19 Mar
2013
19 Mar
'13
1:54 p.m.
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
19 Mar
19 Mar
2:30 p.m.
I have a friend who is using these to archive (for a customer) a number
of papers and documents that will be stored for a long time. I
personally have one of the LG drives, though have not used the M-Disc
media yet. The drive is as solid a performer as any DVD burner I've
ever used and cost about the same as a 'good' burner.
I can't speak to the permanency question, but my friend was satisfied
after his own personal 'abuse' testing.
-Gary
On 03/19/2013 01:54 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
--
-Gary
20 Mar
20 Mar
9:24 a.m.
On 03/19/2013 02:30 PM, Gary Oliver wrote:
I can't speak to the permanency question, but my
friend was satisfied
after his own personal 'abuse' testing.
Perhaps not close to 1000 years, but certainly across a lifetime spam--I
would think that these would be handy for preserving family photos,
particularly of important events such as weddings.
I was thinking, for some reason, of Stan Ovshinsky and his phase-change
storage in chalcogenide glasses. Is media using this more permanent
than the usual dye-based DVD-ROM or CD-ROM material? Anyone know?
--Chuck
9:32 a.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 03/19/2013 02:30 PM, Gary Oliver wrote:
What about SDHC cards for long term storage?
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
I can't speak to the permanency question, but
my friend was satisfied
after his own personal 'abuse' testing.
Perhaps not close to 1000 years, but certainly across a lifetime spam--I
would think that these would be handy for preserving family photos,
particularly of important events such as weddings.
I was thinking, for some reason, of Stan Ovshinsky and his phase-change
storage in chalcogenide glasses. Is media using this more permanent than the
usual dye-based DVD-ROM or CD-ROM material? Anyone know?
12:41 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
What about SDHC cards for long term storage?
(Consumer grade) SD cards are cheap and unreliable junk. Current SD
cards are MLC flash and MLC is down to a few years of data retention
time. The newest SD cards are TLC flash and there we get _less_ than a
year data retention time.
Industrial grade SD cards exist and they are OK, as they are SLC flash.
But expect to pay 10 x times more per GB storage capacity.
The rule of digital archiving applies:
Preserve the data, not the medium.
I.e. migrate the data to a new medium on a regular base and have
multiple copies of the data on different media in different locations.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
1:09 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
Um... I've got both SD cards and thumb drives that exceed your statement
by *YEARS*.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
What about SDHC cards for long term storage?
(Consumer grade) SD cards are cheap and unreliable junk. Current SD
cards are MLC flash and MLC is down to a few years of data retention
time. The newest SD cards are TLC flash and there we get _less_ than a
year data retention time.
2:28 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
Um... I've got both SD cards and thumb drives that
exceed your statement
by *YEARS*.
Thats the point. You talk about old devices. Those are based on SLC
flash. SLC (NOR) flash is OK. E.g. Atmel guarantees a data retention
time of 100 years for the flash in AVR microcontrollers. Currently as
new available SD cards are MLC and increasingly TLC (NAND) flash. MLC is
problematic and TLC even more.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
2:50 p.m.
On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:28 PM, Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
SLC isn't necessarily NOR; there are plenty of NAND
devices that use SLC. Likewise, there are NOR devices
that use MLC (not as common).
You can still buy SLC flash drives, but they're mostly
consigned to the "industrial" space (where people are
apparently more aware of problems caused by data
corruption). They are correspondingly more expensive.
- Dave
Um... I've got both SD cards and thumb drives
that exceed your statement
by *YEARS*.
Thats the point. You talk about old devices. Those are based on SLC
flash. SLC (NOR) flash is OK. E.g. Atmel guarantees a data retention
time of 100 years for the flash in AVR microcontrollers. Currently as
new available SD cards are MLC and increasingly TLC (NAND) flash. MLC is
problematic and TLC even more.
21 Mar
21 Mar
12:25 a.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:50:15 -0400
David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
I know. Sorry for being not clear in this. I intended
to write somthing
in the line of "SLC (and especialy old fashoned NOR) flash is OK, where
MLC and even more TLC flash is problematic. (MLC and TLC are mostly
NAND flash whitch may add to the problem.)"
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
Thats the
point. You talk about old devices. Those are based on SLC
flash. SLC (NOR) flash is OK. E.g. Atmel guarantees a data retention
time of 100 years for the flash in AVR microcontrollers. Currently as
new available SD cards are MLC and increasingly TLC (NAND) flash. MLC is
problematic and TLC even more.
SLC isn't necessarily NOR; there are plenty of
NAND
devices that use SLC. Likewise, there are NOR devices
that use MLC (not as common). 
20 Mar
20 Mar
12:30 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Perhaps not close to 1000 years, but certainly across
a lifetime spam--I
In 1000 years, well past our lifetime, will there BE anything besides
"spam"
would think that these would be handy for preserving
family photos,
particularly of important events such as weddings.
Other than archeologists, in 1000 years, who is going to WANT our data?
1:24 p.m.
On 03/20/2013 12:30 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Other than archeologists, in 1000 years, who is going to WANT our data?
The same people who are now interested in Babylonian letters of credit,
Egyptian hieroglyphics, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other such worthless
garbage.
A larger concern for me is there being anyone around to look at the
stuff. One really good meteorite strike or plague and it's all history
for some other creatures.
--Chuck
2:17 p.m.
On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2013 12:30 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
I was gonna say, who are we saving the data for if not
archaeologists? Digital data is a lot more difficult to
preserve than clay tablets or even parchment; still, unlike
magnetic media, the data at least exists in the visible
spectrum (if not to the naked eye). I don't think there's
a high likelihood of archaeologists finding any of our
flash drives still readable after 1000 years (the charge on
the floating gates will likely have dissipated by then,
especially for low-charge cells like MLC), let alone figure
out how to read them. On the other hand, all my pictures
Other than archeologists, in 1000 years, who is going to WANT our data?
The same people who are now interested in Babylonian letters of credit, Egyptian
hieroglyphics, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other such worthless garbage. from France in college that I took on film have a
pretty
good chance of boring people far in the future. Optical
media (at least on media that doesn't decay, like some
CD-R dyes) should be likewise preserved, though we've
certainly seen some unexpected failings in shellac records
as well due to binder breakdown.
- Dave
2:46 p.m.
On 20/03/13 21:17, David Riley wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at
sydex.com> wrote:
I don't believe that people 1000 years from now will put the same value
towards items from today as we put towards items from 1000 years ago.
While preservation of data is important, nowadays we have pretty much
world-wide information coverage (thanks to the Internet and superior
transport). Anything important will be propagated into the future and
unless people of the year 3000 will think they can get anything out of
the C++11 standard to educate them about anything, I think they're wrong*.
The reason why we need such a thing as an archaeologist today is because
people in the past had no means of sharing such information and it was
very easy for it to die out if only a small village somewhere knew about
it. Unless some global-scale catastrophe happens that cuts us off from
the information stream for a very long amount of time happens, I don't
see the need for 1000 year storage. It's very useful for archives to
have as they _are_ the places that propagate data into the future but
it's basically useless as a commercial product.
*It's all just my opinions and I have no expertise in the area past
thinking about it for 30 seconds. Feel free to point out anything I
haven't considered.
--
Mateusz K.
On 03/20/2013 12:30 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
I was gonna say, who are we saving the data for if not
archaeologists? Digital data is a lot more difficult to
preserve than clay tablets or even parchment; still, unlike
magnetic media, the data at least exists in the visible
spectrum (if not to the naked eye). I don't think there's
a high likelihood of archaeologists finding any of our
flash drives still readable after 1000 years (the charge on
the floating gates will likely have dissipated by then,
especially for low-charge cells like MLC), let alone figure
out how to read them. On the other hand, all my pictures
from France in college that I took on film have a pretty
good chance of boring people far in the future. Optical
media (at least on media that doesn't decay, like some
CD-R dyes) should be likewise preserved, though we've
certainly seen some unexpected failings in shellac records
as well due to binder breakdown.
- Dave
Other than archeologists, in 1000 years, who is going to WANT our data?
The same people who are now interested in Babylonian letters of credit, Egyptian
hieroglyphics, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other such worthless garbage.
3:37 p.m.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
I don't believe that people 1000 years from now
will put the same value
towards items from today as we put towards items from 1000 years ago.
There will be at least one specialist of "the Dell Age"
And, our times will be considered important in studying
the causes of the Great Collapse(s).
See "MS Fnd In A Lbry" (by Hal Draper)
http://home.comcast.net/~bcleere/texts/draper.html
M42A8E39 written 50 yukals ago.
I heard that there will be attempts to capture an asteroid to mine
for Irridium, etc. Last time that that was tried, the collateral
damage was severe, and led to a planet-wide mammal infestation.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
5:06 p.m.
I don't believe that people 1000 years from now
will put the same
value towards items from today as we put towards items from 1000
years ago.
The same? No. We have only the vaguest idea how year 3000 will view
year 2000 - look at how large the changes from 1000 to 2000 have been,
and the second derivative shows no hint of going negative anytime in
the foreseeable future.
While preservation of data is important, nowadays we
have pretty much
world-wide information coverage (thanks to the Internet and superior
transport).
Of all the lists I would not expect to see such a position advanced on,
this is one of the first. Just ask anyone who's trying to find
_anything_ about old hardware. Sometimes the company doesn't even
exist any longer and it's pretty close to impossible to figure out who
their successor-in-interest is and/or who currently has possession of
the data, if indeed it still exists. Sometimes it does but doesn't
even know it ever made the hardware in question and certainly doesn't
know anything about it. Sometimes they just won't say anything, even
if you offer to go NDA. And in the remaining two cases... :-)
Anything important will be propagated into the future
For what value of "important"? We have just about zero idea what year
3000 humans - if they exist - will consider important, possibly
excepting their own survival.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6:28 p.m.
On 21/03/13 00:06, Mouse wrote:
While this is THE place where you can find people trying to get their
hands on new hardware, the motives are because people here are
hobbyists. There isn't much we can learn from old hardware that we don't
already know. Sure, it's fascinating how they did things back in the day
but rediscovering it won't progress humanity to any real degree.
While I agree that there is simply no way of knowing what will be
considered important, I think we can agree that information about
technological advancements is likely to be more important than the
pictures of your 5 year old son. Of course, through some twist of fate
it, those pictures might give some insight on what it used to be like
around here, propagating information about natural disasters and whatnot
is probably more important. Bah, it might as well be that in just 50
years we advance in storage enough that we won't even have to consider
this and everyone will be able to dump everything they want to store to
some medium.
In any case, this leads me to another point I was trying to make
earlier. There is simply no need for storage that holds data for that
long. 4.7GB is not a lot in the times we live in and the technology
itself will most certainly be replaced be a cheaper alternative. If no
one will need it in a 100 years, the chances are that it wasn't very
important to use as a race and won't be needed in 200 and 300 and 1000
years. Again, if something happens to humanity where we lose most of the
knowledge then any scrap of information will be useful (albeit photos of
your dog will probably not be the most sought-after item in that scenario).
I'm glad that the product is out there but there should be less push to
try and make profit out of it and more push to advancing the technology
itself. Marketing it under the aspect of being able to store
(relatively) small amount of data for for
omg1000yearsdropeverythingbuy50 just seems? bad.
--
Mateusz K.
While preservation of data is important, nowadays
we have pretty much
world-wide information coverage (thanks to the Internet and superior
transport).
Of all the lists I would not expect to see such a position advanced on,
this is one of the first. Just ask anyone who's trying to find
_anything_ about old hardware. Sometimes the company doesn't even
exist any longer and it's pretty close to impossible to figure out who
their successor-in-interest is and/or who currently has possession of
the data, if indeed it still exists. Sometimes it does but doesn't
even know it ever made the hardware in question and certainly doesn't
know anything about it. Sometimes they just won't say anything, even
if you offer to go NDA. And in the remaining two cases... :-)
Anything
important will be propagated into the future
For what value of "important"? We have just about zero idea what year
3000 humans - if they exist - will consider important, possibly
excepting their own survival.
19 Mar
19 Mar
2:40 p.m.
On 19/03/13 20:54, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
I don't own any. Just by looking at it, it quickly seems like a scam.
They mention no actual technology used and they seem to go for the Apple
style marketing (pretty pictures and different buzzwords recycled all
over). Wikipedia has a brief article on it at [1] but again, no specifics.
While it might last longer than a DVD, the way it's marketed and lack of
actual technical articles makes me very sceptical to the legitimacy of
their claims. Anyone can make a claim that their product will last 1000
years (which also happens to be forever!) without providing a technical
proof. As long as it lasts for the few years the company is around for,
no one can make a counter-claim.
If it's as versatile as a DVD (not very) while fulfilling the claims its
making, it would probably be a lot more popular to begin with, not to
mention that we probably won't be messing around with DVDs in a few
years anyway.
Except for classiccmp of 2030 where everyone will be looking for that
rare DVD they need ;)
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenniata
--
Mateusz K.
3:22 p.m.
On 03/19/2013 02:40 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
On 19/03/13 20:54, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Check
out article:
http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/storage-memory/mdisc-revi…
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
I don't own any. Just by looking at it, it quickly seems like a scam.
They mention no actual technology used and they seem to go for the Apple
style marketing (pretty pictures and different buzzwords recycled all
over). Wikipedia has a brief article on it at [1] but again, no specifics. 
3:48 p.m.
If you read through their pages they often state that while the materials
"can" stand up to higher temperatures and UV, they state you shouldn't store
it
that way because it won't last.
None of the actual "test" results seem to be any different from regular dvds.
they talk about "standards" in testing materials for longevity,
yet there seems to be no mention of whether they meet those standards or not,
nor of test results.
another clue is that practically no one supports the media, only LG.
Engagets tests are not encouraging...
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenniata
--
Mateusz K.
3:50 p.m.
On 3/19/2013 2:40 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
On 19/03/13 20:54, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I think the 1000 year claim is based on their technology + spoofing or
meeting and exceeding someones test criteria as to how fast something
should "age". Rather than test for 1000 years and report back, most
tests in the Mil spec area (not for 1000 year media as here, but age
related) make up and publish tests and results that materials that are
being certified must meet. Such as how long diodes, caps, etc. are good
for even if not put into a circuit board. Not only must they work, but
a lot of components that people marvel that the military scrapped timed
out in their inventory numbers.
I suspect upon reading the patents and finding what spec "(Section 2.2,
p.6-8)" is extracted from (This is from the useless marketing document
which mentions China Lake) will actually help understand what they did
to get to their 1000 year number.
Also it is a pain that you have to use a modified drive. I guess they
do something extra (maybe explained in the patents) with the recording.
One buzzword I suspect will be at the center besides the data error
tests they did, is the term "oxidation" I'm guessing a real understand
of that will tell what their real claim to fame is.
Patent search.
*US 77725672 <http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77725672.html>*
Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html> (August
2012 <http://www.directorytrademark.com/date/20120814_1.html>)
*US 77822823 - M-WRITER
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77822823.html>* Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html> (February
2011 <http://www.directorytrademark.com/date/20110215_1.html>)
*US 77822836 - M WRITER
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77822836.html>* Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html> (February
2011 <http://www.directorytrademark.com/date/20110215_1.html>)
*US 77837406 - +M <http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77837406.html>*
Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html>
*US 77776226 <http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77776226.html>*
Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html>
*US 77725675 - EON <http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77725675.html>*
Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html>
*US 77725677 - M ARC
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77725677.html>* Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html>
*US 77725678 - M ARC
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77725678.html>* Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html>
*US 77721407 - EON DISC
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77721407.html>* Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html>
*US 77628280 - LIFETIME DISC
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/US/77628280.html>* Millenniata Inc
<http://www.directorytrademark.com/owner/Millenniata_Inc_1.html>
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
I don't own any. Just by looking at it, it quickly seems like a scam.
They mention no actual technology used and they seem to go for the Apple
style marketing (pretty pictures and different buzzwords recycled all
over). Wikipedia has a brief article on it at [1] but again, no specifics.
While it might last longer than a DVD, the way it's marketed and lack of
actual technical articles makes me very sceptical to the legitimacy of
their claims. Anyone can make a claim that their product will last 1000
years (which also happens to be forever!) without providing a technical
proof. As long as it lasts for the few years the company is around for,
no one can make a counter-claim.
If it's as versatile as a DVD (not very) while fulfilling the claims its
making, it would probably be a lot more popular to begin with, not to
mention that we probably won't be messing around with DVDs in a few
years anyway.
Except for classiccmp of 2030 where everyone will be looking for that
rare DVD they need ;)
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenniata
4:02 p.m.
On 3/19/2013 2:40 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
>
>http://www.mdisc.com/
Looks like the link I grabbed got a bunch of Trademarks.
there are three patent applications pending They are hard to point at
since they don't have numbers, but they are:
20100110859 ARCHIVAL OPTICAL DISC ARRAYS
PCT Patent 2011/026054 Reliability testing of optical media using
simultaneous heat, humidity, and light
There is one other that doesn't go to the right location which has the
same verbiage as the disc array one.
Jim
2:52 p.m.
New subject: 1000 year DVD storage
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:54 PM
Subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
Never heard of it until now. Looks like they got rid of the dye layer and
just burn pits into the medium (wonder what power laser they use). No price
for the burner (probably super pricey). $25 for a 4.5gb disk isn't too bad,
but its not something you can archive large amounts of video with.
3:48 p.m.
New subject: 1000 year DVD storage
25$ for a 10 pack not per disk
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:52 PM, TeoZ <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <
cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:54 PM
Subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
Never heard of it until now. Looks like they got rid of the dye layer and
just burn pits into the medium (wonder what power laser they use). No price
for the burner (probably super pricey). $25 for a 4.5gb disk isn't too bad,
but its not something you can archive large amounts of video with.
4:16 p.m.
New subject: 1000 year DVD storage
On 19/03/13 21:52, TeoZ wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:54 PM
Subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
It's $29.99 for a 10-pack of those. LG is selling some burners starting
at $25 apparently. It's an acceptable price I guess.
--
Mateusz K.
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
Never heard of it until now. Looks like they got rid of the dye layer and
just burn pits into the medium (wonder what power laser they use). No price
for the burner (probably super pricey). $25 for a 4.5gb disk isn't too bad,
but its not something you can archive large amounts of video with.
4:27 p.m.
New subject: 1000 year DVD storage
On 03/19/2013 02:52 PM, TeoZ wrote:
Never heard of it until now. Looks like they got rid
of the dye layer
and just burn pits into the medium (wonder what power laser they use).
No price for the burner (probably super pricey). $25 for a 4.5gb disk
isn't too bad, but its not something you can archive large amounts of
video with.
That's $30 for a 10-pack, or $3 one plain old DVD. The writer (LG
GH24NS90) seems to be between #20-30 retail.
The Navy did some tests:
http://www.mdisc.com/docs/chinalakemillenniatatestreport_mod_04feb2010_a.pdf
and the M-disc appears to be the only one that passed after aging at 85C
and various illumination and humidity.
I dunno--the price-point is right for archival storage.
--Chuck
3:18 p.m.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
Nobody has ever had one last that long.
3:19 p.m.
I have a friend who is using these to archive (for a customer) a number
of papers and documents that will be stored for a long time. I
personally have one of the LG drives, though have not used the M-Disc
media yet. The drive is as solid a performer as any DVD burner I've
ever used and cost about the same as a 'good' burner.
I can't speak to the permanency question, but my friend was satisfied
after his own personal 'abuse' testing.
-Gary
On 03/19/2013 01:54 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
--
-Gary
4:13 p.m.
New subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
On 19 March 2013 20:54, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
From the ad:
It?s easy. It?s proven. And it?s the new standard in digital storage.
It's proven, is it? They can actually demonstrate the claim that their
disc will last 1KY?
Either they have a time machine or the arch?ological discovery of all
time, then.
But seriously folks... They /might/ be on to something, inasmuch as
the simplest route I could see is to test multiple optical disks that
are failing from age, work out what makes them fail and replace those
elements with ones that do not suffer from the same failure modes.
However, this might, of course, merely expose other, different failure
modes... :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
6:09 p.m.
New subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
On Mar 19, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
From the ad:
They can demonstrate given empirical evidence. Certainly, when
we determine the MTBF of electronic devices, it all comes down to
statistics. If you test a million capacitors over a period of a
year and five of them fail, statistically a given capacitor will
fail every 200,000 years. You can apply various factors to
accelerate the effects of aging that have well-studied time
coefficients; heat is a particularly useful one in electronics
(and, I would assume, media as well).
MTBF analysis is a really interesting field full of exciting
reading! I'd urge people to look into what's done to determine
things like 100-year archival paper testing on paper that's only
been around a few years before they start saying it's impossible.
Of course, as Jim S mentioned, it's totally possible to use
absolutely useless metrics or do the math wrong to come up with
outlandish MTBF numbers. For example, our client somehow came
up with MTBF numbers for their board of over 900 years, which is
almost certainly inaccurate given the quality of the board.
It?s easy. It?s proven. And it?s the new standard
in digital storage.
It's proven, is it? They can actually demonstrate the claim that their
disc will last 1KY? However, this might, of course, merely expose other,
different failure
modes... :?)
There's always that.
- Dave
7:07 p.m.
New subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, David Riley wrote:
They can demonstrate given empirical evidence.
Certainly, when
we determine the MTBF of electronic devices, it all comes down to
statistics. If you test a million capacitors over a period of a
year and five of them fail, statistically a given capacitor will
fail every 200,000 years.
IFF you postulate and accept that the failure rate is linear.
(I have no idea whether it IS)
Consider: of a million cartons of milk, 5 go bad in a week, therefore,
those cartons of milk are good for eight hundred years
If 4 out of a million of these discs fail in a week, then they are good
for 1000 years?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
7:26 p.m.
New subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
On 3/19/2013 8:07 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, David Riley wrote:
Landfill
They can demonstrate given empirical evidence.
Certainly, when
we determine the MTBF of electronic devices, it all comes down to
statistics. If you test a million capacitors over a period of a
year and five of them fail, statistically a given capacitor will
fail every 200,000 years.
IFF you postulate and accept that the failure rate is linear.
(I have no idea whether it IS)
Consider: of a million cartons of milk, 5 go bad in a week, therefore,
those cartons of milk are good for eight hundred years
If 4 out of a million of these discs fail in a week, then they are good
for 1000 years?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
8:11 p.m.
New subject: OT: 1000 year DVD storage
On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, David Riley wrote:
That's why you have to make sure your metrics make sense. In
MTBF analysis, there's a "bathtub" curve with the "infant
mortality" at the beginning and the eventual inevitable demise
of all devices at the end. Burn-in testing of products is
supposed to eliminate the former from the reliability equation,
so in theory you're left with mostly the flat part of the curve
as well as the tail end.
They can demonstrate given empirical evidence.
Certainly, when
we determine the MTBF of electronic devices, it all comes down to
statistics. If you test a million capacitors over a period of a
year and five of them fail, statistically a given capacitor will
fail every 200,000 years.
IFF you postulate and accept that the failure rate is linear.
(I have no idea whether it IS) Consider: of a million cartons of milk, 5 go bad in a
week, therefore,
those cartons of milk are good for eight hundred years
Cartons of milk have a relatively short time before you hit the
tail end. 5 go bad in a week, maybe, but that's not doing
nearly enough testing to discover the point of 100% failure.
If you go another week out, you'd get better data; a month out,
even better. If you accelerate it with heat (up to a certain
point, obviously), you can do more testing in less time if you
have studied the mechanics of how the heat changes the failure
rate (it's obviously not necessarily linear, but within a
certain range it follows a known correlation).
If 4 out of a million of these discs fail in a week,
then they are good
for 1000 years?
If you've established that a week is long enough to test it
under appropriate environmental conditions, yes. In most
cases, it's not, and there's a LOT of research that tells you
what conditions you need to test under and for how long.
And again, you can blithely ignore that research, say you've
"tested it", and people will buy it on that. I haven't the
slightest clue what the case is here, but if I were thinking
about using these things for archival media, I'd certainly
be trying to establish their bona fides.
- Dave
4:14 p.m.
On 3/19/2013 1:54 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player
Another tidbit
from reading the test procedure patent, and taking note
of the fact that they did a test @ China Lake, it is likely from reading
the apparatus in the patent and looking at what they did there, that
they had a contract to do the testing for the Navy. It would be
interesting to read that contract, because such things usually specify
that the patents are also property of the Navy as well. If anyone can
do searchs on such contracts that might turn up something else.
The patent about testing, if you find it has a lot of information on the
tests and what they did to margin the media. I guess you have to decide
if the margins actually simulated 1000 years of exposure or not.
Jim
14 Apr
14 Apr
5:35 p.m.
On 19-mrt-2013 21:54, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The M-Disc claims 1,000 year permanency.
http://www.mdisc.com/
Anyone have experience with these?
--Chuck
(wondering if we'll be able to find a 1,000 year old DVD player)
Two M-DISC drives, by LG, but no media (yet). I wonder, although,
I doubt I'll live long enough to say whether it's a scam or not...
- MG
4269
days inactive
4296
days old
33 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgahling＠hotmail.com -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
fuuzetsu＠fuuzetsu.co.uk -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
go＠aerodesic.com -
go＠ao-cs.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jws＠jwsss.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
marcogb＠xs4all.nl -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
tdk.knight＠gmail.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com