UDF filesystem.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

In article <462gu0t9vcernodg05i2dpn5oe1hskbn1g@4ax.com>,
Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2005 08:06:40 -0800, "Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Arno,
>>
>>Why are CD-R and DVD+-R unreliable and short lived?
>
>CDR and DVDR are more reliable if verified, as you stated, but the
>long-term life of them is unpredictable. If you're only counting on
>them for 3 month lifetimes, you're probably OK, but if you want them
>to last for a few years or more, you're playing with fire.
>
>I like using HD as the primary backup, then archiving the backup files
>to DVDR every now and again. This gives you several levels with
>different failure mechanisms, and the DVDRs don't age enough to be a
>very high risk.
>
>
>--
>Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer


The ability to read a DVD written on one brand of burner on any other
reader scares me. I'd do a readback on at least one PC of another
brand to test it.

You also need several generations of backup, and never overwrite your
best backup. (this applies to disks and re-writable media.)

Unless you've actually tested a restore to bare iron you don't
know if your disaster recovery plan will work when you need it.

These days I do image backups to a pair of big disks in another
computer on my LAN, (these disks are synced in case one dies) and I
backup my data (mostly "My Documents") with some sync software that
keeps my laptop in sync with my desktop machine.

test test test .

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <1105727766.949858.164690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Irwin <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the info. I actually thought that CD-R were permanent and
>lasted forever, even if the plastic surface was scratched, while the
>magnetic info on a HDD degraded eventually. What happens to the CD-R
>after 3 months? Do they lose data?
>


I've never seen a reference to the magnetic domains degrading,
in the context of magnetic disk media.

The US National Standard org has a good document on CD/DVD media
lifetime issues:

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisisasavage@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am looking for opinions on what a decent tape backup for a PC
> workstation might be, somewhere around 40 gigs or so, speed is not the
> biggest issue, mostly being reasonablly priced and around 40 gigs (give
> or take a few). I'm wondering what people think the better brands are
> for this type of applications, and if possible, a suggestion on a
> model.

Forget it. Tape is today only cost-effective if you have huge volumes
of data in tape libraries, e.g. >100TB.

Other backup media are (my subjective list):

Medium...high reliability, medium lifetime, medium cost, high capacity:
- HDDs in external enclosures or removable drive bays

Low reliability, low lifetime, high cost, medium capacity:
- Non-professional tape (Dat, Travan)

Low reliability, low lifetime, low cost, low capacity:
- CD-R, DVD+/-R(W)

High reliability, high lifetime, medium cost, low capacity:
- MOD (3.5"), DVD-RAM

To long-term store lower volumes of critical (family photos,
diploma thesis, etc.) data use MOD or DVD-RAM.

For backups with small sizes use MOD, DVD-RAM or HDDs.
For backups with large sizes use HDDs.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Amazing. I always put CDs on the table with the label down, to protect
the bottom side. So, that is wrong? Amazing.

Irwin

Mike Redrobe wrote:
> Irwin wrote:
> > Thanks for the info. I actually thought that CD-R were permanent
and
> > lasted forever, even if the plastic surface was scratched,
>
> The vulnerable part of CDRs is actually the top surface.
>
> Scratches on the bottom can be polished out - there's 1.2mm of
> clear plastic on the underside, scratch the label size, however,
> and your data is gone forever.
>
> The top surface has only a thin layer of laquer protecting the
> aluminium recording layer from the outside world.
> DVDs are better in this respect, as they have 1.2mm of clear plastic
> top and bottom.
>
> So if you leave your CD on your desk or whatever, you should put
> the data side - not label side - face down on the desk.
> (Or put them away in cases or sleeves every time..!)
>
> >while the magnetic info on a HDD degraded eventually.
>
> In theory, yes, in practice this isn't common.
>
> >What happens
> > to the CD-R after 3 months? Do they lose data?
>
> The thin layer of laquer on the label side can be worn off over
> time (through mishandling, stacking CDs on top of each other etc),
> causing "CD Rot" as the aluminium surface oxides.
> Even the pressure of a pen is enough....
>
> --
> Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Irwin wrote:

> Thanks for the info. I actually thought that CD-R were permanent and
> lasted forever, even if the plastic surface was scratched, while the
> magnetic info on a HDD degraded eventually. What happens to the CD-R
> after 3 months? Do they lose data?

3 months probably not, three years some do.

The upper surface of a CD is protected only by a layer of paint if that--if
it gets scratched the data is gone (people tend to be careful of the
bottom--if that gets scratched it can be polished, the top is the fragile
side). DVDs have a layer of plastic on top of the chemical and reflective
layers, so they're a good deal more durable in that regard, but I haven't
even seen claims of high longevity for them.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Irwin wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I actually thought that CD-R were permanent and
> lasted forever, even if the plastic surface was scratched,

The vulnerable part of CDRs is actually the top surface.

Scratches on the bottom can be polished out - there's 1.2mm of
clear plastic on the underside, scratch the label size, however,
and your data is gone forever.

The top surface has only a thin layer of laquer protecting the
aluminium recording layer from the outside world.
DVDs are better in this respect, as they have 1.2mm of clear plastic
top and bottom.

So if you leave your CD on your desk or whatever, you should put
the data side - not label side - face down on the desk.
(Or put them away in cases or sleeves every time..!)

>while the magnetic info on a HDD degraded eventually.

In theory, yes, in practice this isn't common.

>What happens
> to the CD-R after 3 months? Do they lose data?

The thin layer of laquer on the label side can be worn off over
time (through mishandling, stacking CDs on top of each other etc),
causing "CD Rot" as the aluminium surface oxides.
Even the pressure of a pen is enough....

--
Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Irwin <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Arno,

> Why are CD-R and DVD+-R unreliable and short lived? I really don't
> know.
My personal experience and that of people I know. The shortest CD-R life
I had so far was 5 minutes. It burned. It verified fine, 5 minutes later
the same drive could not read it. The problem is not so much that all
media are bad, but that quality and durability varies widely with no
way for the user to know which media are good and which are not. In
addition the burner/firmware/medium combination makes a huge difference.

> You say HDD are reliable and medium life.

Medium = 5..20 years. The HDD manufacturers only state 5 year component
life. The problem is that there are components on HDDs (e.g. electrolyte
capacitors) that have a limited lifetime, even more so when unused.
Also part of the reliabaility claim is that you can suffer a complete
media loss if you drop them.

> I have never dropped a
> hard drive, but I have dropped a lot of backup CD-R, and I am guessing
> that the CD-R tolerate physical abuse a lot better.

Yes: Mechanical on the underside. No: Scratches on the top, sunlight.

> Now granted, I have
> burned many a Drive Image CD, only to find that they don't verify
> correctly. I never did understand where exactly the problem was in
> that, was it software, burner, or medium?

All three (if you count the firmware of the drive as part of the software).

> I guess that would qualify as
> unreliable. It was be pretty devastating to try to restore a CD-R image
> only to find that it was invalid and was your only backup. Actually, I
> think that has happened to me before, I seem to remember. Is a
> validated CD-R still unreliable and short-lived?

In my experience, that is unfortunately so.

> I have some old HDD on a shelf in anti-static bags, and I don't
> consider them particularly convenient. Also, how long does a HDD hold
> data before it starts to corrupt?

Data corruption should take >>10 years. However HDDs for backups are
best done with the HDDs in removable drive bays or UDB/FireWire/SATA
external enclosures, which also protect the drive so some degree.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Irwin <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I actually thought that CD-R were permanent and
> lasted forever, even if the plastic surface was scratched, while the
> magnetic info on a HDD degraded eventually. What happens to the CD-R
> after 3 months? Do they lose data?

Yes, we all have seen these manufacturer claims. The problem is chemical
degradation, often induces by light.

Example: A high-quality CD-R written exactly to manufacturer specification
and stored cool, dark and dry may actually keep 50 years or so,
but nobody really knows, the technology is still too new.
And there is a lot of variation and different chemicals used in
different media.
Also don't forget these are extremely cheap mass-market media.

Comparison: Any MOD (and a DVD-RAM in a cartridge, it is basically the
same technology) will keep >30 years when stored under normal
conditions. Some manufacturers today think that >80 years is
realistic, but for these long times accelerated ageing models
seem to be unreliable. In addition MOD (and DVD-RAM?) is
ISO-standardized. If it has the logo, then it has the
characteristics and the reliability.
These techologies are targetted at people that are willing to
pay more to actually keep their data.

--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Al Dykes <adykes@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <1105727766.949858.164690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Irwin <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Thanks for the info. I actually thought that CD-R were permanent and
>>lasted forever, even if the plastic surface was scratched, while the
>>magnetic info on a HDD degraded eventually. What happens to the CD-R
>>after 3 months? Do they lose data?
>>


> I've never seen a reference to the magnetic domains degrading,
> in the context of magnetic disk media.

It happens on floppy disk. It is pretty much a non-ussue on HDD,
since they a) keep longer b) other parts limit drive lifetime.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> As to how long a hard disk holds data, I don't know a specific answer to
>> that--I've never had one lose data that had not failed outright. Since
>> they depend on magnetic servo tracks for their operation they should hold
>> data uncorrupted as long as the drive operates.

> I've had numerous hard drives fail, resulting in any of data
> corruption, specific sectors failing, or the whole drive failing. Any
> serious backup system should include enough error
> correction/redundancy to recover from sector and media failures.

That is why you do regular backups on at least 3 rotating media sets
(so you can go back to the backup one step older if the newest one
fails) and why you do a complete compare after the backup (so you
can identify problems with a medium early).

Still not extremely reliable. For that you should probably use
two different types of professional tapes at the same time,
put each backup and both media types and store the tapes in
different locations. However that costs far more than most
people are willing/able to pay.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Irwin <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gee, this is terrible. According to the NIST thing, I am doing so many
> things wrong. I write on them with a broad permanent marker which sure
> smells like it uses solvents, sometimes with fine tip markers, and I
> store the recorded media horizontally for years, sometimes in their own
> cases laying down piled on top of each other, but usually just back in
> the spindles they came in.

> Funny thing, though, I have never, ever noticed a disc lose data it
> once held. Could it all just be a lot of hype? Wouldn't be the first
> time. So now I have to go back and try a few. Of course, figuring out
> what was supposed to be on there and whether it is still good or not
> won't be easy!

As said here before, if you have a good match between firmware, burner
and disk (and limit writing speed to 8x: personal observation for a
TEAC CD-E540E and Imation 40x CD-R) and store them in a dark place,
you can get years of data lifetime. There is just no way to predict
with which exact combination you will get this.

> Wish me luck,

I do. You might need it.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus