Should I replace all of my HDDs with SSDs?

>>58055142

Your question is kind of vague. How much storage are you talking about here? I don't see any reason to put terabytes of porn on SSD's when HDD is cheaper.

>>58055142
As an addendum: should I keep a HDD for my Bitcoin?

>>58055142
Apple

>>58055170
I collect data, I need a lot of storage, storage that wont crap out on me either.

No, just get a bunch of fuckhuge Hitachi HDDs, and a single Samsung SSD for booting and shit

>>58055188
>storage that wont crap out on me
then you definitely want HDDs
unless you like wasting money and making backups, in which case SSDs for their speed.

>>58055200
And shove my Bitcoin onto an encrypted HDD, separate from the collected data, of course?

>>58055214
I'll just get out the old magnetic tape for backups, anon.

>>58055188
>I collect data, I need a lot of storage, storage that wont crap out on me either.

Then you want spinning rust and a backup system, probably also of spinning rust in caddies, because tape solutions are more expensive than a pile of drives on a shelf.

The break-even point in cost between disk drives and tape is ridiculous.

>>58055267
Fuck it, so a shit load of platters? Nice, nice.

>>58055188
No data format is immune to damage or anything. Drives wear out, discs scratch

>>58055321
I'm aware, anon, which is why backup is needed.

>>58055188

>I collect data, I need a lot of storage, storage that wont crap out on me either.

RAID10 NAS

>>58055460
TPBP, thank you.

It's such a cozy feeling knowing you won't run out of space.
Do larger size hard drives have higher failure rates? I wouldn't mind having three 1tb rather than one 3tb.

>>58055188
>>58055460
This.
A good file system with RAID10 is your best bet.
Big disks < Large numbers of smaller disks
For speed and redundancy.
Your trusted brand of disk < Whatever is cheap and easy to replace/ expand

Give it an SSD cache for read and synchronous write.

>>58055460
>>58055529
These are the best posts all thread, with an SSD for boot too.

>>58055526
yes they do actually tend to fail more often due to more platters ive heard.

>>58055142
No, HDDs are still the best option for virtually unlimited read/writes in their lifetime. Get HGST or Toshiba to be safe, but Western Digital and Seagate aren't all bad, just some bad batches.

>>58056289
Thank you for the heads-up.

>>58055526
not only do they have higher failure rates but you will always lose more data in the event they fail
that being said, failure rates in general (not seagate lel) are quite low and as long as you have sufficient backups it really is a non-issue

>>58055170
>he doesnt participate in ultimate fapping

>>58055172
hdds are best for mining bitcoin.

So in regards to HDDs, what brand is best in terms of reliability? My 1TB OEM Seagate drive is likely on the verge of crapping out at any given moment, so needless to say I'll be upgrading to a 2TB (or greater) drive soon.

From what I've been able to learn, Seagate drives are generally dog shit and I've been told WD Black drives aren't much better. While I've heard a few good things about Toshiba drives, I'm hesitant since I've never used them in a non OEM system before. So I'd like to hear experiences with Toshiba or other manufacturer drives.

If you were making a shtf survival bunker. Would you put all ssd's or hard drives?

>>58057681
Likely HDDs, greater reliability over time in comparison to SSDs with limited read/write operations.

>>58057387
There are a few bad specific models of drive. But heres the thing: You can't predict them in advance, and each manufacturer has been hit by them. Outside of those, all the drive brands have failure rates that aren't different enough to draw any definite conclusions.

Worrying about which brand of drive you should buy to protect your data is misplaced. It's like going to /biz/ and asking which one stock you should put all your savings in. You shouldn't do that. You should assume your drives might fail, regardless of what brand they are, with a low but nonzero probability, and make sure that any data that you want to keep can withstand that happening.

>>58055526
>>58056182
Bullshit, we don't know if thats true or not. Theres no proper evidence for this, we don't even know which hard drives are the most reliable. Backblaze testing doesn't count because its not a fair test and therefore not reliable. An example is a western digital drive lasting 3 years and a hitachi dying in the first 3 months.

>>58059037
it's not so much that it's not a fair test, it's a perfectly fair test for a datacenter operator who stuffs cheap consumer drives into very dense racks and uses them for a write-mostly archival kind of workload.

the problem is that that environment isn't at all representative of the way anyone ITT uses hard drives.