Skip to main content
news

Re: Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

nospam
Google Google
SubjectRe: Adobe's Low hanging .... ?
Fromnospam
Date08/01/2014 08:00 (08/01/2014 02:00)
Message-ID<010820140200540472%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsWhisky-dave
In article <c5e90a00-be29-4626-9898-0e286ee4790e@googlegroups.com>, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>wrote:

Whisky-dave
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/corsair-force3-recall-120gb-ssd,12893. html

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-bug-ssd-320-series,13076.html

nospam
those are defects. anything can have a defect.

Whisky-dave
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.

nospam
i didn't say it won't ever fail.

i said ssd is more reliable, and it is.

do you not understand the difference?

Whisky-dave
yes and do you understand why it seems a little odd that you are backing up from a reliable SSD to a relitively unreliable HDD.

nothing odd about it. backups do not need to be on ssd.

Do you inderstand the cost of keeping say a 100GB folder on SSD as opposed to HDD ?

it's negligible and the speed benefits are *huge*.

Do you understand that perhasp having that folder on a SSD might be less reliable than having it on 10 HDDs.

why in the world would you have 10 hard drives all with the same data, all online at the same time??

you have *no* idea what you're talking about.

I've just brought a couple of new drives, I know HDDs will fail and so will SSDs.

nospam
hard drives will fail sooner.

Whisky-dave
I just brought 10 TB of SSD for under 300 I can;t get even a 521GB SSD for that.

i think you mean 10tb of hd, but so what?

ssd costs more per gigabyte than hard drives. it's also way the fuck faster and more reliable.

which is important depends on the use case.

I'd rather have mupliple copies on HDD than a single copy on a SDD.

you still don't get it.

For me that makes using HDDs more reliable and that is the same reason they use HDD for cloud storage yet.

no, that's not why

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.

it's both. they don't need the speed and therefore don't need to spend money on it.

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.

reliability is very important to cloud providers, because if they're not, then customers will go elsewhere.

which is when recovery is the only option. Which means that lost data can be recovered it is then not classed as lost.

nospam
recovery is a last ditch effort and generally will not work,

Whisky-dave
Depends on how generally your talking and who does the recovery.

nope. once the data is overwritten, *nobody* is going to get it back.

nospam
especially on a modern operating system. in many cases, the data will be overwritten long before you even realize it's even gone.

Whisky-dave
But you've claimed that OSs don;t overwrite files

i said no such thing.

i said that the operating system will overwrite the data eventually and in many cases, fairly quickly.

and files only get deleted by the users thenselves,

files do not delete themselves.

so with this statement and the reliablilty of SSD why back up to HDDs or anyhting?

you don't understand any of this.