JHZR2
Staff member
I use time machine on my Mac, I can back up to various different HDDs. Id imagine 7 is set up similarly.
Best 3.5" hdd
- Thread starter JHZR2
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: 2Fast4U
If you want the best start looking into solid state.
Best in what regard? See my other thread, I just bought a top of the line 256GB samsung 830 SSD. That's great for a boot drive to operate off of, but for archiving, there is far lower cost, far greater capacity and speed isnt as much of an issue.
512GB SSD vs a 2-3TB HDD for 10% of the cost? No brainer how to go.
If you want the best start looking into solid state.
Best in what regard? See my other thread, I just bought a top of the line 256GB samsung 830 SSD. That's great for a boot drive to operate off of, but for archiving, there is far lower cost, far greater capacity and speed isnt as much of an issue.
512GB SSD vs a 2-3TB HDD for 10% of the cost? No brainer how to go.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: 2Fast4U
OP said money is not a concern.
I am the OP. money isn't a concern for longevity, but solid state longevity is not proven for archiving.
OP said money is not a concern.
I am the OP. money isn't a concern for longevity, but solid state longevity is not proven for archiving.
Originally Posted By: 2Fast4U
If you want the best start looking into solid state.
SSD for archiving isnt the best for anything.
It might help if you read the posts or looked at who was saying what.
SSD makes 0 sense for archiving.
I would also have to say their MTBF isnt exactly proven either.. for all these 1 million HOUR MTBF I've had 9 die in under a year so far. Obviously no moving parts to wear out but other stuff breaks too.
I've always wondered how they determine MTBF on a new model with they obviously dont have a million hours to test anything.. is that just their guess?
If you want the best start looking into solid state.
SSD for archiving isnt the best for anything.
It might help if you read the posts or looked at who was saying what.
SSD makes 0 sense for archiving.
I would also have to say their MTBF isnt exactly proven either.. for all these 1 million HOUR MTBF I've had 9 die in under a year so far. Obviously no moving parts to wear out but other stuff breaks too.
I've always wondered how they determine MTBF on a new model with they obviously dont have a million hours to test anything.. is that just their guess?
Last edited:
Best when money is not a concern, get SAS / SCSI designed for data center and buy yourself a SCSI / SAS card to use it. They are designed to be a lot more durable and cost a lot more too.
Quote:
I've always wondered how they determine MTBF on a new model with they obviously dont have a million hours to test anything.. is that just their guess?
They don't have a million hours, but they've produced millions of drives.... Most likely a extrapolation of data. (or just totally made up like battery life lol) MTBF is in 10s of years, but some of us have piles of failed drives... hmmm.
If loss of data is not an option, then dependence on 1 piece of equipment is not the way to go, whether it be SAS/SCSI, or RAID;
Use the KISS principle. Multiple copies on multiple unrelated devices.
The disk based backup systems we have where I work stripe data across disks (RAID) then stripes the RAID data across multiple machines (RAIN; n=nodes) and then replicates the data to a separate off site array. We can lose a disk, backup server or entire geographical site and nothing is lost.
I've always wondered how they determine MTBF on a new model with they obviously dont have a million hours to test anything.. is that just their guess?
They don't have a million hours, but they've produced millions of drives.... Most likely a extrapolation of data. (or just totally made up like battery life lol) MTBF is in 10s of years, but some of us have piles of failed drives... hmmm.
If loss of data is not an option, then dependence on 1 piece of equipment is not the way to go, whether it be SAS/SCSI, or RAID;
Use the KISS principle. Multiple copies on multiple unrelated devices.
The disk based backup systems we have where I work stripe data across disks (RAID) then stripes the RAID data across multiple machines (RAIN; n=nodes) and then replicates the data to a separate off site array. We can lose a disk, backup server or entire geographical site and nothing is lost.
What exactly are your archive requirements that need terabyte of live storage? I am curious because I am under impression that we are talking about strictly personal data. Few years ago, all of my important data used to fit on a floppy!
Seriously, do you need all of your photos stored on a spinning media for 24x7 access instantly? Do you save your entire movie collection in uncompressed format?
Educate me on needing terabytes of fail-safe storage at my home.
- Vikas
Seriously, do you need all of your photos stored on a spinning media for 24x7 access instantly? Do you save your entire movie collection in uncompressed format?
Educate me on needing terabytes of fail-safe storage at my home.
- Vikas
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Vikas
What exactly are your archive requirements that need terabyte of live storage? I am curious because I am under impression that we are talking about strictly personal data. Few years ago, all of my important data used to fit on a floppy!
Seriously, do you need all of your photos stored on a spinning media for 24x7 access instantly? Do you save your entire movie collection in uncompressed format?
Educate me on needing terabytes of fail-safe storage at my home.
- Vikas
Reread my OP. Maybe I wasnt clear, but thought I was. I want to archive my data. I have a RAID 1 archive, because what good is an archive if the archive disc fails?
I seldomly use the system, just to back up, maybe a month a year. I dont have a lot of music (though recently Ive been ripping at full AIFF quality), or videos, but a lot of high MP pictures, and it will only get worse.
I'd say I only really need maybe 200-300GB. But if I can buy 2TB and have a functional device for archiving for the foreseeable future, to me it is the best bet. So long as a USB 2.0 port is available, which Id imagine it is for the foreseeable future,I should be OK.
What exactly are your archive requirements that need terabyte of live storage? I am curious because I am under impression that we are talking about strictly personal data. Few years ago, all of my important data used to fit on a floppy!
Seriously, do you need all of your photos stored on a spinning media for 24x7 access instantly? Do you save your entire movie collection in uncompressed format?
Educate me on needing terabytes of fail-safe storage at my home.
- Vikas
Reread my OP. Maybe I wasnt clear, but thought I was. I want to archive my data. I have a RAID 1 archive, because what good is an archive if the archive disc fails?
I seldomly use the system, just to back up, maybe a month a year. I dont have a lot of music (though recently Ive been ripping at full AIFF quality), or videos, but a lot of high MP pictures, and it will only get worse.
I'd say I only really need maybe 200-300GB. But if I can buy 2TB and have a functional device for archiving for the foreseeable future, to me it is the best bet. So long as a USB 2.0 port is available, which Id imagine it is for the foreseeable future,I should be OK.
I'd hold off for abit right now.. hdd at very high prices due to the flooding of all the factories.
Cant really beat 2 seperate usb/esata drives for price/performance.
Esata is nice it gives you the full drive speed off 120-60MB/sec
vs ~~35MB/sec for usb2.0
That being said for a fire and forget overnight copy.. you dont really need much speed. so usb2 is fine.
Cant really beat 2 seperate usb/esata drives for price/performance.
Esata is nice it gives you the full drive speed off 120-60MB/sec
vs ~~35MB/sec for usb2.0
That being said for a fire and forget overnight copy.. you dont really need much speed. so usb2 is fine.
- Status
