What is the safest and most reliable way of saving data for longer periods?

What is the safest and most reliable way of saving data for longer periods?

I want to save all my personal documents and photos but I'm scared of losing them.

Attached: ob_dd97dc_data-storage-devices-19652673.jpg (400x358, 54K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Just get one or two external storage devices and keep backups.
Statistically speaking it'd be impossible for all 3 to fail and not be recoverable.

tapes, same thing stored at multiple, very far away locations

but as the gent above me said, get 3 external storages, store them in a safe place, away from each other, flooding/fire/hurricane, etc. if it hits, you shouldn't lose every backup

i have CDs going back to 1997 and DVDs from about 2002, all perfectly readable except a few from a brand that i knew was absolute crap, but bought anyway. they're hard to lose, impervious to viruses, dont die from being dropped, or from electrical/magnetic interference, and only cost like 30 cents per 4.3gig in quantities of 100.

Upload everything to the cloud via an unencrypted network connection that way if you ever lose anything you can just ask your neighbor

Yeah, just don't store them on your shelf by the window, or in the moist cellar and they're fine for a long time

fuck off, pedo

Floppy disk bro

airtight container with preservation packets


Hard disk or blu-ray M disc. Put them somewhere safe, not too hot, and not moist. Throw some silica packets in there and prosper

>I want to save all my personal documents and photos but I'm scared of losing them.
Not one thing you have is at all important

SSDs or mechanical?

Ssd only fail from repeated access

>hard disk
disk implies spinner you fucking technomongoloid

Mechanical is always better than digital. ie. even if the mechanical drive fails the disk inside can be recovered and put into another device to retrieve the data. digital ounce its corrupted its gone forever.

Grab a chisel and some rocks. It's water and fire proof

It's probably this here:

The paper that is manufactured today will outlast you and it doesn't require you to possess any special hardware to access the content. All you need do is keep it away from extreme moisture and heat, just like any of the digital formats.
Admittedly it takes more space, but then how much data do you have that you really want to hold for the long term?
You can review your files to decide which really merit long term preservation and only print those and delete the rest.


makes sense. i can make flip booklets of my horse porn.

physicly speaking, CDs. Magnetic or electric storage decays after time.


M-Disc 4.7GB or BluRay 25GB. Supposed to be good for 1000 year life.


Burn DVDs (or blu-ray if you have a burner). They last plenty long, especially if they're not stored like shit (eg, in sunlight, in a humid, hot environment). I have discs that are over 15 years old.
caveat: burned discs are only actually rated for like 5-10 years to be honest
if you have the space remaining on a disc, write multiple copies of it

If the data is non-confidential and you wouldn't care if it leaked, keep a copy in a cloud service.
Flash storage isn't too bad either, but unused flash devices will lose data eventually. They won't be damaged by just sitting there and will remain usable forever, but the data cells won't stay in their configuration forever if left unrefreshed.

Hard disks are cheap. 2TB is like $60 these days.
Anything you can't fit on optical media, throw it on a hard drive.
However, long-term hard drive storage has the issue where the disk might not spin up.
also, again, it runs the risk of data eventually not maintaining its configuration from not being powered up

if you're really hard core, tape exists, but you're not that hard core, nothing you have is that important or that big, and it's really expensive
but it's designed to go the distance


Here you go bro. Don't forget to thank me


I have had dvd and cd's less than 20 years old become unreadable from just sitting in a case. IMO first things first, prune it down to the stuff that you really need and go buy 3 flash drives, and systematically back up them up as needed. Keep one in a safe, the other handy and the 3rd one at another location. Do not bury them or anything stupid like that, no heat, no moisture, etc. And encrypt them of course.

Lets hope M-Disc and BluRay players are still being manufactured in a 1000 yrs


just remember them lol

I'll elaborate further then, it'd be statistically impossible for all three storages to fail if you aren't a retard.

Feel free to buy three storage devices and prove me wrong though.

Still wrong. You could be IQ 200, that doesn't make the improbable impossible.

Here you go bro. Don't forget to thank me


I don't think you understand how statistics work, since I specifically used the terminology 'statistically impossible'.

When one storage device has an incredibly minute chance of failing, having all three fail at the same time is something you likely won't see happen in your entire lifetime.

only the lord can save you eternally

Attached: aaa.jpg (640x636, 60K)

Redundant drives locally using a checksumming filesystem like ZFS or BTRFS
Offsite backups on tape if you can get access to an LTO drive
Encrypted in the cloud on Amazon Glacier or similar as a third tier

You think the human race will be around in 1000 years?

Even better, some dude'll successfully leave behind his collection of meme images and CP, confusing the fuck out of any higher intelligence investigating the remnants of our civilization.

The probability of HDD failure is 5.1% in the first year (manufacturing faults etc)

The probability of a run of three 0.051 probabilities is NOT statistically impossible. I guarantee you that this year three hard drives will fail that were manufactured this year.

You can say it is improvable, highly improbably even, but you cannot claim statistical impossibility.

Granite thats laser ingraved like a cd

I print out everything, seal it in plastic and put it in a big airtight safe that I bought for $40, none of it has faded in the last 25 years.

I never stated HDD's, I specified storage devices.

But sure, whatever you can do to move the goalpost far enough to imagine yourself to be correct on the internet my dude.


Attached: LTO2-cart-purple.jpg (1860x1362, 167K)

Mechanical hard disk is the longest lasting of all of the types of data. Even if the electronics fail, the platters will hold the data for ages and can be recovered by a recovery service. You should periodically spin up the drives however. Tape will degrade, disc media disintegrates, solid state media literally loses its data charges after a few years if never powered up.


As far as the storage media itself, I'd go with optical (DVD-R). Keep in mind that whatever you choose, when that future day comes you'll need a drive that can read it, with an interface that your computer supports.

Holy fuck you're retarded.

Same time? Sure, that's pretty unlikely.
What's not entirely unlikely is that all of them fail in the multiple-year long period between when you stored your data and when you accessed it.

Hard drives in storage have a terrible habit of not spinning up. Real problem. If you have a hard drive that hasn't been turned on in a while, spin it up, right now. You can get the data recovered if it doesn't spin up, but that's expensive.
Burned optical media has the risk of dye degradation because they're made for pennies, even when they're stored well. Good optical media lasts, but not storing it well will fuck it up anyway.
Flash memory loses its configuration after some years, and most isn't even rated to keep data for even a single year without use. In practice, it's not nearly that bad, and I've had flash drives go years without any issue, but it's a real gamble.

Long-term storage is pretty much just a case of "keep copying it, and never stop copying it".
Using systems to help resist data corruption helps too (eg, flash degradation and optical data damage doesn't just render the whole disk unusable).
Something like this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive

>I never stated HDD's, I specified storage devices.
>whatever you can do to move the goalpost
you sound like a fag

Here you go bro. Don't forget to thank me later


3 external hdd's from reputable manufacturers with a proven track record of durability / dependability. When one external goes down / stops working, purchase a new one & duplicate all media / documents to new external.

Source: Data hoarder who has media & documents dating back to my first Windows 95 computer purchased in 1996.

>you sound like a fag
Nigga you're the one who assumed I was talking about HDD's.
Secondly, I'm with on this one.

stone carvings should be good for a few millennia.

I'm not that poster, and you're literally just mincing words instead of having an actual argument. Like a faggot.

For the sake of the future please do. The internet won’t be around forver

Then you're both equally fucking retarded if you somehow think that an argument based on assumption is an argument worth having in the first place.

Triplicate method. Me likey. Do the same with all the movies, mp3's video game roms, tv shows, music videos, pdf books I've collected over the years all copied in triplicate to three 4 tb external hdd's . I check them periodically - every 4 to 6 months to make sure they're working, and every single one spins up & transfers without fail. Had them for roughly 5 years now, so if the'yre going to start failing now would be about the time i'd expect them to. the model hdd's i got have lasted people for over a decade without failures, so I don't expect any problems soon. I use one on a continual basis to transfer media onto different devices to watch / listen to & it's humming along perfectly.

You know full well that the rate of early total failure in SSDs is still not so low as to create a statistical impossibility.

You can keep defending your inaccurate use of the term all you like, anyone who has any understanding of statistics at all knows you are wrong. There is no way the probability of a three failure run being lower than 1^-50.

>For knowing how probability works and calling out an idiot incorrectly stating something is statistically impossible.


HDDs are common, cheap, and high-capacity, and I mentioned the issues with other common storage devices in .
If you're going to talk about some storage no one actually uses, then fucking state it.

"infant mortality" is also a major issue with pretty much any storage device (or really, anything in general -- brand new shit has a sudden fall off where it dies early on in terms of usage hours, and then gradually tapers off), so it's not like the issue is entirely confined to HDDs like you're trying to imply

Engrave into stone and bury underground

You dense motherfucker, I never specified SDD's nor HDD's.
There are other storage devices than those two, fucking christ.

Yeah I forgot that having three different tape storages all have the same statistical probability of failing as three HDD's, since HDD's is apparently the only example you two chucklefucks are using.

This is what I always think when people talk about advanced alien life.They probably waste their time shitposting and fapping too. I'd rather check out some spicy alien memes than learn about physics I'll never understand.

ceramic or rock inscriptions

Hi there, PhD in mathematics here.

Other user is correct. 'statistically impossible' is a colloquialism and is not defined in statistics. The only thing which is defined as impossible in statistics is a probability of 0. That is the ONLY thing that is defined as impossible. Everything else is improbable. Specificity is key in actual mathematics.

And none of them has a 0 probability of failure.

Improbable. Not impossible.

>since HDD's is apparently the only example you two chucklefucks are using.
are you illiterate, or too single-minded
did you not read the post discussing other common storage formats

>Yeah I forgot that having three different tape storages
in the world of storage, tape is a major outlier in terms of cost (shit's expensive), access (slow, and strictly linear), and longevity
if you're going to talk about tape, mention tape outright
because it doesn't just get lumped in with other common storage methods

it is an entirely different beast

You both do know that there's a difference between the actual mathematical defination and what we humans usually apply it to.

Is it statistically probable that a guy could be hit 194 times by lightning
Is it statistically probable that we'll witness it within our lifespan?

In fact, given the timeframe set, the statistical probability of witnessing an event that ranges in something like 1 in several octillion is so fucking minute that we commonly refer to things like that as a statistical impossibility given the 80 or so year timeframe of a human life.

I never stated that I was referring to common storage devices, I was referring to ALL storage devices since you can utilize any of them.

Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it's suddenly fucking impossible to use.

Now This Is What I Call Autism : Electric Boogaloo 2


>I never stated that I was referring to common storage devices, I was referring to ALL storage devices since you can utilize any of them.
if you make your goalpost wide enough, and argue about it for ages, I guess you can be "right"

but that doesn't make you somehow not a faggot

>1 in several octillion
We're extremely far from that level of "statistical impossibility.
We're talking about better than 1 in a million chances here, and you can specify formats where the chances of multiple disk failure over a few years is better than 1/1000.

If I never specify what type of storage, you should've assumed that it was referring to ANY type of storage and not automatically assume that it was HDD's to fit your narrative.

Literally in this entire scenario, the only one who fucked up was you.

So the statistical probablity of a triple backup on three different sets of tapes set up in different locations and being well maintained and all three of them failing at the exact same time is only 1 in a million?

You know, I don't think you're right in that ballpark estimate of yours.

You keep defending your use of incorrect terminology, you even tried to explain that it was right because, specifically, you called it 'statistically impossible', as if that was a thing. You can, in fact, admit that you used the wrong term and keep your point (that being that triplicate is the best method to back up information long term), which I have, and had, no issue with.

user, you're barely literate and autistic, don't reply to me again.

>not automatically assume that it was HDD's to fit your narrative
You're pushing a narrative. I posted about a wide range of storage. See

This retard's logic is the same logic that thinks if you have a 50% chance to win that if you just try twice boom you win no matter what

The issue is that you're saying that our use of the term 'statistical impossibility' is the same as the mathematical calculation of actual statistical impossiblity.

I'd say that it's statistically impossible that we as humans tend to use terms correctly when we have no way of proving those terms to be moderately true when they're applied to scenarios that won't happen within a humans lifespan.
Unless you can somehow prove that a specific event high an extremely high statistical improbability is going to happen and we are able to witness and verify it.

Multiple SSD's some of which are off site.

You're were the one jumping on the same fucking narrative in the first place.

By your outstanding logic and the dude you decided to side with, it doesn't matter if you're using a 12 dollar chinese SSD or NORAD's tape archive, they'll likely have the same chance of failing.
This is the argument you decided to side with.

>50% chance
>1 in several octillion

Go off grid, write your documents with a feather pen and draw all your cheese pizza with crayons

they dont fail at once they only lose capacity over time

No, the issue is that, when your incorrect term was called out you tried to pretend that you were a statistics expert using a special term that had specific meaning when one has an understanding of statistics, which it does not.
>I don't think you understand how statistics work, since I specifically used the terminology 'statistically impossible'.

You can stop using the wrong term now and moving the goalposts to defend it, and go back to arguing your (contextually) correct point about triplicate.

Is it correct that the analogue signal actually recorded on the platters weakens over years and if it isn't re-copied back onto the disc with some sort of regularity, that data is lost?

Both incorrect. Thousands of SSDs fail every year due to manufacturing faults.

Where the fuck did I say that I was a statistics expert.
The issue with using the mathematical terminology is that anything you can think of is statistically probable given a long enough timeframe.
When we're talking about storage that is ONLY applicable to the timeframe of someones life, and most likely around 60 years considering that I don't think most 10 year olds have things they need to store, certain shit becomes so statistically improbable that it might aswell be an impossibility as it might never occur for us to record the event happening.

Statistics only function when applied to scenarios we've already seen within the timeframe of us being able to record it happening.
The statistical probability of teleportation might aswell be fucking 20% if we apply it to the entire universe, known and unknown. But if we apply it to human history, it's a statistical impossibility because we've never been able to record it happening and we likely never will be.

> it doesn't matter if you're using a 12 dollar chinese SSD or NORAD's tape archive, they'll likely have the same chance of failing.
if you're going to be pedantic, then your initial argument is shit
>When one storage device has an incredibly minute chance of failing, having all three fail at the same time is something you likely won't see happen in your entire lifetime.
is categorically false, and you can list storage devices that will do exactly that

specifying "nuh-uh, I wasn't talking about that" and finally bringing up tape four posts later in is literally moving the goalposts

Stupid. Get archival grade DVD if you're going to use DVDs at all.

Pulling numbers out of you're ass. Fuck you nigger. They last maybe 20 25 years unless you get archival discs.

You can print the data onto paper and then scan it later. There's a program that converts digital to analog, dots lines and spaces. Store paper and don't get it wet or expose to sun.

Laser etch it on to a sheet of platinum.

You can list storage devices that all fail at the exact same time?
Curious, because not a single manfucturer can do that, nor any scientific reports that I know of atleast.

Didn't know you can see into the future.
The statistical probability of ANY triple backup all failing AT THE SAME EXACT TIME is mind-bogglingly small.
That's my entire point, since if he wants his data to be safe, atleast one copy will be running at any given time and will give him time to set up more should one or two fail.
Having all three fail, again, AT THE SAME EXACT TIME is about as probably as you being straight.

Really no need for that fella. Go look up M-Disc, look at what they state and if you can prove them wrong, abuse them, not me. I just read the specs and use the discs.

is there a reason this thread is filled with illiterates
M-Disc is an archival format.

yes, but they lose capacity by design

the other is just bad luck in sub 0.1%s

>The issue with using the mathematical terminology
You were the one who suggested 'statistically impossible' is mathematical terminology, as I just quoted.

Are you actually just a troll? If you had a shred of intellectual honesty and weren't an egotist incapable of admitting when you are conclusively proven wrong, you would own your own words here, in which you said:
>I don't think you understand how statistics work, since I specifically used the terminology 'statistically impossible'.
The implication being that those words are something special which require an understanding of statistics, while everyone who does understand statistics in this thread knows that not only are they not a special statistical piece of terminology, but also that statistics explicitly states that any nonzero probability cannot be impossible.

Own your mistake, and go back to your point.

1.5%, in fact.

Nigga when you haven't discussed my original point, there's no reason to go back to the point.

Let me set you up with a scenario here:
What is the statistical probability of there being intelligent and technologically advanced life?

per day or per megabyte?