that would be something that i would NEVER DO! why sending your data to someone and even pay for that?? why dont you just burn your data on cds or dvds, put them under your bed and they are safe. if you dont have a recorder, you can buy one with less money that youll have to pay them to put your data on their servers!
...Storing data on CDs and DVDs is a good option. But it is a temporary solution and there is no gurantee that you can access the same data from the same media after a couple of years....
Storing one's data with a third party vendor (e.g. the "cloud") adds MUCH HIGHER risks to: --data privacy (even with encryption), --legal issues (e.g. warrantless (and without notifying you) access to your data via a 'no-judge-involved' adminstrative NSL), --vendor "fails" (e.g. going bankrupt, being purchased (which could affect access and privacy), changing the terms of service without warning) --possible "surprise" internet provider added charges (the cost of internet access/data-caps. See http://gigaom.com/2013/11/15/data-cap-2013/ for revealing info on data-caps for various ISPs. A data-cap may severely limit how much data you can backup to the "cloud" without adding obscenely high extra charges to your internet bill. For example, some providers charge $10 for every 50 GB over the limit/data-cap. That adds up very fast. Let's say even one's incremental backups come to only 5GB/day, that still adds about 150GB to your monthly internet usage...and the data backups are on top of your "normal" internet data usage.)
I think part of what you were talking about may also have been optical media reliability...and in that you're right. Optical media do have a shelf-life, sometimes measured in months depending on the disc manufacturer, how it was burned, and storage conditions.
For multiple reasons, these days I would NEVER store critical backup data on optical media. For one thing, it's just too damn expensive and time-consuming.
Assuming one were to buy high quality optical media, it can be considerably more expensive to store data on quality optical media than a quality HDD. One could create backups on multiple HDDs and store them in different locations for lower cost $/GB than optical media (or third party storage for that matter*). It is also much faster to create and maintain the backups on HDD, and an HDD requires far less physical storage space (once you get beyond needing just a few optical discs) and an HDD tolerates storage conditions better than optical media (because of the organic dyes on "burnable" optical media, higher storage temps rapidly increase rate of data corruption on user-burned optical discs).
*Assumes one is storing tera-bytes of data, and not just a "free" 5 to 20 GB or so as often offered by a number of "cloud" storage vendors.
Whoops. I just realized Naveen was responding to an almost 10 year-old thread. Oh well, my comments still apply re: cloud vs. optical vs. HDD storage and the legal issues, the economies and reliability.
You're right! Storing data on optical discs is not only time consuming and tedious, but is also hard on maintenance. And taking backup on HDDs, will serve the purpose. But what if the data is more than 2TB or so......
Once, i came across an organization in one of my field works, where it was maintaining multiple copies of data backup. It had massive amount of data, all related to call center business and had almost 200TB.
It was using 2Tb drives for some reason and had a lots of them stacked up on shelf. The first thing i asked them, why they were using 2Tb drives?
The director of the company never gave me a convincing answer. And the other surprising fact was that the company had not IT department and was relying on its system admin for all its IT needs and that guy suggested this way of backup.
...why they were using 2Tb drives?...The director of the company never gave me a convincing answer....
Personally, I wouldn't expect the director of any company to know or be able to articulate the IT details/reasons. That's why he or she has an IT guy/gal.
Without knowing their exact actual requirements, I could only make some generic guesses...here are just a few reasons a particular IT decision might go with the multiple separate 2TB drives. This assumes for the moment that they required on-site physical storage as "cloud" storage posed other problems (like those I discussed above).
* They're using an OS (or hardware interface) that doesn't support HDDs >2TB in size and the IT guy didn't think it was feasible to expand the support to larger drives/arrays, or thought it wasn't economically viable to do so.
* Many drive arrays/servers are way over-priced.
* They got a hell of a deal on them...whether purchase or lease.
* The IT guy did a study and determined that particular size/brand/model had the best reliability at that point in time...
* The IT guy was using 2TB drives rather than large arrays for interchangeability/portability or for non-networked systems. There are some clients that insist on absolute physical control of all media and think networks are too risky no matter how much encryption and access controls you show them.
* Power limitations...couldn't keep huge arrays of drives powered-up 24/7 due to increased cooling requirements, power limits, and/or power costs.
added "(or hardware interace)" as some HDD enclosures/interfaces also don't support the larger drives. Some can be addressed with a firmware update, others require replacing the hardware.