Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #183824 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-19 22:34 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-04-21 12:08 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 110 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-19 22:34 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-20 03:48 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-20 09:27 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-20 20:23 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-20 16:55 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-21 14:42 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-21 21:22 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-22 20:15 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-22 16:52 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 00:37 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-23 17:45 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-24 20:56 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:37 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-24 21:48 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-25 05:32 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-25 20:14 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-25 13:37 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-25 23:32 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-25 20:20 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-25 22:02 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 21:00 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-26 20:07 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-26 17:20 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-27 14:17 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-26 19:24 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-26 22:28 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-27 11:36 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-28 00:16 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-28 21:22 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-29 22:37 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:27 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:48 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 21:09 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-30 19:24 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-04-30 20:20 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:10 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-30 15:49 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:21 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-29 15:26 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:18 -0500
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-30 22:21 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Sam E <no.email@here.invalid> - 2025-05-01 16:46 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 22:39 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:18 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-06 22:44 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-06 14:13 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-01 00:32 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-30 13:10 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:20 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-30 22:24 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 15:23 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 15:07 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 22:51 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-05-04 19:57 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 22:44 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-30 16:19 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:31 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-06 22:53 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:12 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 21:18 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-28 21:42 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-25 19:04 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-25 23:33 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 20:04 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-26 21:05 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-23 19:26 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Sam E <no.email@here.invalid> - 2025-04-22 23:00 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 00:40 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-20 07:15 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-20 11:11 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-20 12:08 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:38 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:31 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-21 02:38 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 03:52 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-21 11:51 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 21:13 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-22 06:07 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 05:34 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 07:40 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 09:12 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-21 14:54 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-21 15:29 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-21 16:06 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 17:45 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-22 00:15 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-21 23:01 -0500
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-22 06:58 +0100
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 05:47 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-22 10:37 -0500
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 14:34 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 11:38 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-21 18:29 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 22:23 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-21 14:05 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Mr Xi Ji Ping <ping@china.cn> - 2025-04-21 15:30 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 11:28 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-15 21:33 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-15 07:41 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-15 14:06 +0200
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-15 09:31 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-15 23:36 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-05-15 23:26 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 14:27 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-16 18:38 +1000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-05-16 14:51 +0000
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 11:06 -0400
Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-21 12:08 -0400
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 05:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu7nr1$ahuj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183879 |
On Tue, 4/22/2025 2:07 AM, Ant wrote: > In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >> On Sun, 4/20/2025 10:38 PM, Ant wrote: >>> For me, I prefer cheaper and bigger old fashion HDDs over expensive >>> SSDs. I remember paying over 100 USD for a 5 TB USB3 ext. HDD from >>> Costco.com and Amazon.com. I'm still waiting for SSDs to be match HDD on >>> their prices and sizes. > >> I don't believe projections like this. "The guy who owns a pony, >> keeps drawing charts where the pony wins." > >> https://blocksandfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wikibon-SSD-less-than-HDD-in-2026.jpg > > It says 2021 at the bottom. With stupid enforced traffics in USA, I doubt this will happen. :( It's the law of unintended consequences. Any number of additional outcomes are possible. You can see here, how sensitive some things are to external conditions unrelated to the business. https://blocksandfiles.com/2024/01/26/western-digitals-second-successive-growth-quarter-seagate-hamr-no-threat/ So while the HDD industry looks like a calm and stable business, I'm not so sure what will happen in the current climate. SSDs might win, simply by attrition. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 07:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu5aoi$24lmn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183844 |
On 4/20/2025 10:38 PM, Ant wrote:
> For me, I prefer cheaper and bigger old fashion HDDs over expensive
> SSDs. I remember paying over 100 USD for a 5 TB USB3 ext. HDD from
> Costco.com and Amazon.com. I'm still waiting for SSDs to be match HDD on
> their prices and sizes.
>
They seem to have leveled out at about $100/TB. I buy
a Samsaung 500 when they go under $50. I bought an off
brand once for backup, just because it was so cheap.
(Inland?) But I'd never buy external. You just pay through
the nose for a case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 09:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu5g8d$29juu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183848 |
On Mon, 4/21/2025 7:40 AM, Newyana2 wrote: > On 4/20/2025 10:38 PM, Ant wrote: >> For me, I prefer cheaper and bigger old fashion HDDs over expensive >> SSDs. I remember paying over 100 USD for a 5 TB USB3 ext. HDD from >> Costco.com and Amazon.com. I'm still waiting for SSDs to be match HDD on >> their prices and sizes. >> > They seem to have leveled out at about $100/TB. I buy > a Samsaung 500 when they go under $50. I bought an off > brand once for backup, just because it was so cheap. > (Inland?) But I'd never buy external. You just pay through > the nose for a case. I could find a case with fan, for $50 in local currency. NST-387S3-BK You can put a case together for yourself. Usually with the cases, there's some little issue or other, with how the things plug in or screw in. The two enclosures (no fan) I've got for 3.5" drives, they were "too tight of a fit", so now those things are just a circuit board and a wall adapter, and no case at all :-) But with the drives themselves, you have to be pretty careful these days with fraud. There are batches of drives seemingly coming from Chia farms, where the odometer has been set back on them. There's a fair number of items at my computer store listed as "refurbished", and while they could be NFF drives from factory warranty returns, we don't really know what those are, or what rock they crawled out from under. But just compared to your $100 per TB for an SSD, the HDD listed at my computer store might be estimated as $30 per TB. But you can do better than that, much better, on "sale days". And considering the time of year, it would be better to buy now, than wait later in the year. back-to-school should cause the prices to peak. # Just digging into the chum bucket. 8TB. Seagate. https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B07H289S7C # A random WD external. Waiting for a dip might save you $50. https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B09VCXWPQG Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 14:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vu5in3$2bu5s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183852 |
On 2025-04-21 14:12, Paul wrote: > > But with the drives themselves, you have to be pretty careful > these days with fraud. There are batches of drives seemingly > coming from Chia farms, where the odometer has been set back > on them. There's a fair number of items at my computer > store listed as "refurbished", and while they could be > NFF drives from factory warranty returns, we don't really > know what those are, or what rock they crawled out from under. Yes, I've just been reading reviews of 16TB, or thereabouts, drives on Amazon UK, and there have been several reported cases of that in the reviews of some suppliers there. Consequently, I decided to buy direct from WD, but as a result am having to wait a month for my order to be fulfilled. It seems that SATA connections might be becoming obsolete, with something called SAS taking over? For example: https://www.westerndigital.com/en-gb/products/internal-drives/data-center-drives/ultrastar-dc-hc560-hdd?sku=0F38652 I'm rather out of the loop on the latest developments, and anyway need SATA drives, so don't know much about SAS. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 15:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m6n328F1tk8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183853 |
Java Jive wrote: > It seems that SATA connections might be becoming obsolete, with > something called SAS taking over? SAS has been a thing for well over a decade on servers, not likely to make it to desktops. SAS controllers can use SATA drives but not vice-versa, the drives have features like command queueing to efficiently handle multiple reads/writes by themselves, can speak to two controllers, run at 12 or 24 Gbps instead of 6 Gbps for SATA, drives are offered with longer warranties. > I'm rather out of the loop on the latest developments, and anyway need > SATA drives, so don't know much about SAS. SAS is still used where large number of spinning drives are required, SAS can be used with SSDs, but E3.s hot pluggable drives are the new form factor for large numbers of NVMe/SSD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 16:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vu5mtk$2fkpr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183855 |
On 2025-04-21 15:29, Andy Burns wrote: > > Java Jive wrote: >> >> It seems that SATA connections might be becoming obsolete, with >> something called SAS taking over? > > SAS has been a thing for well over a decade on servers, not likely to > make it to desktops. SAS controllers can use SATA drives but not > vice-versa, the drives have features like command queueing to > efficiently handle multiple reads/writes by themselves, can speak to two > controllers, run at 12 or 24 Gbps instead of 6 Gbps for SATA, drives are > offered with longer warranties. > >> I'm rather out of the loop on the latest developments, and anyway need >> SATA drives, so don't know much about SAS. > > SAS is still used where large number of spinning drives are required, > SAS can be used with SSDs, but E3.s hot pluggable drives are the new > form factor for large numbers of NVMe/SSD Thanks for updating me. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 17:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu6ea4$33ob0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183856 |
On Mon, 4/21/2025 11:06 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2025-04-21 15:29, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems that SATA connections might be becoming obsolete, with something called SAS taking over?
>>
>> SAS has been a thing for well over a decade on servers, not likely to make it to desktops. SAS controllers can use SATA drives but not vice-versa, the drives have features like command queueing to efficiently handle multiple reads/writes by themselves, can speak to two controllers, run at 12 or 24 Gbps instead of 6 Gbps for SATA, drives are offered with longer warranties.
>>
>>> I'm rather out of the loop on the latest developments, and anyway need SATA drives, so don't know much about SAS.
>>
>> SAS is still used where large number of spinning drives are required, SAS can be used with SSDs, but E3.s hot pluggable drives are the new form factor for large numbers of NVMe/SSD
>
> Thanks for updating me.
>
SATA - SATA III 6 Gbit/sec (no equalization, simplified PHY)
NCQ (tagged queuing depth 7)
SAS - 12 Gbit/sec (PHY has equalizer, line build out, longer cables possible by interface enabling LBO)
Tagged Queue depth 65536
Backward compatible with SATA
May be associated with 4096 byte sectors (check before purchase)
While backward compatibility is claimed, most home user accounts of the testing "don't end well".
Windows supports both 512 byte sectors and 4096 byte sectors (available tools to do 4K maintenance, may be lacking)
While SAS exists and could in principle be put in your
home computer, I've yet to read an account where someone
claims they got a good result by doing this. I don't
know exactly what is wrong, with using them. They should
work, but the transfer rates usually end up "sub-par".
It cannot transfer any faster than a SATA drive, in the
sense that the read channel at the platter can only go
so fast, which today is around ~300MB/sec best case.
The read channel likely uses some significant amount
of DSP to get the job done - the "wiggles" no longer
succumb to straight-forward level-thresholding. This is
similar to how high-rate optical cables across the oceans work,
lots of high speed DSP to read the incoming terabit signal.
SAS may be intended as a means to make servers work better,
with multi-thread cache being a necessity, but exactly how
the disk drive could end up with 64000 outstanding requests
and have room in a 256MB or 512MB cache, that boggles the mind.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 00:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vu6jip$3853d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183866 |
On 2025-04-21 22:45, Paul wrote: > On Mon, 4/21/2025 11:06 AM, Java Jive wrote: >> On 2025-04-21 15:29, Andy Burns wrote: >>> >>> Java Jive wrote: >>>> >>>> It seems that SATA connections might be becoming obsolete, with something called SAS taking over? >>> >>> SAS has been a thing for well over a decade on servers, not likely to make it to desktops. SAS controllers can use SATA drives but not vice-versa, the drives have features like command queueing to efficiently handle multiple reads/writes by themselves, can speak to two controllers, run at 12 or 24 Gbps instead of 6 Gbps for SATA, drives are offered with longer warranties. >>> >>>> I'm rather out of the loop on the latest developments, and anyway need SATA drives, so don't know much about SAS. >>> >>> SAS is still used where large number of spinning drives are required, SAS can be used with SSDs, but E3.s hot pluggable drives are the new form factor for large numbers of NVMe/SSD >> >> Thanks for updating me. >> > > SATA - SATA III 6 Gbit/sec (no equalization, simplified PHY) > NCQ (tagged queuing depth 7) > > SAS - 12 Gbit/sec (PHY has equalizer, line build out, longer cables possible by interface enabling LBO) > Tagged Queue depth 65536 > Backward compatible with SATA > May be associated with 4096 byte sectors (check before purchase) > While backward compatibility is claimed, most home user accounts of the testing "don't end well". > Windows supports both 512 byte sectors and 4096 byte sectors (available tools to do 4K maintenance, may be lacking) > > While SAS exists and could in principle be put in your > home computer, I've yet to read an account where someone > claims they got a good result by doing this. I don't > know exactly what is wrong, with using them. They should > work, but the transfer rates usually end up "sub-par". > It cannot transfer any faster than a SATA drive, in the > sense that the read channel at the platter can only go > so fast, which today is around ~300MB/sec best case. > The read channel likely uses some significant amount > of DSP to get the job done - the "wiggles" no longer > succumb to straight-forward level-thresholding. This is > similar to how high-rate optical cables across the oceans work, > lots of high speed DSP to read the incoming terabit signal. > > SAS may be intended as a means to make servers work better, > with multi-thread cache being a necessity, but exactly how > the disk drive could end up with 64000 outstanding requests > and have room in a 256MB or 512MB cache, that boggles the mind. Again, thanks for the detailed explanation. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 23:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bv3e0klp0gotpvcpa5acn0d45hjdf08rai@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #183866 |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:45:40 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >While SAS exists and could in principle be put in your >home computer, I've yet to read an account where someone >claims they got a good result by doing this. I guess that would depend on how you define 'good result'. I've been using a 2-port SAS controller (8 SATA ports when using SATA breakout cables) since 2009 and I've been completely happy with it. I haven't benchmarked anything since I'm not one of the kids who needs to brag about transfer speeds, but in actual practice I see absolutely no performance difference between the SAS-connected drives versus the onboard SATA-connected drives. That setup worked well enough that I bought a second identical controller in about 2010-2011 so that I could finish building out that server with 16 drives, but I only ever used one SAS port (4 SATA ports) on the second controller because the rest of the drives could use mobo SATA ports. One of the controller features that's rather nice is that they spin up the drives in a staggered manner, with the stagger delay being configurable. That's better than hammering the PSU with spinning up 16 drives all at once. I don't remember much about the SAS controller and I don't have access to that server at the moment, but the driver says "Marvell mvs94xx" so that may be a hint. >I don't >know exactly what is wrong, with using them. They should >work, but the transfer rates usually end up "sub-par". >It cannot transfer any faster than a SATA drive, in the >sense that the read channel at the platter can only go >so fast, which today is around ~300MB/sec best case. <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 06:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m6oph1Fa9nkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183866 |
Paul wrote: > While SAS exists and could in principle be put in your > home computer, I've yet to read an account where someone > claims they got a good result by doing this. The previous motherboard in my "server" had a single PCI-X slot (pre PCIe but wider and faster than PCI). I bought a cheapish 6 port SAS controller and used it with linux software RAID. I won't even try to find whatever performance tests I did years ago, but I remember it favourably, and couldn't find a newer motherboard with PCI-X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 05:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu7oiv$b5ul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183878 |
On Tue, 4/22/2025 1:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote: > Paul wrote: > >> While SAS exists and could in principle be put in your >> home computer, I've yet to read an account where someone >> claims they got a good result by doing this. > > The previous motherboard in my "server" had a single PCI-X slot (pre PCIe but wider and faster than PCI). I bought a cheapish 6 port SAS controller and used it with linux software RAID. > > I won't even try to find whatever performance tests I did years ago, but I remember it favourably, and couldn't find a newer motherboard with PCI-X I'm referring to the people who took the "SATA compatibility" at face value, and they were attempting to run a SAS drive off a SATA port. The transfer rate did not seem to be correct, or the performance level varied while the device was running. I certainly was not interested in testing something like this :-) Some hair balls are best left, right where they are. I could juggle running chain saws as a hobby... but I don't. One hard drive that was recently retired, I opened it up. It was a 0.8" high Seagate. It had no plastic landing ramp. It had a patterned landing area near the hub, for the heads. You never really know what is inside those things, until you open them up and look. I had some 0.8" high drives at 500GB capacity, and those had lower-than-normal read/write in the second half of the disk. I didn't know what was going on. At some point, I offloaded the drive content, and re-wrote it from end to end (zeroed or whatever). Right after that, I tested, and the performance curve was back to normal. I put the content back on it. You always have to evaluate what you bought, a little bit, to better understand the company making the item. And whether they have your best interests at heart. Never assume anything. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vjdf0k18mhdv7kbtbltq270bl7j5vj8ivk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #183881 |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 05:47:12 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 4/22/2025 1:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote: >> Paul wrote: >> >>> While SAS exists and could in principle be put in your >>> home computer, I've yet to read an account where someone >>> claims they got a good result by doing this. >> >> The previous motherboard in my "server" had a single PCI-X slot (pre PCIe but wider and faster than PCI). I bought a cheapish 6 port SAS controller and used it with linux software RAID. >> >> I won't even try to find whatever performance tests I did years ago, but I remember it favourably, and couldn't find a newer motherboard with PCI-X > >I'm referring to the people who took the "SATA compatibility" >at face value, and they were attempting to run a SAS drive >off a SATA port. To the best of my knowledge, you can't run a SAS drive on a SATA port, but you can run a SATA drive on a SAS port. >The transfer rate did not seem to be correct, >or the performance level varied while the device was running. That sounds like a basic misunderstanding of the technology. SAS controller --> SATA drive = yes SATA controller --> SAS drive = no
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 14:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu8nge$15krv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183891 |
On Tue, 4/22/2025 11:37 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 05:47:12 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 4/22/2025 1:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> While SAS exists and could in principle be put in your
>>>> home computer, I've yet to read an account where someone
>>>> claims they got a good result by doing this.
>>>
>>> The previous motherboard in my "server" had a single PCI-X slot (pre PCIe but wider and faster than PCI). I bought a cheapish 6 port SAS controller and used it with linux software RAID.
>>>
>>> I won't even try to find whatever performance tests I did years ago, but I remember it favourably, and couldn't find a newer motherboard with PCI-X
>>
>> I'm referring to the people who took the "SATA compatibility"
>> at face value, and they were attempting to run a SAS drive
>> off a SATA port.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, you can't run a SAS drive on a SATA port,
> but you can run a SATA drive on a SAS port.
>
>> The transfer rate did not seem to be correct,
>> or the performance level varied while the device was running.
>
> That sounds like a basic misunderstanding of the technology.
>
> SAS controller --> SATA drive = yes
> SATA controller --> SAS drive = no
>
The only reason I was reading the reviewers comments in this
case, this was back around the time Newegg started stocking
disk types that weren't appropriate for home computer users,
and without any warnings in the adverts. Then, apparently there was a high
rate of return on the things people were buying.
There seem to be a few more warnings today.
SATA 512e Home user
SATA 512n Home user
SATA 4Kn Will work at home, not recommended (tool situation not good)
SAS Not a drive you'd want at home particularly.
Many high performance drives, the self test "chirp" will drive you nuts.
A certain number of items are meant for locked server rooms.
Diff.SCSI Not a drive you'd want at home particularly.
I worked on a couple drives at work, one in one of our remote
labs, those were differential and the cables were 25 feet long
(and, all over the floor). But that was a long time ago, and
data rates were pretty low.
And the SCSI I've had in the house here, weren't really champs
either. Nothing really high rate. All I've got left in
SCSI here, is an async SCSI cable for the old scanner.
All my recent experience here is with SATA. And no 4Kn either.
Mostly 512e, a couple 512n.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 11:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu5onr$2h6bu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183852 |
On 4/21/2025 9:12 AM, Paul wrote: > But with the drives themselves, you have to be pretty careful > these days with fraud. There are batches of drives seemingly > coming from Chia farms, where the odometer has been set back > on them. No problem. Just don't buy disks with grass growing on them. I've always hated those chia pets, anyway. :) I have an adapter gadget that I bought at one point when I was thinking of doing tech support on the side. It converts between SATA, IDE and USB, with a plug-in adapter for power. So I can hook up any drive via USB without a case. Though for largescale backup I'm more likely to plug it in internally, just long enough to copy over. A lot of people plug in external backup permanently, but that partially defeats the purpose. Backup means it's not connected. I have a redundant internal disk for on-machine backup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 18:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu6gt3$35v34$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183859 |
On Mon, 4/21/2025 11:38 AM, Newyana2 wrote: > On 4/21/2025 9:12 AM, Paul wrote: > >> But with the drives themselves, you have to be pretty careful >> these days with fraud. There are batches of drives seemingly >> coming from Chia farms, where the odometer has been set back >> on them. > > No problem. Just don't buy disks with grass growing on them. > I've always hated those chia pets, anyway. :) > > I have an adapter gadget that I bought at one > point when I was thinking of doing tech support > on the side. It converts between SATA, IDE and > USB, with a plug-in adapter for power. So I can hook > up any drive via USB without a case. Though for > largescale backup I'm more likely to plug it in internally, > just long enough to copy over. > > A lot of people plug in external backup permanently, > but that partially defeats the purpose. Backup means > it's not connected. I have a redundant internal disk for > on-machine backup. The reason you want your backup drive moved some distance from the PC, is in case of a lightning hit. This would be more of an issue for a person in Florida (according to an instructor at work, who flew up from Florida, and he happened to mention how he protects stuff at his house). The reason for wanting the backup drive not to share the same DC electrical supply (+5V, +12V from the PSU), is in case the PSU overvolts, and burns the controller board on both the main drive and the backup drive. when I mentioned that in a hardware group, a non-regular wrote on and said exactly that happened to him, PSU burned up all the storage in the box, via overvolting. This is also an issue for people running RAID10 and being smug about it - your PSU is a common-mode failure point and can burn the array (you know, that RAID array where you don't have any off-line backup stored safely). Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 22:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu6ugu$3k7qs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183867 |
On 4/21/2025 6:29 PM, Paul wrote: > The reason you want your backup drive moved some distance from > the PC, is in case of a lightning hit. But also so that it's not connected if you get malware. USB *might* be safe from something like a surge, but leaving a backup drive connected means it's no longer a backup drive. It's just an addition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vu5qb4.poo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183824 |
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote: > The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 > years ago is now $80. Didn't some guy do something with something called 'tariffs'!? :-) FWIW, my last disk purchase was also a 2TB WD Elements. Nice devices. > I thought computer stuff was supposed to get > cheaper with time!! (Well, that was last week. tonight it's down to > 70.) > https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06W55K9N6?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_2 > > It's mechanical. A solid state drive the same size is almost twice as > much. (The cheapest on Amazon is $112. Well, Vanzuny is 109, but I > never heard of Vanzuny.) > > 1) Would you spend almost twice as much for a drive just used for > backups? Speed is not an issue. The current one is plenty fast. And > damage is not an issue: I rarely go out of town and when I do I don't > take my bacup drive, although in the past they were 5 1/2" drives. Now > they are much smaller and I could if you told me I should.) No, I would not buy a SSD drive for backup and *did* take my 1TB WD Elements all over the world, several times, and also in a 4WD on highly corrugated dirt/gravel roads for hundreds of kilometres, no problem. > 2) Do you keep your backup files for an old computer, when you've copied > everythign to the newer computer? Since all the data files have been > copied to the new computer, I could, to save m money, erase the old > computer files and use it for the new one and I wouldn't have to buy a > new drive. Good idea? If you've really copied *everything* - not just what you thought of - you could delete the old copy, *after* you've made (full) backup of the new computer. I.e. at all times, you should have at least two copies of all your files, one on the active computer, one on a backup device. That said, before 'decomissioning' the old computer, I make - at least - a full image backup of it and keep *that*. So if I ever need anything from that old computer, and assuming that the same image backup/restore program (currently Macrium Reflect) (still) works on my current computer, I can still restore any file(s) I might need. FWIW, I currently have image backup of my two earlier computers (Vista and 8.1). Current computer is Windows 11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Xi Ji Ping <ping@china.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vu5nmd$3crd0$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #183854 |
On 21/04/2025 15:05, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > Didn't some guy do something with something called 'tariffs'!? :-) > Tariffs might make some stuff cheap in some countries because China will try to dump surplus inventory. Unless the countries also try to block this. Ursula von der Leyen wants to block this but the customers are the king when it comes to buying things. Tariffs will only hurt United States more than countries willing to have fair trade policies with China. Let's face it Trump lost the battle and so he decided to pause everything until something is sorted out. China is in the driving seat because they know USA and Europe don't have the factories or necessary skills to start building their own stuff. China has young population and people are relatively educated and competitive. They are prepared to price themselves into work while in Europe and USA there is something called "minimum wage" and "welfare" and this makes it anti-competitive. There is no incentive to get a proper job!! In UK there are about 1 million people between the ages of 18 and 24 who have never worked in their lifetime. Now tell me who is going to employ these guys?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 11:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu5o6n$2gma9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183854 |
Frank Slootweg wrote: > micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote: >> The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 >> years ago is now $80. > > Didn't some guy do something with something called 'tariffs'!? :-) > > FWIW, my last disk purchase was also a 2TB WD Elements. Nice devices. > >> I thought computer stuff was supposed to get >> cheaper with time!! (Well, that was last week. tonight it's down to >> 70.) >> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06W55K9N6?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_2 >> >> It's mechanical. A solid state drive the same size is almost twice as >> much. (The cheapest on Amazon is $112. Well, Vanzuny is 109, but I >> never heard of Vanzuny.) >> >> 1) Would you spend almost twice as much for a drive just used for >> backups? Speed is not an issue. The current one is plenty fast. And >> damage is not an issue: I rarely go out of town and when I do I don't >> take my bacup drive, although in the past they were 5 1/2" drives. Now >> they are much smaller and I could if you told me I should.) > > No, I would not buy a SSD drive for backup and *did* take my 1TB WD > Elements all over the world, several times, and also in a 4WD on highly > corrugated dirt/gravel roads for hundreds of kilometres, no problem. > >> 2) Do you keep your backup files for an old computer, when you've copied >> everythign to the newer computer? Since all the data files have been >> copied to the new computer, I could, to save m money, erase the old >> computer files and use it for the new one and I wouldn't have to buy a >> new drive. Good idea? > > If you've really copied *everything* - not just what you thought of - > you could delete the old copy, *after* you've made (full) backup of the > new computer. I.e. at all times, you should have at least two copies of > all your files, one on the active computer, one on a backup device. > > That said, before 'decomissioning' the old computer, I make - at least > - a full image backup of it and keep *that*. So if I ever need anything > from that old computer, and assuming that the same image backup/restore > program (currently Macrium Reflect) (still) works on my current > computer, I can still restore any file(s) I might need. > > FWIW, I currently have image backup of my two earlier computers (Vista > and 8.1). Current computer is Windows 11. > Part of the price increase occurred shortly after the WD/SanDisk spinoff with each trading as separate stocks(Feb 2025) - WD retaining the HDD- side; SanDisk the SSD(Flash storage business). WD has an equity position in SanDisk. - Most searchable and valid links for WD's SSD products now redirect to SanDisk web site. W/R Old computer - image backups are a good idea. Also necessary to consider that an image backup may not have all desired/harvest-able data and other important files(program installers, music, photos) -- ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 21:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <1004jf2$33pf4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #183858 |
On 22/04/2025 1:28 am, ...winston wrote: <Snip> > W/R Old computer > - image backups are a good idea. Also necessary to consider that an > image backup may not have all desired/harvest-able data and other > important files(program installers, music, photos) > Why NOT?? Surely an Image Back-up is an 'image' of the Drives File contents AT THAT TIME. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web