Is storage on optical media more stable than on magnetic media?

vbimport

#1

Recently I tried to import address books for both Outlook Express and Mozilla mail from 2 different folders I’d saved them on hard drive, but error messages were given in both Outlook Express and Mozilla mail. Then I tried importing from CDRW I’d saved them to, and both address books were successfully imported without problem. This must mean files saved in hard drive folders had become corrupt. Also periodically Windows checks certain disks during boot and corrects errors if errors are found which may cause file corruption. Has anybody else had similar experience with file corruption on magnetic media but not on optical media?


#2

It depends on too many factors as they could be given a general suggestion…
If you backup your stuff to HDD and then put it into a safe for a while and do the same with some optical discs - I would not know which way would be better for data integrity.
Probably the best way is to make at least 2 backups, 1 on each method…


#3

Upon further investigation I found some photo files on the hard drive showed no image when selected, but same files backed up previously to DVD+RW are all intact. My evidence thus far seems to be in favor of optical storage.


#4

One example doesn’t prove either way which is more stable.

Optical media and harddrives are both vulnerable to some of the same dangers, but there are also vulnerabilities that only affect one or the other.

To minimize the risk of losing your data, using two different types of media like e.g. an optical disc and a harddrive is always better than using just one type of media. Depending on circumstances, one may be better than the other, but I don’t believe in playing the lottery when it comes to prserving important data, so I recommend multiple types of backup instead of trying to find the single “best” one.


#5

I think most experts agree that magnetic storage (HD or tapes) is more stable in the long run. But that’s assuming it’s [I]stored properly[/I]. You don’t mention how your drive was stored, or even if it was stored at all. Which leads me to believe it has most likely been in use while the CD-RW was stored.

Think about spinning that CD-R/W at 14x for three¹ to nine² thousand hours, all the while reading and writing to and fro. No disc could hold up against that kind of abuse. But most hard-drives do just that, and usually have a five to six year life span.

Even if you had a thousand such examples, it’s still not a fair test unless the drives are [I]stored[/I] properly.

¹ 8 hours a day is 2,920 hours over the course of a year.
² 24 hours a day is 8,760 hours over the course of a year.


#6

The drive is installed in a working system, and DVD+RW was stored. However, the corrupt files were on a separate partition that was used only for storing backup copies of files. I did read a post in another forum that seemed to indicate NTFS drives may be more stable than FAT32 drives due to the way discs are scanned and fixed when required, and the corrupt files for my instance were on FAT32 drive. I plan to store backups on NTFS drive in the future as well as optical discs.


#7

[QUOTE=bevills1;2030868]The drive is installed in a working system, and DVD+RW was stored. However, the corrupt files were on a separate partition that was used only for storing backup copies of files. I did read a post in another forum that seemed to indicate NTFS drives may be more stable than FAT32 drives due to the way discs are scanned and fixed when required, and the corrupt files for my instance were on FAT32 drive. I plan to store backups on NTFS drive in the future as well as optical discs.[/QUOTE]

The better way is to use RAID!


#8

By RAID being better I assume you mean in mirror mode. However, if files on primary drive become corrupt, then those files mirrored to the secondary drive should be just a copy of corrupt files resulting in no advantage for RAID.