Storage and shit

So Holla Forums can you trust SDDs more than HDD? how the fuck you know if its about to die anyway? any real time diagnostics for SSDs?

And since we're at it, what are the safest ways to store data without some shitty crash destroying it? I been thinking of using BDRW but its still expensive and only 25GB per disc

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levels
alternativeto.net/software/crystaldiskinfo/
alternativeto.net/software/hard-disk-sentinel/
openmediavault.org/),
hdtune.com/
anandtech.com/show/8239/update-on-samsung-850-pro-endurance-vnand-die-size
linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/raid-5-with-even-number-of-drives-gives-bad-write-performance-why-840866/
pthree.org/2012/12/05/zfs-administration-part-ii-raidz/

Also


Haha no.....

tech illiterate Holla Forumsirgins, everyone

Nigger this is a data storage thread, the point is to store data safely not to set up a shitty cloud

God Bless America

sage

>using storage that's self-deprecating by design

Afaik SSDs don't even tell you when your cycles are about to be gone so you can backup your shit before it assplodes

You cannot trust them, that is why you need to backup your shit.

...

I got a lot of shit to backup user, are magnetic tape readers cheaper now?

They are if you buy drives that are a few generations old.

What like DDS4?

A mechanical drive will last longer than an SSD under ideal conditions, this isn't debatable, SSDs kill themselves slowly by design

A broken HDD is also more salvageable and more likely to have it's storage content restored while if an SSD gets damaged you're fucked

G-sensors dude, most modern HDDs have them

Speaking of that is just me or 2.5 are way more fragile than 3.5 HDDs?

2.5" drives have thinner face plating I believe but are made to take more vibrations because they're supposed to be portable

problem solved

can't afford both? get a big HDD.

It's like you want to kill it faster
Put OS and files on HDD and programs and games on SSD

Usermode programs will benefit more from the speed of an SSD than the OS, your OS will just have a slightly slower startup time but after that you won't notice a different

Not that user but what about using an SSD as a "supercache" for the HDD?

I assume supercache means using it as SWAP/Pagefile?

Speed improvement will be minimal, what you really need is more RAM

Alright, sure its pointless to use it for your OS? I was thinking of installing loonix and bangblogs to the same SSD with basic programs and using the HDD for heavy shit like vidya and files

The OS will do more writes to the SSD and kill it faster while programs and games do more reads and will thus benefit more from SSDs. Too me it just makes more sense to dedicate the SSD to programs and the HDD to the OS

Storing personal files on an SDD makes no sense at all since you don't need the extra speed to just store pictures and shit

You have the wrong approach to storage. You should be using backups as well as RAID.

This

My mobo only supports RAID 0, 1 and 10, which is better as in less prone to lose my stuff?

RAID 0 is for speed and has no back up
RAID 1 is for backups
Fuck if I know what RAID 10 is. Looking it up it seems to just be a more redundant RAID 5

Ive never had a single drive of any kind die on me over any amount of time. I'm god

Which is good........right?

Same. I've fucking abused many of my drives and they still didn't fail. God bless WD

Its good for the sake of backups but it requires a MINIMUM of 4 drives and IIRC how RAID works those 4 drives in RAID 10 will only get you the storage space of 1

man, I'm surprised to see my shitty edits from 2014 get posted on an entirely different site.

Nice. I love me some free/cheap drives!


That's not how backups work. You're supposed to already have a backup schedule going when your shit assplodes, not when it's on the verge of assploding.

Find a LTO4 drive. They can usually be had for about $100 now and LTO4 tapes are hilariously cheap.


SSDs are far faster than any single HDD though. Saying that SSDs are all bad because of how fast they can wear is just as dumb as saying they're completely better than HDDs in every way.


That's one way to do it


It's like you're retarded
What is /usr? Oh that's right, the userland!
If you're a winfag, what is %ProgramFiles% and %ProgramFiles(x86)%?
Userland!

Jesus you really are retarded.
Once you take out /var, /home, maybe /opt, maybe /srv and maybe /usr/local, a root drive is hardly going to have any writes going to it outside of upgrades, new package installs and fucking around with config files. Hell, Android takes it a step further and makes a lot of OS things read-only since they never need change outside of updates, which the bootloader/recovery takes care of.

The one sensical thing you've said all thread.


this


I wouldn't trust it out of practice. Use mdadm or LVM.


RAID 10 is a RAID 1 of two RAID 0s. Similarly, RAID 01 is a RAID 0 of RAID 1s.
They're nested RAID levels.

I had a WD fail on me at 14 years of power-on time. My only WD to date to die.
I wasn't even mad.


sage your off-topic shit next time ;)

Time to invest in some tape drives and a reader

see >>556896 image 2

I never trust seagate and never will. both HDD and SSD.
There are only 3 choices:
Seagate [shit tier]
Western Digital [meh]
Toshiba [god tier]

I trust toshiba a lot more because japs and Hitachi has a long good track record, in fact my OS is currently on a 2009 hitachi hard drive that came with this laptop and it's still in perfect SMART condition.

Some shit manufacturers just label themselves as some kind of HDD/SSD manufacturer despite the fact that there's only these big three. Samsung drives right now are a.k.a. Seagate. They use seagate inside.

I can't find the hard drive cheat sheet anywhere but HDDs labeled as
STxxxx: most likely seagate, transcend, and samsung.
WDxxxx: WD
HT/HDTx/HGST: hitachi or toshiba.

Just stay away from seagate. I've heard a lot of scary stories about it. I myself had been a victim of seagate's shit.

I thought RAID combines the storage space of all drives (except for the parity one)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levels

HGST Ultrastar drives are the most reliable drives that are really affordable to a real human. But everything can suddenly fail. There are no exceptions.

Crystal disk info is a free hard disk diagnostic tool. Beware the bundled software in the installer.
alternativeto.net/software/crystaldiskinfo/

There is a paid program that does real time monitoring of disk health in the background called "Hard Disk Sentinel". Can't really say anything about how accurate it is though.
alternativeto.net/software/hard-disk-sentinel/
Check out and compare the various alternatives as well.


The safest way for me to store data is having a NAS running openmediavault (openmediavault.org/), with two drives in raid 1, that are backed up with extra error checking via the snapraid plugin to a third drive. I also have an external drive that is cloned from the backup every few months, that I keep where fire or thieves can't get to it.

I refuse.

RAID 10 gives you half of the total capacity of your drives.

RETARD ALERT
MAXIMUM RETARD

raid5 requires a minimum of 3 disks
A raid10 array consisting of 4 disks gives you 2 disk usable.


HGST Ultrastars are indeed the best affordable disks on the market. WD Blacks are almost as good, but draw more power.

No. Use HDtune
hdtune.com/

It's just reading SMART data. You can do the same with smartmontools for free.
Seagate does not provide reputable SMART data. Hitachi and Western Digital are the only manufacturers that sell drives that provide good SMART data.
SSD's are the same thing, except Crucial, Samsung, and Intel have great reporting as well.

Wrong.
The safest way for you, or anyone else in this thread, to store data is using some sort of Solaris or BSD and ZFS on known good hardware.

A cheap way is to get:
AMD ASUS mobo that supports ECC
ECC RAM
Good hard drives
Good PSU

A cheaper way is to get a reliable system slap in some good hard drives, keep it off the ground (Radon), and keep it in a house.

Never buy disks in batches more than your maximum safe failure, and never use raid5 for more than 3 disks when you use 1+TB disks. Raid5 is best in odd numbers, raid6 is best in even numbers.
Once you get past 6-8 disks in an array, you need to think about nesting.
Never use Seagate in small or low redundancy arrays.
Never use cheap controllers.

at what point did I say any of what you quoted?

my bad, missed quote to OP

OP is a retard, you aren't

Buy a bluray burner and hundreds of disk or build a zfs redundant nas (or btrfs redundant nas).

Other then that riperoni our unprotected souls.

Raid is not a protector, raid is a duplicator. You need a reliable device verses mono northbridge. If you do 8 drives with btfs or zfs spen a hundred bucks on a hba card to handle the drives like a baby. The only failure will be the drives and bitrot.

Just upload your shit to Google Drive, Dropbox, and Microsoft OneDrive.

Not that guy but what about windows? what are some optimizations to reduce SSD wear and tear in that OS?


Same here

Samsung drives were okay until seagate bought them, now its all the same shit

Never had a toshiba HDD but I had a fuji and its 8 years old and still going

Had a WD and died after 9 years but was decent enough to give me a warning it was about to fuck itself so I could get all my shit (big drive) off it.

Seagate has always been shit, no exceptions


Which are the unaffordable ones?

And I heard good things about sentinel but haven't tested it yet

Well shit...


Does that mean it can say its fucked and its alright and viceversa?

Yeah problem is it was my backup drive

Do you live in a vacuum and writer 1TB a day you fucking retard?

I am fucking mad because you (OP) is fucking retarded. Not only the way you write is a sign of a complete 14yo retard from /g/, it's plain wrong and misleading.

SSD is superior to HDD, technology wise, in ==every== way but price if you know what you are buying.

Thats not the OP you faggot

RAID 10 is just combining RAID 1 & 0 together, which is why it requires at least four drives to do so (mirror the stripe). I don't know if it actually provides any meaningful speed boost.

...

I can get a 1tb hitachi hdd for less than half the price of a 500gb evo ssd

What are the write limits on the evo?

guaranteed way lower than the hdd, get the hdd, SSDs are a stupid meme

How exactly did it warn you?

Not him but before my WD HDD died windows started giving me popups about bad sectors. It literally said to replace the HDD.

just get a small cheap SSD, install your OS and programs on it, and get a big HDD for storage. if the SSD dies it's not a big deal since you shouldn't have had anything on it that wasn't backed up on the HDD. I've been using the same SSD for years and it hasn't died. meanwhile I used to have a seagate HDD that died after only 4.5 years, slightly longer than I've been using this SSD.

What do you guys think of the values here:
anandtech.com/show/8239/update-on-samsung-850-pro-endurance-vnand-die-size

Basically a evo850 should last for over a decade

Loonix gave me a popup warning that the drive was about to die

ssd for programs you use big hdd for everything else

obviously back things up

it's that simple, you don't need to make a thread about it

Even the OS?

Try harder, botnet shill.

wrong

What the fuck did I miss?

Thats old news

SSD for OS and games
HDD for everything else

Backup portable external drive.
NAS backup taking care of most of the home network.

Backup important document, photos, and programs to disk just to cover my ass if my other backup solutions shit themselves.

I haven't had any problems yet.

Yes.
I've seen Seagate disks that have surface damage, yet report all okay.
This is more common than the firmware reporting there's problems.
Seagate has had more firmware bugs than other manufacturers though.


WEW
Years of running various pools has given me first hand proof.
Links are all retards like you get.

linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/raid-5-with-even-number-of-drives-gives-bad-write-performance-why-840866/
pthree.org/2012/12/05/zfs-administration-part-ii-raidz/

How are Kingston SSDs? My friend just got one of those, how much is he going to regret it?

I've heard nothing good about them.

Should have just bought a micron or crucial ssd from last gen.

If its anything like their RAM then its shit, got a 8GB stick and its dead

Anyone here used sandisk SSDs? thoughts?

RAID is not a backup

It is more crash-proof tho

Just as bad as kingston.

WEW

I've been using a samsung ssd 840 in my desktop for over three years now. According to smartctl, so far I lost 4% from power_on_hours, 2% from power_cycle_count, and 4% from wear_leveling_count. The raw values are 17600, 1274 and 40 respectively. At this rate, the ssd will probably outlive me.

Probably. But then again
Expect the expected m8 :^) should've bought a server class toshiba SSD.

RAID its more crash proof tho, you have to be a really unlucky fuck to lose two HDD at once, but if you lose one you can rebuild your data

One is about to die? Just clone that bitch into a new one, done

Whats the problem with samsung nand? Honest question

see

Samsung sold their HDD division to seagate, NOT the SSD division

Dumbass...

SSDs are shit. Overpriced, planned obsolescence, garbage.