Which Memory Storage Option is Best for Durability and Long-Term Use?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the durability and long-term reliability of various memory storage options, including HDDs, SSDs, digital tapes, and other technologies. Participants explore the implications of physical impacts, data degradation over time, and the suitability of different storage methods for preserving data for decades or even centuries without corruption.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that SSDs are more durable than HDDs due to the absence of moving parts, but caution that they are still vulnerable to significant impacts.
  • Others argue that both HDDs and SSDs face risks of data degradation over time, with HDDs being susceptible to magnetic field effects and SSDs potentially losing charge.
  • One participant mentions that data stored on HDDs can be recoverable even after severe damage, citing examples from historical events.
  • Concerns are raised about the long-term storage of data, with suggestions to periodically transfer data to newer technologies to ensure accessibility.
  • Digital tape is proposed as a viable option for long-term storage, with advantages in resistance to scratches and magnetic fields, and some participants inquire about the capacity of digital tapes.
  • EEPROMs and other memory types are discussed, with varying data retention periods noted, including the potential for certain types to last for centuries.
  • One participant shares personal experience with punch cards lasting over 40 years without noticeable degradation, suggesting that some older technologies may offer surprising longevity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the best memory storage options for durability and long-term use, with no consensus reached. Multiple competing perspectives on the effectiveness and longevity of different storage methods remain evident throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying assumptions about the conditions under which data is stored and accessed, as well as the specific definitions of "durability" and "long-term" in the context of different storage technologies.

icecubebeast
Messages
66
Reaction score
3
1. Which memory storage is better if I want the memory to be durable? Like when I drop it or hit it and still have the least chance of corrupting its memory.
2. Which memory is better if I want to store it for centuries without rewriting the memory and then be able to access the memory without it going corrupt?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
icecubebeast said:
1. Which memory storage is better if I want the memory to be durable? Like when I drop it or hit it and still have the least chance of corrupting its memory.
2. Which memory is better if I want to store it for centuries without rewriting the memory and then be able to access the memory without it going corrupt?
  1. The SSD is better, it doesn't have moving parts so the rapid acceleration/deceleration associated with hitting the ground shouldn't damage the data.
    Keep in mind that I'm assuming the SSD is dropped from a reasonable height, say a desk to the ground. If it's hit by a bat at the end of a 2 storey fall, your data is screwed lol.
    SSDs are more durable, but within reason.
  2. Neither.
    The data will degrade over time if power is not supplied to verify checksums and ensure the integrity of the data.
    Remember, the 1's and 0's on a HDD are stored magnetically, a chunk of the magnetic medium aligned one way represents 1 and a chunk aligned a different way is 0. Over time, the alignment randomise on it's own (entropy) and the data is slowly compromised.
    A similar effect happens in SSD also. Here the data is stored as a charge on a the semiconductor. Over time, the charge WILL leak away thus compromising the data.
    The only way to prevent this is to have the drive plugged into a computer (be powered) and the integrity of the data is verified via checksum comparisons.
P.S. I didn't read the link that jedishrfu posted. I apologise if what I said was already covered.
 
SSD's have a r/w cycle limit. HDD are a known quantity commoditized and cheap. Assemble a RAID with plenty of spares.
 
And be mindful of the UPS that you use or your raid will go up in smoke.
 
Umm. Well, there are those old threads about how to destroy a hard drive so that the data on it can never be recovered. Turns out it's not really all that easy. Data was read off one of the hard drives recovered from the crashed space shuttle (after it burned!). Of course, that doesn't mean that an average person can get the data, but experts could. If there is criminal evidence believed to be on a bad HDD, someone will find a way to read it. If it's just data you forgot to back up, no one will ever be able to read it.

I don't really know about solid state.

If you use a hard drive and back up to a second hard drive at reasonable intervals (or to the cloud), your data will be recoverable.
 
harborsparrow said:
Umm. Well, there are those old threads about how to destroy a hard drive so that the data on it can never be recovered. Turns out it's not really all that easy. Data was read off one of the hard drives recovered from the crashed space shuttle (after it burned!). Of course, that doesn't mean that an average person can get the data, but experts could. If there is criminal evidence believed to be on a bad HDD, someone will find a way to read it. If it's just data you forgot to back up, no one will ever be able to read it.

I don't really know about solid state.

If you use a hard drive and back up to a second hard drive at reasonable intervals (or to the cloud), your data will be recoverable.
But I'm talking about data over decades and more. I think that data is easy to erase when you let it sit over a very long time without using it. The question is, which data storage is better at long term storage (decades and more).
 
icecubebeast said:
I'm talking about data over decades and more.

Oh. If it's any comfort, back in 2007 and 2008, I was retrieving data off floppy disks from the 1980's. Out of dozens, only one or two were unreadable, and that mostly from physical damage like having been bent.

The problem with decades of storage is finding a machine and software to read them. For data stored that long, I'd put it in the cloud in multiple places, or move it periodically (say every 5 years) to something newer. Otherwise, I can't imagine any technology being still readable 20 years later. There is tape, of course, but very very unwieldy. Sorry, I may have nothing useful to say (other than the experience of hindsight, being old). I was staggered that the floppies had made it 20 years.
 
One suggestion I was given was to use digital tape. The rationale was it was not scratchable like a cd and didn't suffer from warpage. While being tape it could b stretch d but being digital it could still retrieve the data. If I broke you might lose some but not all data and tapes were more resistant to magnetic fields. The field needs to be stronger than what would erase a diskette.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: harborsparrow
  • #10
jedishrfu said:
One suggestion I was given was to use digital tape. The rationale was it was not scratchable like a cd and didn't suffer from warpage. While being tape it could b stretch d but being digital it could still retrieve the data. If I broke you might lose some but not all data and tapes were more resistant to magnetic fields. The field needs to be stronger than what would erase a diskette.
Are there any digital tapes that can store tens of gigabytes of data?
 
  • #11
icecubebeast said:
But I'm talking about data over decades and more...
EEPROMs are often specified as having a 10-year data retention period. I have not found specs for Mask ROM and OTP. Mask ROM is more expensive because it is intended for thousands of copies, not just a few - however, it would certainly last for centuries.
The last choices are OTP's. These are usually uvEPROMs with the memory sealed in a uv-blocking plastic. One 512Kbyte chip can cost about $7.50 plus shipping - and, of course, quantities would be cheaper. But their specified data retention is still only about 10 years.
There are two other types of OTPs are fuse-link and anti-fuse. Both (especially fuse-link) would probably last for centuries, but the only parts I can find that use them are things like FPGAs or digital pots.

Actually, I have some stored data that has lasted over 40 years without any noticeable degradation - and I expect that would last for centuries. The data is stored on punch card in metal bin holders. As long as they are dry and insect-free, they will last for quite some time.
 
  • #12
icecubebeast said:
Are there any digital tapes that can store tens of gigabytes of data?

Yes. As of now there are two alternatives:

DAT - the consumer-grade option. Useful for up to about 50Gbyte
LTO - the industrial-grade version. There are several classes here, with LTO1 for up to 100Gbyte all the way to LTO6 for up to 2500 Gbyte.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K