On Tuesday 24 January 2006 09:45, Graeme Humphries wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>In the grand scheme of things, this is a one time per hd failure
>>expense, whereas using re-recordable dvd's still needs to have spares
>>for the disk failures which seems to be in the 10% per re-write
>> range, plus the average life of a burner seems to be somewhere in
>> the 300-500 disks burnt range.   The only advantage I can see to
>> dvd's is that its possible to do offsite storage.  If thats
>> important (its not to me, I'm not commercial, just a retired old
>> f--t home user on SS)
>
>Well, also the initial costs for DVDs are much less, which is where
> they appeal to me. I can do weekly backups on DVDs, and *including*
> the cost of the burner it won't approach the cost of a single hard
> drive for many months. It's a little easier for my budget to digest,
> is all. ;)
>
>G

TBT, when I originally bought into the idea of doing dvd based backups, 
the disks were in the $3 each range, and my first drive was nearly 
$200.  2 drives later, $50.  Now they are much more reasonable.  But 
there is still the spoilage percentages to contend with.  So far, in 
about 19 months, there have not been any more expenses involved in the 
big hard drive solution.  The difference of course is that I can write 
a check, but I can't do it every day without eventual balance 
problems. :)

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.