>there are people who trust their data to spinning discs of

File: 1482015334942.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>there are people who lose their data if the drive isn't powered up for a couple months

>>61208780
RAID

SSDs are system storage and not archival storage

>>61208829
This is false. First time powering on a SSD a few moths ago that had been sitting in a box since early 2013 and it booted fine with everything still there.

>>61208845
>He doesn't know about data rot

I have bad news for you, anon.

>>61208780
aren't they spinning disks of glass these days?

>>61208780
Know how else I can get 18TB of storage for ~$220?

>>61208845
>This is false.
It is as true just as the thing OP mentioned is a problem

>>61208858
>I have bad news for you, anon.
Me too, if you seriously think modern flash memory degrades over months and not years or decades.

>>61208882
Agreed.
I never said OP is wrong.

>>61208858
That was largely debunked. 8 SSD ZFS RAIDZ3 master race anyways.

File: 1481277464419.jpg (1MB, 2094x2709px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2094x2709px

>>61208883
>SSDs keep your shit for decades

They said the exact same about CDs, even CDRs and now look at the mess.
Meanwhile there are mid 80's winchester HDDs that have all their data intact

>>61208900
wrong or right*

I used the same windows install for almost 4 years now and just recently occasionally get bsod's for no reason.

I attribute it to having installed OS on an SSD.
Which is fine by me because the OS is all I have on that SSD, and it'll be easy as shit to start over.

>>61208780
>He doesn't know mega corporations use 1920s tech to store peta-bytes of data meant to last years in storage
Tape master race

>>61208910
It's true for CDs, not so true for CDRs, but I never really heard that CDRs where supposed to last decades.
From having a SSD from 2011 sitting in a box for 4 years without any problems, I can't say I'd say it's a problem, considering >>61208831 they are system drives and not archival drives.

File: 2017.07.03_19-07-06.png (60KB, 1022x362px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1022x362px

The power of hard drives. kek

>>61208913
Hard drives are more vulnerable to bad sectors and irreversible data loss then SSDs though for regular use, so no corrupt system files over time.

>>61208913
>4 years now
How is that possible? LTSB 2015 came out two years ago.

File: Serial Experiments Lain - 1x06 - Kids Layer 06.mkv_snapshot_19.35_[2017.05.20_20.11.34].jpg (35KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x480px

>>61208921
CDs made with cheap plastic delaminate.

A quality CD will last decades your average CD is now dead or dieing.

>>61208780
yea, they are poor mentaly and financially

>>61208921
What SSD is it?

>>61208981
64GB corsair force shit

>>61208964
Pretty much any CDR that I burned myself in the late 90's is half dead already while any actual CD, even ones from the 80's still work fine

>>61208780
Because they're so much cheaper per gigabyte that I can afford lots of redundancy.

>>61208780
what kind of fidget spinner is that

File: Untitled.png (8KB, 449x287px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 449x287px

>>61208922

>>61208910
Yeah fuck you faggot.
My computer from 80s, its hard drive is not working

>>61208780
Probably because it is safe and cheap enough to make petabyte storage for a tenth of the cost of ssds.

>>61209036
I know Kodak used to sell CDR for backup digital pictures that would last "forever"

>>61209062
Sad a 1Tb drive which took decades to achieve costs less than some fidget spinners which could have been created in the bronze age.

>>61209036
>>61209102
I ripped a game off a cheap generic CD-R burned in 1999 just a few weeks ago, it was fine. Also had expensive name-brand discs last under three years before being unreadable. Something's fishy.

>>61208921
>>61208964
>>61209036
>>61209102
This raises a question I've been wondering about for a while: Is m-disc just a meme?

>>61209036
Real CDs are made differently. The data is literally stamped onto the disk using a glass "master" disc. CD-Rs have to be made with heat sensitive plastic that deforms when it's struck by a laser.
I suppose this means that the plastic in CD-rs just isn't as good as the plastic used for regular CDs.

File: unrecoverable3.jpg (23KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x267px

>>61208875
they experimented with glass for a while, but didn't they go back to ceramic?

>>61208875
glass would never resist the vibration. but they could use silica.

>>61208780
>There are people who trust their data to multiple sets of transistors forming "logic" gates

I can hear mine rattling and making other odd noises. To lazy to order a new one though.

>>61209170
CD-ROMs are aluminum encased in plastic. they are physically stamped and you have physical pits and grooves.

CD-R and CD-RW are instead UV-laser sensitive organic dyes (they change their reflectivity after being exposed to laser and heat). the fact they're light-sensitive, and the fact they're organic makes them inherently less stable than metal.

>>61208918
I want to get a LTO tape drive but I'm poor
If I had the money I'm afraid I would have just got memed

>>61208950
I don't see how ltsb 2015 plays into it at all. Its a windows 7 64bit insall that is giving me bsod's and has run nearly 4 years on an ssd.

I actually upgraded the whole pc, and am now booting a kinguin keyed win10 pro from an m.2 pcie nvme ssd lol bbq.

I've heard booting from an nvme drive is dumb but I literally did no research when i pulled the trigger and couldn't be happier

>>61209183
Don't know. Were glass or possibly ceramics. Knock it hard on the floor and the platters shatter. Moved to SSDs in laptops number of years ago so haven't destroyed a disk for a long time.

yeah cloud storage runs on clouds right

>>61208922
>fagbook pro with an 160GB 8MB Cache HDD
fuck you

>>61209320
what happens when it rains?

>>61209360
data gets wet and heavy

>>61209371
the data doesn't fall to the ground and get lost or anything, does it?

>>61209387
Yeah , you need a bucket to catch it all.

File: just fat.jpg (30KB, 399x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 399x600px

>>61208780
>he wastes his money on expensive solid state drives for long term data storage where speed is meaningless
>he uses solid state drives in his retro computers that can't even take advantage of the speed difference
>he doesn't use sold state drives to hold the operating system, most used programs, and important files and mechanical drives for everything else
Ok. Be retarded if you want to, it's not my money.

>>61209387
nsa catches the leaked data for you.

File: CwbQsVDW8AELIQV.jpg (166KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x801px

>>61209395
>>61209402
>they must have a lot of buckets

>>61209444
Yeah , data centers are massive for catching all the rain(data).

Just backup your shit if its important to you.

Btw what HDD brands do you guys trust the most?

>>61209477
I use Western Digital. I buy them on Amazon. All of the 2.5 inch WD hard drives I've bought are still kicking after almost a decade. I got two of the 3.5 inch ones and one of them died and the other is pretty weak.

>>61208780
>Not using redundant arrays of inexpensive spinning disks of metal
>1987+30

>>61209477
>>61209495
One of the best drives I've ever owned is a WD Blue from 2009 that's still in use today. I've been trying to find out if their reliability still holds true in modern models, but everything I've read so far is rather mixed so now I'm not so sure. Would love some insight from someone who really knows what's up these days, regarding either those or if there's a more trustworthy alternative now. Said 8-year-old drive is the last one I've ever purchased so it's all I've really had to go by in recent years, other than a couple second-hand drives.

>>61209495
My Western Digital's all shit the bed within days of eachother and I had no indication it was coming.
I wanted to try getting a HGST Ultrastar off Ebay, is that a safe option?

>>61209477
Depends on what pricing is like at the time and what I want it to do. I currently have a 3TB WD Green in an external enclosure and four 2TB Seagate enterprise drives in a RAID 5 set for mass storage.

>>61209190
There's different kinds of glass. It's used in laptop drives anyway. Something to do with being able to make the surface flatter.

>>61208910
Data rot takes like what, 30, 40 years before it can potentially surface?

You aren't going to lose any data because your SSD or HDD spent a few years powered off.

>>61209735
Way back was 2-3 years, now with higher densities believe its around 12 years now.
Tape for archival is 20-30 years.

>>61208780
Better than trusting pieces of crystallized sand.

SPOILER: The discs aren't made of metal.

What's a good backup solution these days /g/? NASbox with a couple WD Reds?
Cloud storage wants too many shekels, and I wouldn't even trust Mega with my loli shit.

File: BMW-M2-lead.jpg (279KB, 740x452px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 740x452px

>>61208780
Not as funny as trusting their LIVES to spinning disks of metal.

>>61208780
Because if one set of spinning disks fails, any important data it contained is still on at least one other set of spinning disks.

what is best backup storage medium then? i put my money on dvd and or tape

File: kys.png (11KB, 305x264px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 305x264px

unpacking 140gb hentai and doujinshis, thanks spindisk

>>61211668
tape. dvd isn't cost effective or stable.

>>61209400
SSDs are literally useless.
>not for long term storage because it loses data
>accessing files too much ruins it
>way more expensive for even less storage

theres literally no reason to use them
>b-but theyre light and shock-proof
kys

>>61208780
>Mechanical drives in anything less than a RAID 5 or 6

>>61208922
Where did you torrent Lawrence of Arabia in 4K?

File: hmm.jpg (109KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 540x960px

>>61208780
>there are people who use tiny electrified pieces of metal to shitpost on anonymous anime image boards

File: stock-photo-two-beautiful-girls-laughing-and-pointing-at-camera-53857132.jpg (587KB, 1500x1143px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1500x1143px

>>61213394
>being this mad that he can't afford an ssd

>>61208780
>there are people who trust their data to DA KLAUD eg. a disk of metal owned by (((someone else)))

Why?

>there is people who trust their data with electrons on unstable flash memory

>those same people think they can put their ssd in cold storage for a decade and expect those same electrons to be there

>those peoples neighbors with HDDs will still retain their data in a extended unpowered state

>Not using a SSD when you need speed
>Not using a HDD when you need capacity

ISHYGDDT

File: iafs.png (16KB, 425x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 425x400px

this smug chucklefuck still works perfectly fine after 3 1/2 years

>>61208780
i cant buy 2tb ssds for $40

>not using venti+fossil/cwfs to backup your data to a WORM memory (usually DVD) daily while storing usual data in ram in 3 places constantly synchronised

>>61208910
Are you retarded? CDs and DVDs do keep your shit for decades. I still have 10+ year old ones which aren't even archival grade and no data was lost.

>>61213719
agreed.

not to mention we have blurays that have so many layers they can store a 4k 2hour film

they are also scratch resistant and chemical/uv

im pushing for minidisk blurays for snapshotting

File: 3.png (82KB, 810x353px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 810x353px

>>61208883
>being this wrong
Pic related, straight from the manufacture, and for enterprise SSDs, too. Worst case is low operating temps + high power-off temps combined with cell wear, with an active temp of 25 C and a power off temp of 55 C lasting just one single week.

S U R V I V O R S H I P
B
I
A
S

>>61209735
bitrot is a real thing and it can happen on data less that a month old

its dependent on the filesystem and also writing locations

since flash cant write without clearing sectors and vise versa and how data is spread in block sectors on phsyical memory chips instead of spanned on a platter

every time a program is executed it has to pull together all that data or when its move to another sector because its deleting old date and re writing

this is what results in bitrot

SSDs are also prone to physical loss of electrons in a unpowered state

where as bitrot is a seperate digital issue

booth of them are important issues though

>>61213825
Are these supposed to be song lyrics?

>>61213394
>accessing files too much ruins it
Anon, do you write several petabytes of data to your SSD every day?
>way more expensive
Currently it is true. But you have to realize that magnetic drives are only used nowadays because there is no other medium capable of providing the same data density with same or better capacity/price ratio. SSDs will get cheaper the same way pendrives became cheaper over time due to better manufacturing processes etc.

Also, c't (Kraut website) did a year-long test with 240-256 GB SSDs, and even the shittier ones managed to do 60-70 times the guaranteed TBW. The best one was a Samsung 850 Pro which did 623 times the guaranteed TBW with 9.2 PB.
I'd love to link it, but I don't speak kraut so I can't find the article.

So, unless you write several terabytes of data to your 256 GB SSD every day, it is unlikely it will fail soon. And when it does fail, it will be obsolete for a long time anyway.

>>61213825
how do i prevent bitrot?

>>61208875
Something like that.
Whatever it is, it's nice to shatter to dust with a hammer.

>>61208922

This small dialogue box is more aesthetic than any non-macOS operating system's UI.

>>61214645
Use ZFS with ECC RAM.

Or if you like living on the edge, BTRFS or ReFS.

>>61208780
>cheap
>reliable
>almost 100% chance of data recovery if fails

File: 1496325372286.png (660KB, 698x840px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 698x840px

>>61208780
This disk is dead as fuck

>>61209152
I don't think so. Its material (the dye) is a lot more stable and is impervious to fungi and it doesn't oxidize. Unlike conventional media, its Achilles heel isn't the dye but the plastic itself. Of course this means it's more finicky to burn, but eh, probably worth it.

So far there's only accelerated aging tests, and in those M-Disc performs good, lasting more than 1000 years. (The results likely vary wildly, they probably chose to go with 1000 because they needed a mark that sounded impressive and was correct in all tests, at that point it doesn't matter if its 1000 or 3000, that's not the point, it's the fact that it last very fucking long).

There were some independent tests, I think NIST (the American standardization body) and the DoD made some tests that confirm it.

>>61213815
>S B I A S

Hdds are an order of magnitude more reliable than ssds

Ssd for os, hdd for data

>>61217814
According to RMA statistics it's the other way around.
Annual RMA rates of HDDs are somewhere like 2%, while for SSDs it's 0.2%

>>61214071
>Anon, do you write several petabytes of data to your SSD every day?
Writing that much might ruin it completely, but I was talking about losing sectors on and off until it completely fails one day and the SSD hiding that from you because "it just werks™ dont worry it lasts a lifetime xd".
Those tests you speak of run until the drive fails completely not until a sector is ruined. I wouldn't want to buy a drive that bleeds to death.

>this much of rotational velocidensity ITT
never seen in a long while that /g/ has gone full retard

>>61208829
>believe ssds are somehow effected by rotational velocidensity.

>>61218239
They have a stock of backup sectors that they'll attempt to move data to when one fails

discs as in plural, i would never trust to my data to one single HDD

>>61217814
Definitely hasn't been my experience. Granted, I've only been using SSDs for the past 3-4 years maybe, but I've had several HDs fail in different and weird ways… even if they still function, files become inaccessible, random bits of corruption, etc.

I've not had any such trouble with SSDs. Not once have I run into a corrupt file, and I've never had an SSD die. I don't think I've even pushed any of them lower than 85% remaining life.

The only place where I trust spinning rust today is in my NAS, where I have redundancy via RAID and a decent FS to keep corruption in check (ZFS).

>>61208879
>18TB of storage for ~$220
sauce?

>>61209477
I just did extended SMART tests on 7x 2.5" drives
1 each 250GB Hitachi, Seagate, and Western digital
3x Hitachi 160GB
1x Western Digital 160GB

the only one that was bad was the Western Digital 250 GB, it would constantly lose connection resulting in read errors, though it still is holding data, and able to copy off of it

>>61213434
>using anything other than RAID-1 or RAID-10

File: tumblr_o78q79U3Cx1udh5n8o1_400.gif (2MB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x220px

>>61219490
the only thing less than 1 or 10 would be RAID 0

>>61219902
> less than

wtf do you even mean though?

>>61212214
>winrar

>>61208780
>there are people that trust computers and don't chisel their data into stone tablets

idiots

>>61208845
>old ssd

try that with a modern TLC 14nm shit.

>>61208780
>there are people who trust multiple transistors with charges between the gate and the channel
How can anyone be that gullible.

Anyone know a good place to get drive deals I'm trying to fill up my home server with as much stupid amounts of space as possible

>Tape memory
>entirely serial memory but stupid amounts of fucking space
>Raid Tape memory?
>Stupid amounts of space and somewhat "well" speed by raiding 2 or 4 tapes at once

fund it

>>61220849
LTO drives are fuckexpensive though, good luck finding one that's from this decade under $1000.

>>61220835
If you want to store WORM data, then go for the Seagate Archive drives.

>>61220916
>seagate
I had a very bad experience with seagate in the past involving being locked out my hard drive and having to send it back in only for it to break again 2 months later(barricuda or something back in 2009-2010)
are they better now

>>61209695
Why would you want a flatter surface? These aren't telescope mirrors.

More wrinkles mean more surface area.

>>61213797
>55 C
Don't store your SSDs in the oven.

File: make it spin.png (400KB, 630x464px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 630x464px

>>61208780
Because spinning is so much cooler than not spinning.

File: fghfgjh.png (15KB, 337x363px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 337x363px

>>61213590
come at me bro

>>61208780
Because a 4tb ssd cost $1500 and a 10tb hdd cost $350

>>61208829
because any of us turns their PC of for longer than 24h
Yeah sure..

File: 424242.png (4KB, 383x74px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 383x74px

>>61208780
Because is cheaper?

>>61221047
telescope mirrors are the opposite of flat

File: wd.png (17KB, 342x370px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 342x370px

>>61213590
>>61221343
Hai guise, can I join in?