this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
83 points (97.7% liked)

Linux

48323 readers
919 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi,

I’m not sure if this is the right community for my question, but as my daily driver is Linux, it feels somewhat relevant.

I have a lot of data on my backup drives, and recently added 50GB to my already 300GB of storage (I can already hear the comments about how low/high/boring that is). It's mostly family pictures, videos, and documents since 2004, much of which has already been compressed using self-made bash scripts (so it’s Linux-related ^^).

I have a lot of data that I don’t need regular access to and won’t be changing anymore. I'm looking for a way to archive it securely, separate from my backup but still safe.

My initial thought was to burn it onto DVDs, but that's quite outdated and DVDs don't hold much data. Blu-ray discs can store more, but I'm unsure about their longevity. Is there a better option? I'm looking for something immutable, safe, easy to use, and that will stand the test of time.

I read about data crystals, but they seem to be still in the research phase and not available for consumers. What about using old hard drives? Don’t they need to be powered on every few months/years to maintain the magnetic charges?

What do you think? How do you archive data that won’t change and doesn’t need to be very accessible?

Cheers

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is interesting, haven't heard of it. I think the problem with the disc format is you aren't getting 28 TB of content on there unless you span multiple discs which is a pain in the ass

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 2 points 2 months ago

unless you span multiple boxes of discs which is a pain in the ass

FTFY

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

That was my thought as well. I'm also thinking it might be a challenge to get something to read them in 100 years.