digitalFAQ.com Forum - Are solid-state drive (SSD) better for backup than normal hard drives?

digitalFAQ.com Forum (https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/)

- Computers (https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/computers/)

- - Are solid-state drive (SSD) better for backup than normal hard drives? (https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/computers/5308-solid-state-drive.html)

Are solid-state drive (SSD) better for backup than normal hard drives?

I was planning to buy an external disc drive as a backup when I read this (from http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=611769):

Quote:

Depends on the exact model, but I calculated recently that with an "MLC" drive (higher capacity, slower write speeds, shorter lifespan,) you would need to write to it at maximum speed for about five years continuously to hit the predicted write cycles of the chips. For an SLC drive (lower capacity, faster write speeds, MUCH longer lifespan,) it would be measured in decades. For a conventional computer, you aren't going to be writing 70 MB/s nonstop 24/7 for years on end, so the predicted lifespan of the chips is much longer.* Explanation of SSD write-cycle lifespan below.

There's a reason Intel's new SLC SSDs are marketed toward datacenter users. Extremely long lifespan, very good reliability.

As for reliability, the lack of moving parts should help; all you have to worry about are power issues, and chip death. For a laptop, power issues should be erased, due to the "built-in power isolating UPS" nature of a notebook running off battery. And as for chip death, well, see above. * And below

* Flash memory chips have a property where they 'wear out' as you write to them. Only writing wears them out, not reading. And each individual memory cell has a certain predicted number of writes it can take before dying. By estimates I have read, MLC should last about 100,000 write cycles; SLC about 1,000,000. Because it would be possible that you could try to use a drive such that it writes 1 MB, erases it, then writes that 1 MB again; SSDs have "wear leveling" algorithms where they won't actually write the second request to the same physical cells. They will effectively use up the entire drive's worth of cells before they re-write a single one. So you would have to re-write that 1 MB say, 64 thousand times before you even get to the SECOND write pass on a 64 GB drive. (128 thousand times on a 128 GB drive, etc.) Most SSDs also have more capacity of chips than they claim (For Intel's SSDs, it's about 25% more, I don't know about other manufacturers,) so even when the cells start to wear out; there are 'spares' to take their place for a while. (spinning magnetic hard drives also do this.) What this amounts to is that it takes a *LOT* of writes to wear out an SSD. For that 128 GB SSD, if you were to be able to write to it at 50 MB/s (a good estimate for most 128 GB SSDs out there,) continuously, it would take 42.6 minutes to completely fill. If it's the worse MLC drive, that comes to about 8 years of continuous write/erase/write to hit the 100,000 writes mark. For a faster SLC, you can write 3x faster, but you have 10x as many cycles, so it comes out to about 30 years. Of nonstop writing. Any reading is "free". If you write to it once, then read continuously, it should work "forever" (within the confines of reality, obviously.)

If this is the case, wouldn't it be best to purchase a SSD for a backup, if price is not the first concern? If so, are there any companies/products in particular that manufacture quality SDD? From above, I would be looking for a SLC. Or do you think it is better to buy a large disc drive and wait a few years for prices to decrease?

I've read this 2-3 times, and I still don't have an answer for you. In theory, yes, it sounds like a great improvement over mechanical spinning drives. But I'm not yet convinced that SSD drives are all that reliable -- and many are not! Like anything else new and unproven, it's a bit of a gamble.

Personally, for now, I'm still in the 'use HDD and DVD' camp. I know those work, and that's what backup is all about.

Thanks, I guess I'll stick with the HDD. But here's a link that describes the main benefits of MLC and SLC:
http://www.oempcworld.com/support/SLC_vs_MLC.htm

I've enjoyed the small boot-drive SSDs (90-120Gb) and then buying a second, identical unit for occasional clonings (monthly? whenever). I do this as a protection against SSD Death. Maybe in a year or two, I'll be more comfortable believing the marketing claims of Greatness. Until then, they can prove it.

in my main PC i use a 120gb OCZ SSD as a boot drive - windows 7 installed on it
then i have a 1tb Seagate that i put all my important stuff on.
so i get the speed of a SSD and the storage of a HDD

A few thoughts:

Hard drives are dramatically more affordable, but SSDs have also dropped 'dramatically' in price. If you watch sales you can often get them for $0.50 a GB and they are up to 1TB in storage capacity.

Based my own research and experience, good SSDs are at least as reliable as a good hard drive and likely much more reliable. The lack of mechanical components, lower vulnerability to magnetic fields and high impact resistance are great strengths of SSDs for long term storage. The price is still far, far higher per GB than a hard drive. Note that I say "good" SSDs. I would recommend Samsung, Crucial and Intel. In that order. Toshiba is also a solid brand, though they are generally slower performing drives. Read reviews carefully. I particularly recommend reading the thorough reviews of SSDs on Anandtech.com. They have excellent coverage and also have an anthology of articles explaining what SSDs are and the strengths and weaknesses of the technology (including reliability and endurance studies).

I have two SSDs as my system drives and I use hard drives as my data drives. One drive is an Intel 320 180GB and the other is a Samsung 840 250GB. I run one under Mac OS X (10.6.8-10.9.2) and the other under Windows (7 64bit and 8.1 64bit). I have promptly applied all firmware updates to the drives and have never had an issue with either one.

(Data tape backup is another method you may wish to consider, depending on the volume of data, but that wasn't your question)

Thank you, but if the flash drive fails, then what? Maybe I should just use the "cloud"...

Any data that you want to have truly protected should be duplicated at least three times and at least one of those three copies should be stored off site. A cloud based storage solution like CrashPlan or Carbonite is one option for off site storage. You could also keep a spare hard drive at a friend or relatives home that you frequently exchange with a local hard drive. The more automated the backup strategy is, the better (generally speaking).
However, whether it is a hard drive or a flash drive or a CD or a floppy disk does not change that you need multiple copies in multiple places to truly safeguard against data loss. This is not a reality unique to SSDs.

The "cloud" is a nonsense term. It means nothing more than "online".

- Email is on a "cloud".
- Dropbox is a "cloud".
- This site (and every site) is hosted on "the cloud".

Stupid, yes?

Even when real (expensive!) "cloud" infrastructure is in use -- high availability with failover, as it is with our host, EuroVPS -- it's still online. With my connection to the internet, it'd take a few years to upload everything. Yes, years. It's easier to backup to hard drives, or even just burn some BD-R or DVD-R backups for content that matters.

Even if I only backed up my most important documents -- which take "only" ~150gb of space -- uploading 150gb would take about a month of nonstop uploading. (The USA is a third-world country, when it comes to online connections! Sad, isn't it? Even living in the alps of Switzerland, I'd get a 10x faster connection!)

Plus I'd never trust the "cloud" for personal files.

Use drives -- lots of them, different brands (all good, of course!), stored all over (home, work, family, etc).

When it comes to backups, I like to be covered. :)

Agreed.

I have 700 GB backed up online. And yes, it took me about 45 days. That's 24/7 uploading for 45 days! There are significant draw backs to using an online backup service and US internet speeds are certainly a contributing factor to those draw backs.

As long as you have multiple copies in multiple places spread over a wide enough section of the planet that a single disaster (house fire, flood, tornado, etc.) will not destroy all the copies. And as long as this is employed frequently enough to stay current with changes in your data - the exact medium, service or location doesn't really matter.

Most importantly, whatever else you do - MAKE BACKUPS! :)

Thank you, and does anyone know the risk of data loss from Yahoo and Google? I keep copies of documents on email accounts as a backup, and plan to given that they offer 1tb and 15gb, respectively.

Freemails are hacked too often. I'd NEVER trust them in this way. Data loss is the last risk I'd worry about here!
I have a Yahoo ls@ email, but rarely use it. It's not safe.
I feel the same about Outlook and Gmail.

It's much safer to use a system you can control.

Flash memory needs to be plugged in habitually for the disk to retain data, when the drive is off it actually keeps a small charge that keeps the data intact. solid state is more or less a derivitive of hacked ram.

my two year experience - i have owned an OCZ and a Samsung. The OCZ gave me two amazing years and started giving me SMART errors. It hasnt yet failed and my data is secure.

Most of the questions focus on SSD memory quality, but the most important part is the firmware, which i suspect causes most of the SSD failures that have happend since the drives havent been out long enough for memory to be worn out.

I think an SSD is a good option if you plug it in once in a while to refresh, but you should always have three backups at least over a minimum of two different types of media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winsordawson (Post 30985)

Hype?

http://www.sandisk.com/products/usb/memory-vault/

I think so. It's probably better than average, and I considered them at one point, but the technology IMO is pretty new and true longevity takes real time.

Lets just say I wouldn't want to put something critical on there and come back years later to find a blank slate :)

By 2025, crystal-based memory should be mainstream, Intel should be demoing in maybe 2018 if plans go as scheduled. The good stuff is coming, we just have to wait...

Thanks, from what I read readers should be available in a few years, but it'll be awhile before the average Joe or Jane has burning capabilities.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 PM