Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18521
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.comp.os.windows-10 |
| Subject | Re: Mechanical or SSD for backup drive |
| Date | 2025-04-20 03:48 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vu28sn$3c56t$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <5cm80k1qavurb3keb805p5msgsbaimh7qt@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Sat, 4/19/2025 10:34 PM, micky wrote:
> The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4
> years ago is now $80. 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.)
>
> 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?
>
It did get cheaper. Your money is just worth less now, than before.
There is a Chinese flash memory company. Of course there will be
SSD drives with low low pricing (stuff like QLC). Since they won't
have a warranty, you can open them up with a screwdriver and check
the NAND brand. If the chips have no labels, the product "exudes quality"
in such a case. Reputable brands usually have a screw set up to
"detect tampering". Keeping people out, is only necessary if there
is thermal tape on the controller, forming a conductive path to the
casing. If that happens, you should have some thermal tape ready
for the reassembly process. There are as many scams in the purchase
of thermal tape, as in the purchase of weird-brand SSD drives :-)
I've been using Lexar NS100 drives, as cheap (small) scratch drives.
These have plastic cases. The spare computer, for example, just has
a Lexar laying in the case, as the boot drive. So far, none of the
sample units have failed. Not particularly cheap, but convenient for
my usage pattern. I'm not complaining.
*******
The backup ecosystem is a complicated surface.
1) SSD is expensive for backup, but is shock-resistant to a large extent.
To ruin an SSD, you could break the connector off it. Other modes
of failure are pretty hard to trigger. Dropping from any height
you want, onto carpet, is unlikely to shear a chip off the PCB inside.
Fiberglass PCBs are pretty rugged. You should ideally look for MLC SSD
drives, but they really don't make those any more. Those would be
close to archival. TLC gets mushy, and the error corrector fixes that.
It's unclear how many years it is safe to leave a TLC drive on the
shelf. QLC is also going to get mushy, and should probably be saved
for usage as the daily-driver storage device. You would use the QLC as
a "pseudo-unreliable" product, and do backups just in case :-) If
you get my drift. I would not really be all that interested in holding
my backups on 8TB QLC drives. Bad karma.
2) Hard drives have good data retention, past the 10 years expected of
an SSD sitting on the shelf. I routinely plug in old drives, like
my 25 year old drive, and find them in "good spirits". The 80GB drive
I was testing yesterday, may have developed some errors because of
me turning the power on the drive on and off so many times.
Drives are split, into air breathers and helium (sealed) drives.
Just recently, a spate of air breathers has shown up. I used to be
able to tell people, that drives 6TB or smaller, were air breathers.
Now, there are drives at 12TB available as an air breather (3 watts
more power dissipation due to friction), as well as 12TB Helium drives.
I can no longer dismissively wave my hand and sniff at this stuff.
Now, we have to read the model numbers, and check. If the price was
right, the 12TB air breather might be attractive as a backup drive.
2a) Air breather drives last a long time. The motors are FDB (fluid dynamic bearing),
which is frictionless once the motor is up to speed. However, the surface
of the platter, can respond to contaminants in the air, and while there
is a hepafilter on the breather hole, we don't really know how good of
a job that is doing. My experience here is, I see more drive failures
after a month of humid conditions in the room, than when the room is
a bit drier. Still, considering how long an archive has to last, I'm
never too concerned that an OS backup will croak after only two years.
Note that, the hepafilter design has changed, and the serpentine path
is now longer. The idea is, the path inside is shaped, so the air has
to travel a slightly longer distance.
2b) Helium drives are sealed. Helium is getting expensive. This is part of
the reason that air breathers are going up the capacity chart, the drive
may be cheaper due to the shortage of Helium. Helium drives are warranted
for five years, for the ability to hold the helium gas inside. We don't
really know, how many years a helium drive would last (as an archival device).
There is no gas port, to pump them up again. They are above atmospheric
pressure a tiny bit, and this allows the drive to have a sensor inside
to detect a gas failure. The drive has two covers -- the "adhesive cover"
holds the gas. The "mechanical cover" is welded over top of the adhesive
cover. The mechanical cover is not gas-tight. But it serves to keep the
adhesive cover from moving. As a joke, data recovery companies have been
using NC machines, to mill the weld edge in order to get the outside
cover off. (Air breathers come apart with a screwdriver, during repair.)
Because it's sealed, the drive inside is very clean and there is no possibility
of a redox reaction on the plating surface. The drive uses less electrical
power, due to reduced friction while rotating. The heads still "fly" in
helium, and there is a high pressure zone right underneath the sled. To
maintain a high pressure zone like that, implies friction and energy loss.
That pressure, helps cushion the head and give the 70 gees of shock resistance.
We get super high quality storage, are likely to be able to do a restore,
two years after doing a backup. But the actual period of time the helium
stays in the can, is an unknown. I own just one Helium drive, to see how
long it lasts :-) It's an 18TB drive. My backup fleet is six 6TB air breather
drives.
Summary: We have three applications. SSD drive while traveling, due to shock
resistance. The people at the border can copy your drive faster, at
530MB/sec, which is handy.
Short term quality storage, would be a Helium drive (until we have field
statistics on gas failures for these things). I don't know if the
Helium drive will still have gas in 20 years time.
Long term quality storage, would be an air breather HDD. They have demonstrated
they can live past the 10 year estimated flash life of an SSD. You compare
the prices, to see where the "sweet spot is". the curve used to be V-shaped,
and the center of the V was the sweet spot. More recent pricing has been
a straight line with capacity.
If any of the high capacity drives use glass platters, we don't know
how the properties of glass affect service life. When you put ten
platters inside a drive, the platters have to be thinner. A 6TB drive
could use three platters or four platters, and full fat platters could
be used for those. They try not to have too many platter types, in inventory.
But I suppose that is unavoidable these days. The platters for a HAMR or
MAMR drive, aren't going to be the same as the PMR ones.
Paul
Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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 Valerio Vanni <valerio.vanni@inwind.it> - 2025-04-20 11:50 +0200
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 "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 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 21:18 +0200
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
csiph-web