this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
13 points (93.3% liked)

datahoarder

6645 readers
2 users here now

Who are we?

We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.

We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.

-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
13
Mechanical or SSD for offsite storage that’s updated at least yearly? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I have about 100gb and growing that is critical for my business. File size growth is slow, so it will be years and years before it even gets to 200gb.

I have multiple local copies and a copy in google drive, but I want to leave a hard drive at my mother-in-law’s house.

I only want 2.5 form factor or smaller as my mother-in-law will be carrying it here when she comes to visit us on the city.

I’m not sure what the recommendation is. I’m not a millionaire, I’m just freelance. So, I’d like to minimize cost.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NateNate60 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

100 GB is a pretty small amount of data.

Want to minimise cost? 128 GB USB drives can be had for around ten dollars. Fifteen dollars will get you 256 GB. Stick with a cheap but reliable brand like SanDisk or PNY. It will last you years with proper care, even with regular use.

I do not really see a reason to invest in a "real" hard drive or external SSD for your use case. There isn't enough data to justify it and USB drives can take a lot of abuse and still work.

Edit: There are a lot of fake USB drives sold online where the controller has been hacked to report a higher capacity to your operating system than actually exists, for example, reporting 512 GB when there's actually only 64 GB of storage. If you try to store more than the actual capacity, your old files will be overwritten with the new ones. That's why you should be suspicious of very high capacity drives (1 TB+) sold online for low prices. I would not buy any USB drive online that claims to have a capacity greater than 512 GB.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Regarding fakes, there are tools you can (and should) run on any new drive. I personally like h2testw, but there are others as well.

You should also avoid sketchy resellers. This includes Amazon, due to their policy of commingling and their response to counterfeits. Don't buy from Amazon! Stick to trustworthy and first-party sellers. If buying online, make sure they don't have a third party seller. In fact, probably best to skip any that even have a 3rd party "marketplace" system.

[–] NateNate60 1 points 10 months ago

I don't think there are really any fake 256 GB drives on the market. The real drives are priced low enough that there's really not much profit to be made from selling fakes. It's just not that much cheaper to make a 32 GB drive and flash fake firmware than to actually make a legitimate 256 GB drive. Or buy the AmazonBasics brand since only Amazon makes and sells them.

[–] papalonian 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'd like to second the large flash drive idea. You can get a couple of them and a case to keep them in for less than $50 total and have multiple layers of redundancy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

It looks like a 256gb ssd costs about the same as a flash drive. So I’ll probably go that route.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You say that data is critical for your business, have you considered a cloud backup as well? AWS has very cheap storage options depending on the speed the file needs to be available at. Also I’d definitely not go with flash memory, bit flips can be a real danger. I’d go with a 1 TB HDD in an enclosure, additionally to a cloud backup

[–] NateNate60 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

OP already says that multiple backups and cloud copies exist. I do not recommend mechanical hard drives because they're inherently fragile. If OP really needs high-quality long-term archival storage that is robust and lasts forever, I will recommend a tape drive and do so with a straight face.

Bit-flipping is, frankly, a non-issue to such an extent that even considering it seriously is moving into tinfoil hat territory.

[–] wmassingham 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Google Drive does not count as cloud backup, especially for something business-critical.

[–] NateNate60 1 points 10 months ago

On its own, no, but it can be used, like any cloud storage solution, as part of a robust backup strategy. Particularly, if the desktop sync feature is enabled, every client machine that has the sync application installed will download and synchronise the contents of the Google Drive locally. If the Google Drive servers go kaput this still means you've essentially got several off-site backup copies of the data on Google Drive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/?p=pm&c=s3&z=4

This was what I was thinking about. I would definitely not use gdrive a a critical backup and the glacier tier at aws should be sufficient and cheaper than a hdd for years

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Backblaze B2 is another option. Not sure if its as cheap as Glacier as its hard to compare usage based billing.

I pay about $1-2 USD/mo for 100GB. Storage is about $0.02/day, The rest of the cost is access costs.

I use rclone to do my own encryption. Most of the cost is probably backing up my phone nightly (Round Sync which is rclone on Android). Specifically signal results in a new 400Mb backup every night with 99% of the same data as the last backup.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I agree with tapes if the data is large and not accessed frequently. Magnetic tapes are still one of the most information-dense mediums, surprisingly. WORM tapes are Write Once Read Many and are used by serious large enterprises for long-term archival storage.

[–] comador 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As NateNate60 mentioned: USB Flash. I second this as a cost effective alternative to anything else. Corsair Survivor, Sandisk Exteme Pro and Kingston DataTraveler Flash drives to 256GB are cheaper than anything else and just as reliable.

Should you want to go the SSD route, the Corsair MX500 drives purchased with any external esata or usb chassis is the most reliable option for the price.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Thanks! I have a spare enclosure and an ssd is about the same cost as a usb drive is similar cost.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It depends how critical the data is.

SSDs and flash are great for speed, but as other comments have mentioned, they can eventually lose data more than other mediums. However this reportedly isn't likely to happen over the normal rated timespan of the devices, unless there is a critical defect.

Magnetic storage will likely last longer, and as it is a much older tech, is less likely to have firmware bugs and other problematic surprises. Plus, as you can see on https://diskprices.com/, the cheapest medium per TB remains magnetic storage.

Then there are tapes. The drives sure cost a hefty sum, but if you have loads of data to backup, this is likely the cheapest option.

Finally, optical. Optical is great in the sense that is is physically a ROM, so data cannot get compromised by mishandling or other staff mistakes; but it still can have issues with the reflective layers peeling away from disks.

So, in the end, I would personally not recommend using SSDs for data backups, out of precaution. Sure, SSDs will likely retain all data just fine for years to come, but I want to be able to store data for as long as possible, with the peace of mind that only magnetic storage will afford me. Plus, if your data is worth backing up, it is worth whatever extra price or effort you will have to do with.

As for the other options, well, they all have their use case, but I don't see much advantage for them in the general use cases. Just make backup copies of your data on magnetic drives, in a few physically different locations, with proper access control.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thanks! I don’t mind spending some money, what I was trying to communicate is that I don’t want to spend $1000 on some solution.

I think I’ll get a mechanical drive and a few 256gb usb drive or maybe an ssd and have a few off site copies in case one medium fails.

I’ve never had an ssd go bad, but I’ve had external mechanical drives fail over time, so I’ve been hesitant to trust them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I had SSDs go bad, and mechanical hard drives too. The major plus for me is that with HDDs, it is somewhat predictable, while with SSDs it has always been sudden (in my experience, at least).

However, there are more parameters to consider. The storage temperature, the relative humidity, to backup frequency, etc. In the end, if you want a 100% time proof solution without caring for the costs, engraving a crystal, storing it underground in a lead-lined container, is probably the surest way to go. Everything else is a compromise.