9.4 or 4.7 GB DVD RAM , music storage

[faithfoo]

I am using a LG GSA-4082B writer on a windows XP

1) in terms of reliability of storing data flawlessly, does it make any difference if I store it on a 4.7 GB or 9.4 Gb RAM ( price is not an issue )

2) Is it correct to say that DVD RAM is the best media to store music ; less prone to errors & better music quality) ; and DVD RAM is even better than those special disks(CDR) meant to store music


3) I have so far burnt 50 DVD RAMs on my writer ; is there any way I can tell if there is wear and tear , or what should I do to maintain the writing quality

4) what is the problem of oveburning a DVD R /RW , ( i think the max is 4.6 GB on a nero ? )

[CrayonEater]

Depends on what you call "better". My own experience is that DVD-RAM is more of a hassle than conventional DVD or CD in terms of compatibility. I have not experienced or read anything that suggests reliability is appreciably better or worse. If you need reliability, consider using Quickpar (www.quickpar.org.uk) to generate parity (recovery) files and dedicate part of each disk you burn to storing them, or store the parity files separately. Alternatively, do what I do: Just make burn everything twice. I use two different brands/kinds of media (e.g. Memorex DVD-R and Fuji DVD-R) and store the same brands together. I switch them around every once so that if the media starts going bad, I'll know.

Disc type has no bearing on the quality of music. Your storage format (i.e. encoding) is the determines that, along with the quality of the original source. If you want best quality, store it in WAV (uncompressed) or FLAC or APE (lossless compression) formats. Of course, the latter two have less compatibility than MP3, but many devices support WAV.

As far as DVD-RAM wear-and-tear, again, Quickpar might help. As a by-product of producing parity files (or even if you do not want parity recovery files), it performs hashes on your files that will let you know if any of your data have been corrupted.

As far as overburning, I have tried it once on a CD, many years ago, and I got a coaster out of it. I never bothered trying it again. Some say it can damage hardware. Personally, I don't care because of concerns it might cause compatibility problems with other products (e.g. DVD MP3 players, etc.) Don't bother unless you strongly feel the extra 100-200Mb is worth the trouble.

[samijubal]

For reliability, I haven't seen any difference between single and double sided RAM discs. It seems like some drives read the single sided discs better though.

[faithfoo]

can I confirm my understanding that instead of buying a 2.5 inch/ ? inch Hard disk (200Gb) ; is better to own 45 DVD RAM disks (45* 4 .5Gb = 200Gb) ;

1) As compared to DVD RAM, Hard disk are more prone to loss of data/errors should you drop the hard disk ; carry the hard disks in temperature of 45 degree celsius etc

2) by owning DVD RAM , we are spreading that data loss risk by spreading that towards many DVD RAM s( 4.7 GB ) instead of concentrating all the 200 Gb data in one Box .

[samijubal]

Yes, I've had 2 hard drives die, the only time I've had problems with a RAM disc was some defective ones back in the early days of the format. I've been using some of my RAM discs fairly heavily since 2001 without any problems.

[smearbrick1]

By using DVD RAM you are undermining your ability to retrieve the data at a future date. DVD-RAM is not obsolete, but it is not as common as DVD+/-R/RW. If it were me, I would back my files in two separate locations: Hard disk and DVD+/-R. I would store these backups someplace where I would have to worry about temperature or humidity (right now I have my entire 75GB music collection backed up on two different hard disks and DVD-R. Key thing for DVD+/-R backup is to use quality media.

So in response to you points in the last post:

1. Don't drop your hard drive. Store it some place safe and away from temperature extremes.

2. Are you going to store all of these discs in different places? I'd imagine if environmental conditions cause data failure for one disc, it would, most likely, cause issues with the others.

[faithfoo]

I somtimes carry my harddrive overseas , and hence prone to dropping it
I would hence prefer to use dvd RAm, and hence asking if DVD ram Is as reliable in terms of preventing data loss

2)SMEAR BRICK; IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU ARE USING dvd r - FOR YOUR 75 gb mUSIC ( INSTEAD OF dvd r+ ) .

[CrayonEater]

If anything, DVD-RAM is likely to be less reliable than burned media or a HD. Unless you are adamant about using a re-writable media, consider burned discs.

Read lordsmurf's post here:
https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=248839

[samijubal]

RAM is supposed to be the most reliable format. Large corporations and businesses backup data on RAM for it's reliability. This is from smurfs post.
DVD-RAM's phase change materials are more durable, and should last as long as dye.

[smearbrick1]

I somtimes carry my harddrive overseas , and hence prone to dropping it
I would hence prefer to use dvd RAm, and hence asking if DVD ram Is as reliable in terms of preventing data loss

2)SMEAR BRICK; IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU ARE USING dvd r - FOR YOUR 75 gb mUSIC ( INSTEAD OF dvd r+ ) .

No preference really. Basically, I use whatever quality media I had available at the time. This time just happened to be DVD-R. Last time I (about 8 months ago) I backed them up on DVD+R. I really have no preference either way, and try to stay clear of the +/- fanboy wars.

[faithfoo]

lord smurf seems to be saying that DVDR ( dyed ) are more long er lasting than DVD RAM ..... i do nont see anywhere that he says that DVD RAM Is most reliable

SO HOW ... ?? back up in DVD RAM ; and double back up in DVD R

[samijubal]

Why do banks, credit card companies, etc. use RAM to backup information? Because it's the most reliable media. You're basing your assumption on one person's post.

[CrayonEater]

What banks, credit card companies, etc. use RAM in 2006?

lordsmurf's statement is not the only one I've based my comments on; it was just the most handy reference.

[samijubal]

From a CD freaks review, there's plenty more to backup RAM reliability.
DVD-RAM has error correction, but also has error replacement to spare sectors as a "defect management" function. This gives higher reliability than other DVD format.
I'm done arguing about it. If you don't want to use RAM don't use it. It is considered the most reliable DVD media.

[faithfoo]

i am formatting my 40 Gb 2.5 inch hard disk
1) only option avalable is to format by NTFS

2) what allocation unit size should I choose
a) 512, 1024 . 2048 , 4096 or the default allocation size


3) enable compression should not be used ? ( will it affect writing quality etc )

4) quick format should not be used . I want less errors in future

[CrayonEater]

1. About NTFS, what program are you using? Don't use Windows' buiklt-in formatter or some HD manufacturer's partitioning software to do the format. I strongly suggest using FAT32 for combatibility reasons, although you will lose 8Gb (or, if you want, you can partition your drive into two and lose nothing). First partition your drive either to 32GB for the main partition and leave the rest unpartitioned, or split the partition such that none is larger than 32GB. Then to format, in Windows XP, launch a command prompt (Start->Run-type in CMD). At the commandline, type in:

FORMAT D: /FS:FAT32

Assuming D: is your 40Gb drive.

Alternatively, disconnect your current hard disk, connect your 40Gb as bootdrive, start a Windows installation partitioning and formatting FAT32, then abort after the format and reconnect your original hard disk. I recommend NOT using NTFS for compatibility and performance reasons, unless you are sure you need to store music files that are larger than 2Gb.

2. As far as allocation size, you probably won't get an option for FAT32 but if you do or use NTFS, generally use the largest cluster size, 4096.

3. Definitely DO NOT enable compression if you want any good compatibility.

4. Using the above method will not give a quick format. I believe quick format to be less reliable as it does not check the disk. It's main use is to do a very quick and dirty "wipe" of a drive.

[faithfoo]

some one gave this commenst ; what do you think ?

. NTFS is best. It's more stable and error-resistant than most other file systems.
2. Default allocation size is just fine for nearly everything, including data storage.

[faithfoo]

another comment

2. So what problems are you having with NTFS? I have had none. It is more stable and after a crash I have had less corruption than under FAT32. This is from first hand experience of running XP with both formats

[CrayonEater]

It is somewhat more stable and error-resistant, I agree.
The problem is 1. compatibility, 2. performance (debatable), and 3. security. If you need maximum compatibility, then FAT32 is the only real option. NTFS is a Windows NT creature; it is not supported by much else. Not earlier Windows, not Linux (what there is is very poor), and not much else. FAT32 generally has better performance because of lower-overhead "allocation tables" and node structure. And NTFS has a method of hiding data called Alternate Data Streams, which is a grave threat to security, whereas basically everything in FAT is a file and thus will show up in a file search or directory listing that ignores hidden/system flags.

You will have to decide what factors are more important to you. If you are reasonably sure you will be using your HD only in NTFS-capable machines, then there is no reason not to use NTFS. OTOH, if you need compatibility with a variety of platforms, then NTFS really isn't even an option.

Since reliability seems to be a major focus of yours - rightfully so - I do suggest you look into parity software, duplication of your data onto DVD, or some other backup format, or a mixture of them. HDs do fail, and ones which are frequently moved around are naturally at an even much higher risk. No matter what you do, don't place all your eggs in one basket, even if you use NTFS.

[faithfoo]

I used to have 40 Gb in this 2.5 inch hard disk but now I have deleted them .
besides formatting the hard disk by NTFS

1) SHOULD I STILL defragment disk ( and not analyse ) , UNDER PROPERTIES
a) how often should I do defragment

2) is there a need to do error check ( UNDER PROPERTIES ) for
a) AUTOMATICALLY FIX FILE SYSTEM ERRORS
b) SCAN & ATTEMPT RECOVERY OF BAD SECTORS
c) how often should I do an error check

3) partitioning helps in a way to prevent one bad sector from corrupting the other
a) how do I partition the 40 Gb into 4 partitions ?

[faithfoo]

HI Crayon Eater
stable and error-resistant & less corruption is very important to me

Looks like I will go with NTFS

[smearbrick1]

i am formatting my 40 Gb 2.5 inch hard disk
1) only option avalable is to format by NTFS

2) what allocation unit size should I choose
a) 512, 1024 . 2048 , 4096 or the default allocation size


3) enable compression should not be used ? ( will it affect writing quality etc )

4) quick format should not be used . I want less errors in future

Can you say "threadjack"?

What the hell does this have to do with DVD-RAM?

[CrayonEater]

You do not need to defragment or if you did an NTFS format. A surface scan is nice if your formatting tool didn't do a surface scan - in order words, use it only if you quick-formatted. That is all.

Error-check whenever you feel the need to or whenever an improper shutdown occurs. Once a month or longer is fine.

Partitioning provides a degree of safety, though not so much against bad clusters - if you have bad clusters, you have bad clusters. The safety is against accidental or malicious erasure, corruption from bad shutdown, etc.

[faithfoo]

0) I confirm that after I first partition in 3 partitions; then I reformat by NTFS; then I defragment, then I error check ?

1) if I format by NTFS ; there is no need to de fragment ; If I still defrag ment once a month; I think it’s not harmful to the hard disk

[CrayonEater]

Go with situation #1; if you do a full format, you do not need to defrag or error check. You *can* defrag once a month, but that's overkill and, frankly, defragging is a *VERY RISKY* thing to do. I've seen too many people lose data and trash their disks because the OS crashed, a power failure occurred during the defrag process, or data was written to an as-yet-unknown bad cluster. Even my bootdrive only needs to be defragged once every few months and I do a backup first. People tend to be too cavalier about defragging, in large part because a lot of irresponsible "tweakers' and computer magazine people have pitched it as one of the simplest ways to speed up your computer. It is, but it is also one of the simplest ways to trash your disk too.

Furthermore, if you are using your hard disk primarily as a data or archival disk i.e. data doesn't get deleted and written over too often, then you should rarely if ever need to defrag.