![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
We use magnetic media (FD, Zip, tape, etc.) and optical media (CD-R(W), DVD+/-R(W), DVD-RAM, etc.) on a (hopefully) daily base to make backups of important data. However, the data capacity of those technologies has lagged behind that of HDDs. No one in his right mind would use CD-Rs to make a backup of the 200 GBs of data on a system. Even DVDs lack sufficient capacity for this task, requiring multiple disks.
Tape storage is affordable only by individuals and companies with a sufficiently large budget, or those willing to settle for an older generation of tape storage, in the latter case negating the advantage tape storage has over other storage methods in regard to capacity. Among the disadvantages of tape, aside from price, is the speed (it's not random-access capable).
Moreover, CDs, DVDs, FDs, tape and similar are quite fragile. The dye used for CDs and DVDs consists out of organic compounds, which are everything but stable, as well as the target of at least one type of fungus (which thrives in warm, humid climates).
At the speeds with which CDs and DVDs are read in modern drives, even the tiniest hairline fracture may cause the disc to desintegrate, as well as the risk of scratching or in another way damaging either side of the disc, which might render (parts of) it unreadable.
FDs can stand a lot more abuse, but with some effort the magnetic disc inside the outer shell is warped or damaged to the point where it becomes unusable. Tape is more durable in this regard, but if it were to break at one point, it would be a very costly operation to repair this tape.
HDDs, on the other hand, are, when not powered, virtually indestructable when compared to the aforementioned storage technologies. The platters storing the data are spinning inside a sealed, metal shell, and in modern drives the read/write heads are unlikely to crash into the platters, especially so when the HDD is turned off.
The only ways to destroy a non-powered HDD is to either drop it on a hard surface with considerable force (over 10 Gs), so as to dislodge some of the internal components, or attack it with another brute force method, aimed at destroying the outer shell and the parts inside. Well, that and pouring corrosive acids on it. Frying the electronics of the HDD has little use, as this would not affect the data stored on the platters. Using a strong magnetic field to scramble the platter's magnetic patterns might also work, but requires a very strong field, something which is unlikely to occur purely by accident.
So, based on the above comparison, isn't it reasonable to state that HDDs are the ideal backup medium? Moreso if one looks at the $/GB comparison of currently available storage technologies.
Naturally, the HDDs used for backups are only to be powered when data is read from/written to them.
Any comments?
Tape storage is affordable only by individuals and companies with a sufficiently large budget, or those willing to settle for an older generation of tape storage, in the latter case negating the advantage tape storage has over other storage methods in regard to capacity. Among the disadvantages of tape, aside from price, is the speed (it's not random-access capable).
Moreover, CDs, DVDs, FDs, tape and similar are quite fragile. The dye used for CDs and DVDs consists out of organic compounds, which are everything but stable, as well as the target of at least one type of fungus (which thrives in warm, humid climates).
At the speeds with which CDs and DVDs are read in modern drives, even the tiniest hairline fracture may cause the disc to desintegrate, as well as the risk of scratching or in another way damaging either side of the disc, which might render (parts of) it unreadable.
FDs can stand a lot more abuse, but with some effort the magnetic disc inside the outer shell is warped or damaged to the point where it becomes unusable. Tape is more durable in this regard, but if it were to break at one point, it would be a very costly operation to repair this tape.
HDDs, on the other hand, are, when not powered, virtually indestructable when compared to the aforementioned storage technologies. The platters storing the data are spinning inside a sealed, metal shell, and in modern drives the read/write heads are unlikely to crash into the platters, especially so when the HDD is turned off.
The only ways to destroy a non-powered HDD is to either drop it on a hard surface with considerable force (over 10 Gs), so as to dislodge some of the internal components, or attack it with another brute force method, aimed at destroying the outer shell and the parts inside. Well, that and pouring corrosive acids on it. Frying the electronics of the HDD has little use, as this would not affect the data stored on the platters. Using a strong magnetic field to scramble the platter's magnetic patterns might also work, but requires a very strong field, something which is unlikely to occur purely by accident.
So, based on the above comparison, isn't it reasonable to state that HDDs are the ideal backup medium? Moreso if one looks at the $/GB comparison of currently available storage technologies.
Naturally, the HDDs used for backups are only to be powered when data is read from/written to them.
Any comments?
