Date:         Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:12:15 -0400
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Rob Poretti <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Sascom
Subject:      Re: Longevity
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Actually, computer storage has reliability as a "reasonable" goal.  But true
long-term storage in IT circles actually revolves around failure detection,
redundancy, error correction and eventual automated migration.  These
concepts are based on the knowledge that the hard drive *WILL* fail.  A hard
drive is not even a mid-term solution; but a managed hard drive "system" can
certainly be a long term one.

Cheers!

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
> Sent: July 11, 2006 9:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity
> 
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, steven c wrote:
> 
> > I would suspect that, rather than being intentional 
> economic-related 
> > decisions, it has more to do with the simple "nature of the 
> beast!" As 
> > we choose to preserve more information...and in more detail...our 
> > existing formats become impractical in cubic volume, if 
> nothing else!
> 
> I can see that capacity needs continue to increase 
> exponentially, but it seems to me that our storage modalities 
> are fundamentally flawed if one considers longevity a goal.
> 
> There would seem to be little incentive to make anything that 
> would last forever.
> 
> Karl
> 
>