Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18520 > 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 81 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11
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
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vu99d8$1ln2u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18605 |
On 2025-04-23 00:00, Sam E wrote: > > IIRC longer days/years means Earth's orbit is becoming slower, which means > farther from the sun. See my other post for an explanation of that wrt the moon orbiting the earth, exactly the same principles apply to the earth orbiting the sun. > I do remember hearing of something called "global > dimming". Totally different, atmospheric pollution blocking sunlight from reaching the earth's surface. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 07:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu2kvb$3mfcu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18520 |
On 4/19/2025 10:34 PM, micky wrote: > The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 > 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? > Why not just do some housecleaning? Everything I have, and everything I've backed up, wouldn't fill 500 GB. Are you *really* ever, possibly, going to want to access most of those files? Do you really need 17 3-MB photos of the 2010 July 4th cookout?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 11:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu32rd$2ata$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18526 |
On Sun, 4/20/2025 7:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote: > On 4/19/2025 10:34 PM, micky wrote: >> The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 > >> 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? >> > > Why not just do some housecleaning? Everything I have, > and everything I've backed up, wouldn't fill 500 GB. Are > you *really* ever, possibly, going to want to access most > of those files? Do you really need 17 3-MB photos of the > 2010 July 4th cookout? > These ideas are partially for disaster recovery If a primary drive fails, it's a lot easier to just restore from backup, than to try to remember what used to be on there. It's a convenience thing. To give an example, a guy in another newsgroup got ransomware in the computer room. These are the things he told me. 0) Initial pickup of ransomware, was a Godaddy domain renewal form, which wasn't actually from Godaddy and was a phishing email. 1) All computers wiped out, it spread over the LAN. 2) He didn't know which license key belonged with which computer. 3) Took around three months, to get the computers relatively close to how they were before. 4) He had *no backups*. In other words, he was just as prepared as the average user. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 12:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu364f$4tn8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18527 |
On 4/20/2025 11:11 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> These ideas are partially for disaster recovery
>
> If a primary drive fails, it's a lot easier to just restore
> from backup, than to try to remember what used to be on there.
> It's a convenience thing.
>
I understand. I'm questioning why people keep buying
more backup without thinking to clean up. I also
have files backed up. And I maintain disk images. But
Micky is talking about buying a second 2TB drive just for
backup. I'm just saying, before you call the contractor to
build you a 6th garage, why not figure out whether you
really need all the stuff in the first five garages? If you
clean up then you might even be able to fit your car in
the garage. :)
People often say, "Ah, storage is so cheap these days."
But it's not cheap if you keep buying it and don't actually
need it. And it's not storage if there's so much junk that
you don't know what's there.
External storage devices are also a waste of money.
A $20 USB adapter can be used as a case for a laptop.
On a desktop one can just plug the disk in internally when
making a backup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 12:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu37up$6llp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18527 |
Paul wrote: > On Sun, 4/20/2025 7:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote: >> On 4/19/2025 10:34 PM, micky wrote: >>> The small 2 Terabyte WD Elements external backup drive I paid $60 for 4 >> >>> 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? >>> >> >> Why not just do some housecleaning? Everything I have, >> and everything I've backed up, wouldn't fill 500 GB. Are >> you *really* ever, possibly, going to want to access most >> of those files? Do you really need 17 3-MB photos of the >> 2010 July 4th cookout? >> > > These ideas are partially for disaster recovery > > If a primary drive fails, it's a lot easier to just restore > from backup, than to try to remember what used to be on there. > It's a convenience thing. > > To give an example, a guy in another newsgroup got ransomware > in the computer room. These are the things he told me. > > 0) Initial pickup of ransomware, was a Godaddy domain renewal form, > which wasn't actually from Godaddy and was a phishing email. > 1) All computers wiped out, it spread over the LAN. > 2) He didn't know which license key belonged with which computer. > 3) Took around three months, to get the computers relatively close > to how they were before. > 4) He had *no backups*. > > In other words, he was just as prepared as the average user. > > Paul > It's unclear, atm what 'backup' includes. - data files(data-document types, pics, music, o/s images, program installers, drivers) etc. -- ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 12:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu37hp$6amk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18520 |
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? > Sometime it may help adding more info. e.g. the 'old' computer's(not the backup 2TB WD Elements spinner) drive(s) that could also be considered as backup disk storage. i.e. if replacing a computer with a newer one, it may be possible to harvest the old computers drive(ss[spinner or SSD) for use in a disk caddy that supports SSD or HD or both. Whichever route is chosen...using the old Elements spinner, harvesting old drivers for use in a caddy(much cheaper than a new drive purchase - Spinner HD or SSD), or harvesting old... ... => the capacity of backup storage you need is another piece of missing information. -- ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vu4b2g$18hi8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18520 |
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.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> 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?
--
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" --1 Corinthians 15:55. Hi :) Easter! Jesus lives! Thanks God 4 going 2 church yesterday instead of 2day.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 03:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu4tg4$1oi63$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18545 |
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 To bump the chart along, will require someone to make another storage type. There was Optane, but the last devices shipped cost $3000 each, to give some idea why they no longer exist as a competitor. No denying it had nice characteristics (it could be written at individual locations, rather than large blocks). Because the Optane had a speed advantage at one point, it forced one of the NAND companies to reduce their latency by a factor of 2. Which would never have happened, unless there was a faster pony coming up from behind. I think everyone watching that, could enjoy the humor of it. the other party, having to get off their lazy butt and fix something. I don't think the lower latency part, still ships today. And that's because of the process of optimization, you squeeze every penny out of the thing, and there is only one way to make the cheapest part. So the lower latency just has to go. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 11:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o9qc0k9cobnq25m3jf5m0gl16jru3cv0n0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18548 |
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 21 Apr 2025 03:52:35 -0400, 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 I think I saw a similar graph that showed SSDs the same price as HDDs in 2030. >To bump the chart along, will require someone to make another >storage type. There was Optane, but the last devices shipped >cost $3000 each, to give some idea why they no longer exist >as a competitor. No denying it had nice characteristics >(it could be written at individual locations, rather than >large blocks). > >Because the Optane had a speed advantage at one point, it forced >one of the NAND companies to reduce their latency by a factor of 2. >Which would never have happened, unless there was a faster pony >coming up from behind. I think everyone watching that, could >enjoy the humor of it. the other party, having to get off their >lazy butt and fix something. I don't think the lower latency >part, still ships today. And that's because of the process of >optimization, you squeeze every penny out of the thing, and >there is only one way to make the cheapest part. So the lower >latency just has to go. > > Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 21:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu6qg6$3dhrt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18565 |
On Mon, 4/21/2025 11:51 AM, micky wrote: > In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 21 Apr 2025 03:52:35 -0400, Paul >> >> 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 > > I think I saw a similar graph that showed SSDs the same price as HDDs in 2030. I just did a search for "4TB drive" at my local computer store web site, and for some reason, the SSDs have shifted up a bit since the last time I looked, and they're more than the 4TB hard drives. The topper, was a PCIe Rev5 NVME 4TB for $800 CDN, which is about twice the price of a Rev4 one. That's why there can't be an 8TB one of those, because it would cost $1600, which is above any "magic number" storage people can think of. The stuff that was storage and cost $1200 in the past, no one was buying it. At this point, the product is totally smoke and mirrors. (This is the US pricing) https://www.newegg.com/SAMSUNG-4TB-9100-PRO-NVMe-2-0/p/N82E16820147904 (And this is the kind for a reference price for 4TB of storage, vacation trip friendly but still steal-able by the hotel cleaning lady) https://www.newegg.com/SAMSUNG-4TB-870-EVO-Series-SATA/p/N82E16820147795 This is one that's really ready to go on vacation. These aren't perfect, but unlike ordinary USB sticks, this one is more of an SSD inside and more likely (not proven) to have wear leveling. I expect that's going to get warm in usage (just the controller will get warm). https://www.newegg.com/patriot-model-pef1tbrpmw32u/p/N82E16820225289 Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vu7bm6$3vf75$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18548 |
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
> To bump the chart along, will require someone to make another
> storage type. There was Optane, but the last devices shipped
> cost $3000 each, to give some idea why they no longer exist
> as a competitor. No denying it had nice characteristics
> (it could be written at individual locations, rather than
> large blocks).
> Because the Optane had a speed advantage at one point, it forced
> one of the NAND companies to reduce their latency by a factor of 2.
> Which would never have happened, unless there was a faster pony
> coming up from behind. I think everyone watching that, could
> enjoy the humor of it. the other party, having to get off their
> lazy butt and fix something. I don't think the lower latency
> part, still ships today. And that's because of the process of
> optimization, you squeeze every penny out of the thing, and
> there is only one way to make the cheapest part. So the lower
> latency just has to go.
It says 2021 at the bottom. With stupid enforced traffics in USA, I doubt this will happen. :(
--
"But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." --1 Corinthians 15:57. Wow @ TLOU S2 E2. Bad Mon? RIP, Pope after Easter Sun.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 05:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu7nr1$ahuj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18587 |
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 | #18545 |
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 | #18552 |
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 | #18555 |
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 | #18556 |
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 | #18559 |
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 | #18561 |
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 | #18577 |
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 | #18577 |
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]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11
csiph-web