Building a NAS is a large upfront cost but it’s worth it IMO.
Too much of a hassle. With discs, they can be transported far easier than a NAS + drives and they can be compartmentalized and distributed to other people easier than with a NAS.
I’m not sure I’d trust a dye based optical media, but there are apparently some archive quality 100 year BD-R.
I wouldn’t trust dye-based optical media either. The BD-R discs I use incorporate an inorganic writable layer that’s rated for 100+ year storage under ideal conditions. BD-R discs are WORM (write once, read many times) so they cannot be re-written-- another massive benefit for archival purposes.
The author of this article did a very poor job at researching the subject matter. There’s zero mention of things like the difference between HTL vs LTH, or things like Verbatim’s MABL layers. There’s a good reason why one form of preferred media storage archivists use is BD-R. Let’s take the 100+ year ratings with a grain of salt, and assume say… 50 years. The average hard drive can be relied on for about 10 years. You can see where I’m going with this, which is why I’m far more comfortable using BD-R discs with HTL/MABL for long term data storage instead of hard drives which would have to be replaced every 10 years or so.
BD-R discs are expected to last between 5 and 20 years, depending on the material they are made out of. BD-RE, which is erasable Blu-ray, is estimated for 20 to 50 years while DVD-R and CD-R, which hold a lot less data, can last 50 to 100 years.
I’ve seen that Canadian govt link passed around on other forums and I’d remind people of how painfully outdated that info is. Again, no mention of HTL, which is the big factor that significantly improves longevity and reliability. What I’ve always found really bizarre is that they single academic paper that the Canadian govt page relies on in terms of BD-R’s lifespan (Iraci 2018) is hardly adequate. If you read Iraci 2018, you’ll see how it… really isn’t based on good data or testing practices at all. I think the problem is people see a scientific citation and (understandably) assume the info is legit, but in this case scratching the surface reveals an incredibly bad research paper written by an author who appears to have very little past/future experience in that field.
Testing involved the exposure of samples to conditions of 80 °C and 85 % relative humidity for intervals up to 84 days
^ That’s from Iraci 2018. Testing the reliability of a product should involve realistic conditions. I’d ask anyone who supports Iraci’s paper to answer this-- in what kind of remotely plausible situation would you find yourself in where conditions are 80 °C with 85% RH? Further, do you trust a paper that purports these conditions to be suitable when testing the longevity of optical media? To me, this is like testing various panes of glass by throwing them off a high rise building. Iraci’s paper is ridiculous, IMO-- and there’s a good reason why it’s been cited like 2 times in the last 6 years.