Large SSD hard drive on computer? (Page 7): :sm24: A few years ago I had to replace a failing 1Tb drive in my desktop. I replaced it with a 2Tb. (20% space currently used). I would...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

pithydoug wrote:

For your use you may think a 1 Tb SSD drive is a ton of space but it really isn't. As we all note each new camera produces larger and larger files. Somewhere down the line this will come to byte, pun intended, you. I would go for a large resident drive and park your photos/videos on external drives. With a large fast resident drive software tools can use some of fast drive for scratch space.

The difference between a 256 and 1TB is not a lot of money and you prepare for tomorrow.

A few years ago I had to replace a failing 1Tb drive in my desktop. I replaced it with a 2Tb. (20% space currently used). I would also recommend going larger than currently needed providing room for expansion. I have an open bay or two so I can add another drive later when needed, which at that point would probably be a 5Tb+.

tcthome Loc: NJ

ejpeters wrote:

I originally had a 256GB SSD drive on my old computer. I had to make sure that nothing was stored on that drive other than the operating system. I replaced it with a 1TB SSD drive.
My new computer has a 2TB SSD drive and a 2TB Storage drive. I also have an external 4TB HD with all of my pictures stored on it.
I think the larger SSD drive is better and than having the smaller one. I don't have to worry about what I install and what drive it is on.

I agree here & get at least a 500gb C drive. The person or persons that say this is to save you money on your original purchase most likely.

Bob Smith Loc: Banjarmasin

I back up my stuff on two external hard drives both copies of each other so if one goes up the Swanee I have the other to fall back on.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Bob Smith wrote:

I back up my stuff on two external hard drives both copies of each other so if one goes up the Swanee I have the other to fall back on.

Just don’t leave them connected to the computer or powered up. Store them in different locations. Further apart is better but not so far that it becomes too difficult to synchronize them.

chikid68 Loc: Tennesse USA

I'm a strong advocate for at least one off premises backup due to the fact that if every data backup is on premises and you have a bad fire or other disaster you still lose everything.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

chikid68 wrote:

I'm a strong advocate for at least one off premises backup due to the fact that if every data backup is on premises and you have a bad fire or other disaster you still lose everything.

Amen.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

chikid68 wrote:

I'm a strong advocate for at least one off premises backup due to the fact that if every data backup is on premises and you have a bad fire or other disaster you still lose everything.

Off premises storage is a mixed bag. Certainly it's safer than leaving it in your home, but that means it is less accessible to synchronization, leaving your data backup incomplete.

This is the situation where Cloud storage is important. It provides off premises storage. It also provides distribution (several copies in the Cloud provider's system) and professional maintenance of storage media. The upside to Cloud storage is safety. The downsides are (1) cost; (2) bandwidth for restoration.

Local storage should be your primary backup. Off premises storage should be your secondary backup. Cloud storage should be your tertiary backup. If a disaster wipes out your local backup, the off premises and Cloud storage will be there for you. If a regional disaster wipes out both your local and off premises storage (the disk you stored at aunt Minnie's house 5 miles away), the Cloud storage will remain. And in recent years, regional disasters have become more common, with wildfires burning out entire towns.

Don't forget to power down your backup drives. Protect them from line surges.

JeffR Loc: Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

In my experience, the reason for an SSD is speed, not reliability. I've had a higher failure rate on SSDs than on traditional HDDs. Of the 4 SSDs I've had, 2 have failed and been replaced. One the other hand, I've had only 2 HDDs fail out of the dozens I've owned. I would recommend an SSD for your boot drive and put only programs on it. I'd put all document and picture files on a traditional HDD, either internal or external.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

JeffR wrote:

In my experience, the reason for an SSD is speed, not reliability. I've had a higher failure rate on SSDs than on traditional HDDs. Of the 4 SSDs I've had, 2 have failed and been replaced. One the other hand, I've had only 2 HDDs fail out of the dozens I've owned. I would recommend an SSD for your boot drive and put only programs on it. I'd put all document and picture files on a traditional HDD, either internal or external.

The latest data from BackBlaze for HDs and SSDs used in servers shows a 6x higher failure rate for conventional HDs vs SSDs. Even when normalized for hours in use, it’s 2x. If you’re having that number of failures, it could be the manufacturer, power supply or ESD issues. I’m running 6 Intel’s and 2 Samsungs and have had zero failures after 8 years of operation with the Intels and 3 so far with the Samsungs.

JeffR Loc: Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

TriX wrote:

The latest data from BackBlaze for HDs and SSDs used in servers shows a 6x higher failure rate for conventional HDs vs SSDs. Even when normalized for hours in use, it’s 2x. If you’re having that number of failures, it could be the manufacturer, power supply or ESD issues. I’m running 6 Intel’s and 2 Samsungs and have had zero failures after 8 years of operation with the Intels and 3 so far with the Samsungs.

These were both Samsung SSDs, in two different laptops.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

JeffR wrote:

These were both Samsung SSDs, in two different laptops.

Then you should consider changing to Intel, who has for years had the lowest SSD failure rate (when was the last time you saw an Intel CPU fail?). I’m just trying Samsungs. I have two (760/860) which have been in service for a few years, and have given two T5s as presents several years ago, and have had zero failures so far.

bebop22 Loc: New York City

Folks you don't have to plug any of your storage drives in, no matter what type. Just plug in when needed. I found that out recently.

OleMe Loc: Montgomery Co., MD

If you are after speed, get a PC with two slots on the motherboard for NVMe SSDs. One 256 Gb for the OS and applications. A larger one for data used during processing. It will run faster. Match RAM specs to other components. I prefer internal backup drives for speed vs. USB connections.. A 2.5 inch hard drive made for laptops is good, less expensive, and they are sufficiently fast for backup. For extra safety use an external drive and it can be a regular hard drive as speed is less important. If you have a Microcenter nearby, they will build out a system for a reasonable price of you don't want to do it yourself.