There are people who trust their data to spinning discs of metal in 2017

>there are people who trust their data to spinning discs of metal in 2017
Why?

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

RAID

SSDs are system storage and not archival storage

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.

>He doesn't know about data rot

I have bad news for you, user.

aren't they spinning disks of glass these days?

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

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

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

Agreed.
I never said OP is wrong.

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

>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

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.

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

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 they are system drives and not archival drives.

The power of hard drives. kek

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.

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

CDs made with cheap plastic delaminate.

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

yea, they are poor mentaly and financially

What SSD is it?

64GB corsair force shit

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

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

what kind of fidget spinner is that

...

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

>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.

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.

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

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

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

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

what happens when it rains?

data gets wet and heavy

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

Yeah , you need a bucket to catch it all.

>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.

nsa catches the leaked data for you.

>they must have a lot of buckets

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

Better than trusting pieces of crystallized sand.

SPOILER: The discs aren't made of metal.

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

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

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

unpacking 140gb hentai and doujinshis, thanks spindisk

tape. dvd isn't cost effective or stable.

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

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

Where did you torrent Lawrence of Arabia in 4K?

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

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

>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

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

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

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.

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

>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

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

Are these supposed to be song lyrics?

>accessing files too much ruins it
user, 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.

how do i prevent bitrot?

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

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

Use ZFS with ECC RAM.

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

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

This disk is dead as fuck

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.

>S B I A S

Hdds are an order of magnitude more reliable than ssds

Ssd for os, hdd for data

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%

>user, 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 Sup Forums has gone full retard

>believe ssds are somehow effected by rotational velocidensity.