Discussion External (portable / 2.5") hard drives and how to avoid SMR

[sdifox]

It's not binary, it's a balance of cost and other attributes. Turning this argument on it's head it's like saying I should only run striped raid arrays of nvme SSDs for backups because I've determined transfer rate is important. It's only important until it's good enough and then it doesn't matter.

My argument was not about smr, it was about the viability of 2.5" ext hdd use in this day and age.

 

[PingSpike]

My argument was not about smr, it was about the validity of 2.5" ext hdd use in this day and age.

Ah. My view is just that 2.5" ext hard drives have their utility, but SMR reduces that utility in some cases.

 

[Jimminy]

Shingle drives are fine for backup. 3.5" drives live much longer than 2.5".

I guess I learn something new every day. I used to think that 2.5" drives were likely more ruggedized since they are used in lots of laptops and portable devices.

Is it just that they wear out fast because they are smaller?

I've got some monstrous old giant sized scsi drives from 1980's. Not much capacity, very heavy, and the lights blink when they power on.

I guess they'll NEVER wear out. They're only in the hundreds of MB capacity range, or low GB range (as I recall, but It's been over 20 years since I played with these useless behemoths).

All the cables are at least 1/2" diameter (maybe more like 3/4"), so they'll probably last forever too. The connectors are almost as big as a woman's fist

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, they weren't very fast, even though they were definitely BIG.

 

[sdifox]

I guess I learn something new every day. I used to think that 2.5" drives were likely more ruggedized since they are used in lots of laptops and portable devices.

Is it just that they wear out fast because they are smaller?

I've got some monstrous old giant sized scsi drives from 1980's. Not much capacity, very heavy, and the lights blink when they power on.

I guess they'll NEVER wear out. They're only in the hundreds of MB capacity range, or low GB range (as I recall, but It's been over 20 years since I played with these useless behemoths).

All the cables are at least 1/2" diameter (maybe more like 3/4"), so they'll probably last forever too. The connectors are almost as big as a woman's fist

Yeah those drives probably are not trustworthy anymore, not to mention probably PATA. It is true 2.5" have anti shock mechanisms bit you don't usually move 3.5" drives while they are spinning.

I used to own a 24" platter from an IBM RAMAC but it got lost in the move.

 

[Jimminy]

Yeah those drives probably are not trustworthy anymore, not to mention probably PATA.

Nope, not PATA, these monsters are pure SCSI. I used an adaptek scsi card to connect them to my old machines. One machine was a 486 DX intel running win 95, and there were probably a few earlier antiques way back then. I know I had some 386 machines too, but my memory isn't sharp that long ago.

I think I still have the adapter card, as well as the scsi drives but not much use for them anymore. Next time I run across them, I'll load them up for the dump. I KNOW those huge cables are up in the barn. They need to go too.

The point is this: if ironmongery is the benchmark for disk drive longevity, I have the mother of all monstrous long lasting disk drives

These days, I use 2.5" drives in aftermarket USB3 enclosures. I don't want to go back to the giant size stuff.

 

[sdifox]

Nope, not PATA, these monsters are pure SCSI. I used an adaptek scsi card to connect them to my old machines. One machine was a 486 DX intel running win 95, and there were probably a few earlier antiques way back then. I know I had some 386 machines too, but my memory isn't sharp that long ago.

I think I still have the adapter card, as well as the scsi drives but not much use for them anymore. Next time I run across them, I'll load them up for the dump. I KNOW those huge cables are up in the barn. They need to go too.

The point is this: if ironmongery is the benchmark for disk drive longevity, I have the mother of all monstrous long lasting disk drives

These days, I use 2.5" drives in aftermarket USB3 enclosures. I don't want to go back to the giant size stuff.

I must be going blind. Missed the scsi completely. I had acsi drives as well. Raptors.

 

[Jimminy]

I must be going blind. Missed the scsi completely. I had acsi drives as well. Raptors.

My ancient drives came from Intergraph corp, a computer graphics company owned by a guy named Jim Meadlock back in the day. I think the company is now dead, unless the government section survived, after he liquidated the whole mess. I don't blame him.

Maybe I'll take some of these old monster drives out and shoot them with a 30-06 rifle and see if they survive. I know my wimpy 2.5" drives would NOT.

 

[mindless1]

I don't get, none of it.

I'm fine with lower RPM, SMR externals for backups. So what if it takes longer? Backups happen in the background, it's not a deterrent to me at all to make them based on amount of time, especially when it can be automated so it's not like I'm babysitting it to start and stop.

What is more important is lower cost per capacity so I can have redundancy. I consider the cost of (redundant) storage space for backups, more of a deterrent to most people. They say "back up your data" but less often then say "make REDUNDANT backups".

SSDs are fine for small amounts of data but are still around 5X the price:capacity once talking about a few TB.

USB flash drives aren't any less reliable if you don't have a dodgy USB setup or pick flimsy flash drives. I'm been making smaller backup sets with USB flash drives for well over a decade and have not lost a single bit, BUT... REDUNDANCY anyway!

Even with the cheaper lower end flash drives, if they are built rugged, yes they are slow but as mentioned above, it doesn't really matter if it doesn't impact the user experience. One of my two redundant USB flash drives that I make backups to weekly, is pretty slow, but it just does not matter. I plug it in, the backup happens, and later I unplug it. This requires no further attention or effort or detriment than if the backup was made to an SSD writing 50X faster.

On the other hand, cheaper (especially) USB flash drives need their data refreshed every several (less than a decade depending on # of write cycles) # of years, but there is no way that I would trust data sitting longer than that on an SSD or HDD either without refreshing it, so it comes back to price per capacity needed, including redundancy.

What is "good enough" performance? To me it means, the job is done before you'd otherwise power down the system or have to make a separate trip to the system to disconnect the backup device, if you happen to live in a mansion filled with evil spirits where trekking to this location is an arduous journey.

So many choices today make backups easier than ever, yet reinventing the wheel is a problem? I still don't get it.

I only consider performance an issue if it is running the OS, or is running games where game level load time is just bad if not on an SSD. Okay there is video editing and other apps where the user is left waiting on storage to provide the next input too, but backups just isn't one of them.

It was different a long time ago, I recall a period I was using Powerquest Driveimage, where I'd boot to DOS to make an OS partition backup to a slow HDD and the system would be unusable for near a half hour. Those days are long gone.