Why the crap is this so expensive??? Qty 5 @ 100gb is over $50.00!!! Are you effin kidding me???

Why the crap is this so expensive??? Qty 5 @ 100gb is over $50.00!!! Are you effin kidding me???

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Verbatim-Blu-ray-Disc-pcs-Spindle/dp/B0056DV0L4
wincatalog.com/
amazon.co.jp/dp/B00XQMWFV6
store.mdisc.com/100-GB-Blu-ray_c_11.html
amazon.com/Verbatim-Disc-BDXL-Jewel-98913/dp/B011PIJPOC
amazon.com/Verbatim-Branded-Surface-50-Disc-98397/dp/B00GSQ4DBM/
encode.ru/threads/456-zpaq-updates?p=42679&viewfull=1#post42679
amazon.com/Verbatim-Branded-Recordable-100-Disc-97460/dp/B003ZDNZT2
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>2016
>CD

Hahaha that's just fantastic.

I remember when HDV's were just becoming a thing and they would charge you like $20 per casette. Glad optical media will suffer a similar fate.

Because nobody fucking uses them. No demand = companies can charge as much as they want.

Everyone uses an SSD for their OS + programs, HDD for everything else, and a back-up HDD containing data off tue first HDD.

Kek hdd is so much cheaper then. 1 tb cost like $50+

It's because only retards would use them when a 5x 250/320gb 2.5" HDDs cost the same and all you need is a USB to SATA cable

What do you need BD-RE XL for anyway?
Shit, why would you need BD-R discs at all?

last two things I've needed to write optical media for were
>burned a DVD to boot a machine that was a tad too old to boot from USB
>burned a CD to play in a car
and that was a while ago

We're getting to the point where USB 3.0 flash drives are approaching $20 per 128GB.

>Because nobody fucking uses them. No demand = companies can charge as much as they want.
As much as I hate to admit it, this.

BD last for fucking ages though, so it's one of those things where you'll burn it only once.

At least you had the sense to ask... What I need them for is long-term archival-quality data storage. Not something I would trust to flash memory or HDD.

Unfortunately, I think this is the best answer.

Re-Recordable discs

The average consumer doesn't need 100GB Re-Recordable discs outside of niche reasons like enterprise data backups on a physical media that needs to be modified and easily shareable

>unreadable after 10+ years
>last for ages

It's mostly dependent on disc brand (as well as manufacturer, to an extent).

I can get you some shitty cheap BD-Rs which will be unreadable by Christmas. But that isn't any different from any other storage media.

I can't disprove your "ten years meme" because I've not got BD-Rs that old yet, but I've found that my current discs have shown a no signs of failure since being burnt.

I also have many DVD-Rs which are supposed to be dead (yet still read without trouble twelve years after being written) if the ten year rule is a thing.
Again, it comes down to buying reasonable media.

This ignores the fact that optical media has other benefits which put it ahead of other techniques for backup storage, like being waterproof and reasonably weatherproof, read only once written, it's less susceptible to silent data corruption, easy to mail, not dependent on electrical components, etc.

I would actually worry more about the drives.

And back in 2012 it was one disc for $80+.

The price is decreasing, but it's still a niche format.

how many discs would you end up using that way though?

This
In 10 years you won't be able to buy a new drive.
In 20 years you won't be able to plug an old one into a new computer.

Sata will be gone in 7 years or less.
DDR5 will not be a thing, it will be replaced by HBM.
HDDs will be conpletely replaced in 10 years or less.
Pcie 4.0 will be a thing but it won't be much better than 3.0 and it will be replaced by a new standard.

Are you kids 12?

Are you aware 3.5" floppy disks and drives are still manufactured to this day? Compatibility and availability are by far some of the strongest qualities of optical media. You can read a CD from the 80s in a 2016 drive. Millions of drives are produced every single year. That's on top of all the drives already out there.

Optical drives will be readily available for decades to come. How little do you know about data storage, for God's sake?

Well think of 1tb of data. On 25gb single layer that's spanning 40=discs... 100gb=10 discs. It really comes down to time and space efficiency.

This guy gets it

legacy isn't really an argument when talking about bluray, hardly anyone /started/ using recordable bluray
dvd and cd is used in many legacy systems, but not so much bluray, by the time bluray came out, we also had other means of portable storage like usb flash drives which are even more convenient to use

i personally used to use cd-r/dvd-r a lot years ago, sometimes still to use in old pc's/consoles, but i've never owned any bluray drives/discs

I'd say at least 15-20 years for good media, which is a quarter of your expected fucking lifespan.
Hell, it's probably longer than most posters on Sup Forums have been alive.
It's almost as long as my country has had publicly accessible internet.

It's not something to scoff at.

My cassettes, floppy's, zipdisks and ls-120 disks still work. The drives still work (didn't expect that Iomega!). But my optical drives? They are being built cheaper and cheaper every generation. I went through loads of them. First because the speed increase or because of new formats, later because units started to fail. Pioneer drives and old school Plextor's were nice, but now it's all flaky. Flaky trays, firmware updates to read certain types of media... It's shit. And how many optical drives do you still see around in newish computers? The market for optical is dying and the drives are dying.

>They are being built cheaper and cheaper every generation.
The point isn't that the drives are durable, but that they have massive backwards compatibility. Like user said, you can pop a 30 year old disc in a drive made today and read it. One should expect 30 years from now you can buy a modern drive and read the Blu-rays you've burned today.

That's magnetic storage, very robust. LTO drives are still used in commercial off-site disaster recovery. Problem is those are waaaay more expensive than BDXL for retaining TB's of data for a poorfag like OP.

I am high up in the Optical Media IDF, but I will concede this one point.
Modern optical drives are made out of fucking play dough or some shit.

The media is typically fine, but you'd be lucky to get a drive that lasts more than a few years at this point.

There is this though.
I don't expect Blu-ray readers to disappear overnight.

If you want to archive something that will last for ages, nothing beats magnetic tape, even today.

Actually floppy disks were discontinued about five years ago.

Exactly, but look at the price of LTO-6/7. Yikes!!!

So go for LTO-3, 4, and 5. All hold vastly more than a Blu-ray

>If you want to archive something that will last for ages
It depends on the conditions.

A quality stable optical disc will outlast tape, particularly in mediocre environmental conditions. It also doesn't damage the media to make reads.
Tape has its own specific longevity issues as well, some coming from magnetic sensitivity, chemical composition and how tape works.

The big advantage to tape is speed, scale and rewritability.
An enterprise doesn't want to have a guy burning twenty 100GB discs each day (at great expense) when he can run a tape drive automatically.

Sony and Panasonic media are suppose to last 50+ years

>BD last for fucking ages though
kek
>Not __ENGRAVING__ your media on M-DISC
>not susceptible to oxydation
>not susceptible to magnetic fuck ups
>melting point between 200° and 1000 °C
>reading compatible in any reader
>writing compatible in many common CD/DVD burners
step up your game senpais

Certain brands of BD-R have similar composition (and expected lifespan) to M-Discs.
Verbatim sell a bunch IIRC.

>No demand = companies can charge as much as they want.
i think you'll find the opposite is true for literally anything
the real reason they're so expensive is because they're expensive to make and they still want to turn some sort of profit

OP, I recommend these: amazon.com/Verbatim-Blu-ray-Disc-pcs-Spindle/dp/B0056DV0L4

It's about the best price:performance you'll find for BD-Rs.

>mechanical hard disks have as much longevity and data stability as Blu-ray discs, and are just as good for long-term cold storage

Jesus Christ, did someone drop an entire maternity ward's worth of children on their heads 12 years ago? Never in my time on Sup Forums have I seen so many people be so earnestly wrong about the same thing in the same thread.

Those are LTH BD-Rs. Archivists use HTL BD-Rs, which are made using a manufacturing process that leads them to cost more, but actually yields a disc that's stable for 20+ years.

Bullshit. As long as the form factor stays the same, drives have historically maintained backwards compatibility with all optical disc formats. When you buy a USB 10.2 drive to burn alien snuff porn onto your 80PB Hyperdiscs, odds are that drive'll handle Blu-rays too.

Bullshit. Facebook uses BD-Rs for archival purposes. The only reason to use tapes at this point is bureaucratic inertia and/or sunk costs. Also, . Tapes are delicate as *fuck*, whereas all you have to do with Blu-ray is keep it in a reasonably cool, dry place.

>storage capacity per unit is the only factor in determining the economics of a storage solution!

Tape drives and tape media both cost unholy dickloads of money, and tapes require a more intensive maintenance regimen. Blu-rays are the best choice by far for private archivists, and possibly even for enterprises at this point (again, Facebook uses them).

>Tape drives and tape media both cost unholy dickloads of money
Used they're cheap as fuck. I got my LTO-4 drove for $20, I can get LTO-4 tapes for even less.

Because nothing inspires confidence like pre-owned backup media.

Sounds like you're a pussy

Do your shit right, or don't do it at all.

I did ur mum rite last night

Thanks for backing me up Opticalanon!

I've recently started using BD-R (after using DVD-R for backup since I got a drive), but I'm shitty at arguing on taiwanese toilet image boards.

How variable are verbatim discs?

I've found a local retailer that wants to dump a fuckload of 10 packs of verbatim single layer HTL BD-Rs for 15 USD per pack.
Would they be as good as the ones you linked? They will be slightly cheaper (and come with cases for storage).

As far as I know, as long as they're HTL, they're all more or less the same. Just avoid LTH like the plague.

Cheers m8.
Time to stock up on cheap media!

Yeeeeeeee bro.

How are you storing your discs?

They go into an old CD rack/box combo thing (I have four, they hold about 60 CD cases each) and then those go under my bed (which means the discs get no exposure to light in normal conditions, and stay reasonably cool and dry).

When I need to access something, I pull out the box and the disc has a nice label on the spine telling me what is on it.

I also keep a copy of important discs at my parents house. They go into a shoebox in my former bedroom wardrobe.

Probably a bit overkill, but eh.

Not bad, not bad.

One thing I would recommend, though, is disc cataloging software. It'll help you search a catalog of any size at Ctrl+F speeds.

I'd recommend WinCatalog 2016:

wincatalog.com/

It does cost money, but it's worth having around IMO.

I can't use that! I'm a freetard :p

I've tried cataloguing anyway, and found that I never really used the catalogue I made anyway.
For the most part, each disc is reasonably organised and well labelled as is.
I rarely have trouble finding what I'm searching for.
Which is funny, because I'm normally a horribly organised person.

It's cheaper in Japan where they still like physical media.

amazon.co.jp/dp/B00XQMWFV6

$54 for a pack of ten 100 GB Sony BD-RE XL discs.

>Tape drives and tape media both cost unholy dickloads of money
But that's wrong you idiot. LTO7 tapes can be bought brand new for $120, that's for six terabytes of storage. The drives are expensive, yes, but if you're going to store a lot of data then tape is more economical than anything else.

Facebook:

>Instead of trying to utilize an existing solution — like massive tape libraries — to fit our use case, we challenged ourselves to revisit the entire stack top to bottom. We're lucky at Facebook — we're empowered to rethink existing systems and create new solutions to technological problems. With the freedom to build an end-to-end system entirely optimized for us, we decided to reimagine the conventional data center building itself, as well as the hardware and software within it. The result was a new storage-based data center built literally from the ground up, with servers that power on as needed, managed by intelligent software that constantly verifies and rebalances data to optimize durability.

One of the largest data collection firms on the planet seems to disagree with you.

MOTHER OF GOD!

That talks about data centres and access to data, a known challenge to tapes. I was addressing your obviously wrong statement that tape was more expensive than other alternatives. Again, yes, the initial investment is high but it quickly pays for itself if you're storing large amounts of data.

Tape doesn't have longevity unless you store it properly. Storing it properly at scale costs extra.

Blu-Ray costs nothing to store.

>Certain brands similar to M-DISC
Which brands?
>Verbatim
You're joking, right

I don't know if Milleniata's discs actually last 1 millennium, but arguably they can last more than 20 years - OTOH, arguably, no other BD/DVD/CD can last so long

They do sell them on their website.
store.mdisc.com/100-GB-Blu-ray_c_11.html

>no other BD/DVD/CD can last so long
トップベイト

>>store.mdisc.com/100-GB-Blu-ray_c_11.html
>$99 for BDXL 5 pack

>amazon.com/Verbatim-Disc-BDXL-Jewel-98913/dp/B011PIJPOC
>$86 for BDXL 5 pack

>トップベイト
アッラーは偉大です

Are you suggesting that after 20 years the reflective layer isn't likely to be damaged? I've seen a bunch of circa-2000 disc ruined (even old "hardened" disc... there were some with a black reflecting layer too, allegedly manufactured to last longer - except, they didn't)

all the hdd/flash drive shit...
i have had 7hdds fail me
i have had thumb drives die and corrupt even when i spend big money on them from good sources

i have not had a single dvd/cd fail on me outside of scratches and the one time the sun melted a few discs.

the rare time they fail, im put 700mb-4.3gb-23gb of data, not terabytes.

hell, even on discs i only store one thing per disc, as in one archive, that way if the disc does fail i am not out multiple things.

>100GBx5 BDXL RE (do you really need it to be rewritable?) ~50$
>100GBx5 BDXL R (I assume no M-DISC is rewritable) ~86$

Guys
what about
hey guise
listen
I thought
What about
>amazon.com/Verbatim-Branded-Surface-50-Disc-98397/dp/B00GSQ4DBM/
>25GBx50 BD R ~50$
that's 1250 GB vs 500 GB total.
then you may even waste some to add some redundancy (parchive?)

OP here
Interesting.... Wonder if I can even afford that.
kek - Another guy who gets it, thank you!

>$50
stay mad poorfag

I saw a 40 pack of 25GB Blu-Ray discs for the same price. I would still buy a 1TB HDD and external case over this, but you should at least shop around.

Use tapes if it's not stuff that needs to be regularly accessed.

>he actually used effin in textform

Don't use tape. Tape comes with high fixed costs and high maintenance demands. Blu-ray costs $99 for a decent external drive and a couple dollars a disc.

>then you may even waste some to add some redundancy (parchive?)

example: 90 GB to save
create 40 2.25 zpaq encrypted multipart archives
create 25% redunancy par2 files
save 10 zpaq multipart on 4 BD R
save all par files on a fifth BD R

add dvdisater on each disc (including the parity disc) augmenting the image of each disc by ~15% (the remaining 3.75GB)

cost: 5 $

vs
>100GBx5 BDXL R (I assume no M-DISC is rewritable) ~86$
1 disk would be 17 $

>1 TB HDD and external case
you can get it at ~50 $; you can RAID if you want but if it's for archiving purpose I question the validity of such approach (drives aren't going to suffer wearing from read/write/access, or at least not at different times. After 20 years, none of them will probably work due to magnetic field breakdown. Same thing with tapes ( ))(and tapes are awkwardly less convenient for anything that ain't an enterprise environment)
A faraday cage/EMP bag may be wiser than RAID; I'd start changing the drives after ~5 years and change'em all within ~7 years anyway (so, in the long run, it would cost way more)

>create 40 2.25 zpaq encrypted multipart archives
*create 40 2.25GB zpaq encrypted multipart archives
btw, zpaq does not have a method to directly split multi-parts at a fixed size, but it's totally doable by hand
>encode.ru/threads/456-zpaq-updates?p=42679&viewfull=1#post42679

Same. I used to burn lots of CD's then DVD's. But now I rarely do either. Never owned a bluray. I just download everything and store on hard disks.

Tape archives are good for at least 15 years. Currently costing about $0.023/GB for the media but on ebay I have seen it as low as $0.01/GB. The drive costs about $3k though.

>amazon.com/Verbatim-Branded-Recordable-100-Disc-97460/dp/B003ZDNZT2
>4.7GB X 100, ~21$
>470 GB total
>cost per GB: ~0.0447 $
vs
GBx50 BD R ~50$
>that's 1250 GB
>cost per GB: ~0.04 $
almost the same, BD R seems a little more convenient. It's true that DVD may survive BD pretty much the same way we still use MP3, JPEG, GIF over OGG/AAC, WEBP, APNG

pls staph with the tape drive meme. It's useless, expensive and a real nightmare outside of an enterprise environment. It will wear out even if archived correctly, while decent BD won't.
Tape is competitive against disk storage in big enterprise environments for medium-term archiving. That's all.

You didn't even get the right part that dies in a disc.

The reflective layer had a tendency to be damaged in CDs (pressed or burnt) because it was very close to the top of the disc (meaning a slight scratch on the label side was significantly more harmful than one on the bottom).

In anything post-CD, like the DVD or BD, the reflective layer is practically indestructible (placed about the middle of the disc). What fails is typically the organic layer. This only exists in burnt media (and is what actually stores the data in this case). Low quality organic layers have a tendency to last only 1-5 years (we are talking bottom of the barrel discs here), but even semi-reasonable quality discs (like quoted in different parts of the article) have chemical formulations and manufacturing tolerances that are expected to last at within the range of 30-50 years.
This is dependant on storage conditions though, as the organic layer will break down significantly quicker in a disc exposed to UV light (essentially the data is destroyed by the same process used to burn the data in the first place).

Even the twenty years you claim though is significantly longer than one would expect any other format to last in the conditions expected of a private archive. Discs also have other advantages which make them suitable for backups anyway (waterproof, not dependant on hardware, impervious to magnets, etc).

>read up on zpaq
>find it interesting
>decide to do some testing of typical mixed files using -m5
>crashes at 68% with some memory allocation error
>into the fucking trash it goes

Been using RAR for decades now, it's never ever failed on me regardless of platform. I might lose some space compared to zpaq but god damn it's fucking reliable and offers more features that I make use of.

>zpaq
>shit
>not really much difference between the two