[Gllug] re: backups

[adam at thebowery.co.uk]

On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:21:12AM +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Russell Howe wrote:
> 
> > I'm sure I read something somewhere about writers laying down better
> > quality tracks if you run them more slowly. Possibly a concern if you
> > wish your discs to be readable by as wide a range of drives as possible.
> 
> Confirmation of this would be good. If you are writing a backup (to be
> potentially/hopefully readable in a few years time) then an extra hour
> in the writing is not really significant -- especially if it happens overnight.

When I got my first CD burner (about 300 quid for a 4x burner! and the blanks
were over a quid each!) back sometime in 1998 I found that there were certainly
problems reading discs that had been burnt at 4x in some CD-rom drives even 
straight after they had been produced so when we produced documentation CDs for
clients we had to always burn them at 1x just to make sure they could read them
(we also only used quality brandname media). I have no experience of the same
problems with a DVD burner, but that could be just that the drives have better 
error correction technologies now compared to then. Anyhow, I tend to burn at 
1x even now if I have the time as I certainly want to give my backups the best
chance of longterm survival, but if I am just burning a .iso or something that
I am not bothered about it gets burnt as fast possible.

Adam
-- 
jabberid = quinophex at jabber.earth.li
AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug