Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on May 20, 2009, 02:30:39 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8060082.stm
I can see the advantage of this, but I must admit thinking that there is also a risk inherent in it, as disc capacity increases, so does the potential for the amount of data lost should a disc become damaged or corrupted.
-
Buy two. Make a RAID array.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8060082.stm
I can see the advantage of this, but I must admit thinking that there is also a risk inherent in it, as disc capacity increases, so does the potential for the amount of data lost should a disc become damaged or corrupted.
Backups. Or as redsniper said, a non-0 RAID.
-
True, particularly considering the recent case of the Avsim site, which was hacked and bought down, and because the backups were kept on a server that was actually connected to the main server, the hacker bought that down as well, thus destroying all backups. Suppose that helps highlight the importance of off-site backups.
-
No matter what happens, the more data that exists, the more likely that it will fail in some way or another. It's a matter of how much total data is being stored, not how it's being stored. If you have 20 hard drives filled with data as opposed to 2 filled with data, its more likely that one of those 20 hard drives will fail then one of your 2 will fail. Data that is spread over multiple hard-drives, however, will be even more likely to be corrupted and ultimately useless due to striping and the fact that the number of files isn't necessarily increasing, simply the size of those files. Therefore, you run into the same problems even if you divide it into multiple hard drives. The only solution is simply to back up the goddamn data in an external drive.
-
Data that is spread over multiple hard-drives, however, will be even more likely to be corrupted and ultimately useless due to striping and the fact that the number of files isn't necessarily increasing, simply the size of those files. Therefore, you run into the same problems even if you divide it into multiple hard drives.
Erm... RAID?
-
RAID is still connected devices, as I understand it, if you can erase one of them, you can erase all of them, which offers zero protection of malicious access?
-
RAID != RAID 0.
You can mirror disks among other things.
As for malicious access, that's another thing entirely that doesn't depend on disk size.
-
But increased disk capacity means that much more data being stored in a single location, so increasing disk size does have an impact on the damage that can be inflicted by malicious access. Admittedly, this is probably not the case in Write-Only media, which optical disks tend to be, but it is an ongoing concern.
-
But increased disk capacity means that much more data being stored in a single location, so increasing disk size does have an impact on the damage that can be inflicted by malicious access. Admittedly, this is probably not the case in Write-Only media, which optical disks tend to be, but it is an ongoing concern.
Write-only media? ;) I remember a joke about that...
Well, think of it this way, if the disk size increases, it means you'll have to store your stuff in less disks, which means you can use the remaining disks for redundancy.
If you're arguing that in the simple case that you don't have redundancy and you simply store all your stuff in a single location, you're just asking for trouble, no matter how much disk space you have.
-
If you're arguing that in the simple case that you don't have redundancy and you simply store all your stuff in a single location, you're just asking for trouble, no matter how much disk space you have.
Exactly. As long as there is redundancy in the system, the data will be protected against most failures (unless both disks fail simultaneously, which just sucks :P)
-
But increased disk capacity means that much more data being stored in a single location, so increasing disk size does have an impact on the damage that can be inflicted by malicious access. Admittedly, this is probably not the case in Write-Only media, which optical disks tend to be, but it is an ongoing concern.
Write-only media? ;) I remember a joke about that...
:lol: Maybe I could have worded that better, I seem to recall a joke about that as well, trying to remember where I heard it... Might have been Terry Pratchett...
-
I still prefer HVDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_disc).
-
I run RAID and still do full backups weekly. It's getting to be a pain in the butt since I'm up to 20+ tapes. Without one heck of a budget anything that holds more is out of the question. Almost cheaper to buy 48 terabyte drives and rotate them as a third mirror.
-
How the Sacred Terrabye of Gaming Goodness is backed up
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/504/caddy1h.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
-
I just backup stuff that can't be replaced. Everything else can be reinstalled or redownloaded.
-
I backup everything I download
you never know if that patch/map/mod/addon is going to be available in 10+ years time
-
The thing that strikes me when I read the article... so the dedicated people have indeed found ways to further compess a ton more data into the same area...
But... with all that compression? If that disc fails or gets scratched or some other disaster and already the lens/laser/whatever has to scan for data at a VERY DEEP LEVEL when the disc isn't damaged in the first place...
With all that data packed into some tiny nano-micron-whatsit of measurement, I really fear for what would go missing if even one tiny, tiny little point on the disc just went and failed...
/random-rant