Subject | Re: Adobe's Low hanging .... ? |
From | Whisky-dave |
Date | 07/31/2014 12:30 (07/31/2014 03:30) |
Message-ID | <c5e90a00-be29-4626-9898-0e286ee4790e@googlegroups.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | nospam |
Followups | nospam (19h & 30m) |
nospamyes and do you understand why it seems a little odd that you are backing up from a reliable SSD to a relitively unreliable HDD.
In article <8715e8a4-2945-47a7-8932-32137afc3c5f@googlegroups.com>, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>wrote:nospamWhisky-daveWhisky-davenospam
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/corsair-force3-recall-120gb-ssd,12893.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-bug-ssd-320-series,13076.html
those are defects. anything can have a defect.
Well done. Just because it has no moving parts doesn/.t mean it won;t go wrong or you don't need to back up.
i didn't say it won't ever fail. i said ssd is more reliable, and it is. do you not understand the difference?
So you don't need to back up SSD is that what you're saying ?nospamtry dropping a hard drive and ssd and see which ones still have data.Whisky-dave
They will both have data the data doesn;t change as a device falls. Well unless it''s an acceleormeter
the hard drive will have failed due to impact. the ssd won't care.
I don;t know of any computer that is made to work under water to test that theory. But as both SSDs ahd HDDS require voltage and current to work putting them under water will cause simialar problems.nospamput both under water and see which ones will still have data.Whisky-dave
They'll both have data.
not that's in any usable form.
it's like dropping a glass vase and a rubber ball on to concrete. one of them will not be usable afterwards.It's nothing like that.
however, hard drives are going to fail quite a bit sooner than ssd. it's basic physics.
So why back up to HDDs ?Whisky-davenospam
yes they will but that doesn;t make them unrealible.
hard drives are more unreliable than ssd. simple as that.
I just brought 10 TB of SSD for under 300 I can;t get even a 521GB SSD for that. I'd rather have mupliple copies on HDD than a single copy on a SDD. For me that makes using HDDs more reliable and that is the same reason they use HDD for cloud storage yet. Your claim was thatb the cloud doesn;lt use SSD becausde they don't need the speed, which is worng, they don't currently use SSDs is down to cost. Reliability isn;t an issue because they can make the cloud nore relible than any SSD because of redundancy something that isn't so affordable with SSD.Whisky-davenospam
I've just brought a couple of new drives, I know HDDs will fail and so will SSDs.
hard drives will fail sooner.
I know what I mean in that it's the chance of keeping data intact that you be read back as inteneded should it get lost, destroyed or just AWOL.nospamhowever, they are far more reliable. period.Whisky-dave
What do you mean by reliable. ?
if you don't know the meaning of reliable, how is it you're arguing about it?
they have yet to build a SSD or HDD that has a predicted life of 100s of years.Whisky-davenospam
It's more relible to print oput your data, it will last much longer on paper than it will on ANY SSD currently made, of HDD for that matter.
nonsense.
one match and it's history.one spark and so is an SSD, a few volts over the spec and it's toast.
Depends on how generally your talking and who does the recovery.Whisky-davenospam
which is when recovery is the only option. Which means that lost data can be recovered it is then not classed as lost.
recovery is a last ditch effort and generally will not work,
especially on a modern operating system. in many cases, the data will be overwritten long before you even realize it's even gone.But you've claimed that OSs don;t overwrite files and files only get deleted by the users thenselves, so with this statement and the reliablilty of SSD why back up to HDDs or anyhting?