MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

1TB thumbdrive vs 1TB External SSD?
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Software  
Author 1TB thumbdrive vs 1TB External SSD?
Rex Coil 7
If only used for archiving or storing old DAW tracks or backing up a computer ... and not doing any streaming with it ... is there any reason to buy an external 1TB SSD instead of a 1TB thumb drive?

seriously, i just don't get it
ayruos
I've started archiving material on Micro SD cards ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If speed isn't a concern, it shouldn't really matter. But all kinds of storage are prone to failure, be it HDDs, SSDs, thumb drives, SD cards and what not. So the 3 way backup system, however impractical, is always the best bet. Not that I abide by it, but I do try to have two backups (one working copy and one end-of-day archive) of current projects at least.
Panason
Thumb drive will probably be slower than a good SSD, and easier to lose. Both of those are a problem for me.
Vortico
Flash storage has <20 year mean lifetimes. Use 8TB hard drives for the best cost/year/TB. Use RAID or manual mirroring if you need better reliability than an individual drive.
Rex Coil 7
Vortico wrote:
Flash storage has <20 year mean lifetimes. Use 8TB hard drives for the best cost/year/TB. Use RAID or manual mirroring if you need better reliability than an individual drive.
A super fast check on eBay shows internal 8TB hard drives to be $100.00 to $150.00. So ~yes~ .. very cost effective indeed. I'm assuming you meant internal spinning platter "hard drives" ... correct?

But aren't magnetic hard drives less durable? Moving parts, spinning platters, magnetic storage medium and all of that business?

hmmm.....

Hmmm ..... well? .... wouldn't using CD or DVD media for permanent storage be a better choice when we're talking about "20 year lifespan" things?

EXAMPLE GIVEN: The very first music CD I ever bought was The Sugarcubes "Life's Too Good" (June 1988). I still have that very same CD, it still works just fine with no signs of degradation or breaking down in a mechanical sense. All of the songs still play and sound just fine. So that's over thirty years of service, and keep in mind it was used (and perhaps a bit abused) and played many hundreds of times over the years. Loaded/Unloaded into drives, carried around in cars, exposed to hot car interiors over extended periods (I've lived in the Desert Southwest and the southwestern USA nearly my entire life) ... especially back when music CDs first became used regularly and I was much younger and didn't really know any better.

It goes without saying that I treat data storage CDs with far greater reverence and care, plus I'm much more well informed these days regarding care and storage of important data on CDs than I was in my late 20s. So if my old Sugarcubes CD survived "me" for thirty plus years, I like to think data CDs will last at least as long, especially since they are stored and treated much better than my oldest music CDs.

Due to the engineering design (an aluminum "platter" with a gazillion holes burned into it and laminated on both sides with sheets of protective plastic or Lexan) the common CD/DVD is very durable and rather permanent. We all know the precautions to take to preserve the CD's integrity (prevent scratching and so on). And since it uses no magnetic medium to record binary information the data is far safer than if stored on any type of magnetic storage medium. No internal battery either.

Right?


So if we're going to compare methods of permanent storage that is readily available to the general public, I wouldn't even consider any type of flash drive or other SSD tech as a candidate. However, I feel using Flash/SSD for semi-permanent storage where files may be rearranged or somewhat regularly updated, added too, or changed is fine. If something I'm archiving or storing fits the "lifetime" criteria I'd look to using CD/DVD tech before I'd consider Flash/SSD tech.

That said, the idea that an 8TB SSD has a "20 year integrity spec" is moot.

Especially when a 1TB thumb drive can be had for less than $20.00 (sometimes less than $10.00).

TEIRED STORAGE: I look at data storage in different "tiers" of protocols. There's RAM ... which is erased with power cycles. Then there is "immediate use" storage, which would be your computer's SDD/Hard Drive. Then there is flexible off-computer storage (or "re-writable semi permanent"). And lastly, permanent archiving. So four levels of storage criteria, at least the way I look at it.

I consider the thumb drive or external SSD as the (re-writable semi permanent") tier of storage. When data is ready for permanent archiving it goes on a CD/DVD, since I see that medium to be as permanent as permanent can be. If taken care of, and stored in light-tight/dry/mechanically protected containment it should be able to outlive me. I'm 58 y.o. by the way and I come from a family of "long livers" as well. So God willing I probably have a good 25 years or so left. CD/DVD storage should be able to get that far, yea?

Checkered Flag Checkered Flag Checkered Flag

So ... is there something corrupt in my thinking here? seriously, i just don't get it
Synthiq
Rex Coil 7 wrote:
When data is ready for permanent archiving it goes on a CD/DVD, since I see that medium to be as permanent as permanent can be.

The CDs/DVDs you burn yourself uses a different technology than the CDs/DVDs you buy with music or movies, so I wouldn't be so sure. Many (most?) writable media uses an organic layer to store information and is more prone to breakdown than the aluminum layer in your music CD and it seems the reliability varies a lot between different brands as well so do your research and avoid discs from brands you never heard of. My brother once told me his neighbor copied all his music to CDs and it only took a year before they started to fail. M-disc uses a non-organic layer and claims their discs were the only ones passing a DoD test but I have also seen claims that some modern BlueRay disks can be as reliable.

On a side note, you might consider having backups off-site in case of a fire or break-in where you can loose both your computer and backup at the same time. It's a hassle, but I now and then I make a copy to an external harddrive and store it in my safety deposit box at the bank. That way I at least will not loose everything if something bad happens.
commodorejohn
Rex Coil 7 wrote:
But aren't magnetic hard drives less durable? Moving parts, spinning platters, magnetic storage medium and all of that business?

hmmm.....

Hmmm ..... well? .... wouldn't using CD or DVD media for permanent storage be a better choice when we're talking about "20 year lifespan" things?

Ultimately there's no such thing as truly permanent storage. HDDs break, CD-Rs degrade, Flash storage loses its stable charge, datacenters go out of business. (And it always seems to happen at the most inopportune time, no matter what the manufacturer's listed specs say - I have hard disks that are still working after thirty-plus years and hard disks that pooped out after two or three, recordable CD/DVDs that are readable twenty years later and ones that didn't even make it a year, etc. etc.) There are strategies to minimize these issues, but in the end your best bet is always going to be multiple redundancy as a hedge against failure of any one backup source and regular testing and refresh with new media. The problem is, that's a lot of work.
lilakmonoke
store all the important stuff on google drive and forget about it, do not fear the snow crash! data is nothing nowadays, its just a noise signal ...

if you lose stuff that is dear to you reproduce it, it usually turns out better. i should know, im working on a release and just lost one partition of my 1 terabyte harddrive. i have no backups of course :-)
mt3
Redundancy.
Rex Coil 7
Synthiq wrote:
Rex Coil 7 wrote:
When data is ready for permanent archiving it goes on a CD/DVD, since I see that medium to be as permanent as permanent can be.

The CDs/DVDs you burn yourself uses a different technology than the CDs/DVDs you buy with music or movies, so I wouldn't be so sure.
I've been copying my music CDs to blank CDs for twenty years. I keep the originals safe and the copies are what I use to listen to. Never had a single issue. Knock on wood.

seriously, i just don't get it

commodorejohn wrote:
Rex Coil 7 wrote:
But aren't magnetic hard drives less durable? Moving parts, spinning platters, magnetic storage medium and all of that business?

hmmm.....

Hmmm ..... well? .... wouldn't using CD or DVD media for permanent storage be a better choice when we're talking about "20 year lifespan" things?

Ultimately there's no such thing as truly permanent storage ... HDDs break, CD-Rs degrade, Flash storage loses its stable charge, datacenters go out of business.
Yes yes yes .... and we're all going to die one day, life is meaningless, bla bla bla. Well we can get into the philosophy of perfection or the meaning of life another time. I'm aware ... very very aware ... that there is no such thing as permanent ~anything~ and perfection is unattainable. No "thing" ... no person ... no idea .. is truly permanent nor can anything or anyone be truly relied upon 100% of the time. For that matter "100%" doesn't actually exist either when it comes to anything involving humans. If a human being is involved, there is roughly a 5% to 10% chance it will fail. That goes for material items, faith, promises, honestly, integrity, intentions ... shall I continue? (I thought not). I get it.

Ok folks ... Let's bring this whole thing back into context. My question is why would I want to spend $100 bucks on a 1TB external SSD for data that I'll not be streaming when I can buy a 1TB thumb drive for $10.00 bucks?

It's beginning to seem as though there is no one answer ... which tells me there's more than one right answer. Which tells me that I should just go with whatever I feel I want to use. There seems to be a shit load of opinions involved in all of this ~computer~ shit. In most ways this subject reminds me of many (many!) issues within the topic of guns and ballistics. Tons of opinions, many "right" answers .. which comes down to meaning one should just use whatever feels right and to pick your own combination of hardware basing the choice around personal use. There are no absolutes, other than death.

I'm going to buy the quad core, 250gb SSD, 16GB ram, loaded with Win10 Pro. I'm not interested in going to Live 10, so since this dual core 2TBHDD 8GB ram Win7 machine has been handling Live 9 for the last five years without any issues (given the way I use it) the new Win10/Quad Core/SSD system I've spec'd out should work just fine.

I've learned a great deal. Thanks to all who offered constructive information. This thread has been very helpful.

mt3 wrote:
Redundancy.
Fekking BINGO! thumbs up


cookie?!?
Panason
tl:dr; external SSD will be faster than thumbdrive.

Live 10 is significantly improved from 9 and you should get it if you continue using Live.

eg: You can finally assign names to your audio inputs...

(MIDI inputs are of course not covered because Live sux for MIDI)
artaslove
It's also worth mentioning that some really cheap flash drives are inexpensive because they are using lower quality chips. Also sometimes they don't have their all of their advertised capacity if you're looking for the cheapest stuff.

At one point I bought 4 identical flash drives because they were so cheap but 2 out of 4 had issues that ended up wasting a lot of my time.
ersatzplanet
Rex Coil 7 wrote:

Ok folks ... Let's bring this whole thing back into context. My question is why would I want to spend $100 bucks on a 1TB external SSD for data that I'll not be streaming when I can buy a 1TB thumb drive for $10.00 bucks?


If read and write speeds are not a concern, and you won't be writing (and re-writing) a lot of time, buy the thumb drives and buy a bunch of them. Make multiple copies and store them in a good place, preferably more than one place in case there is a fire etc. The main differences is that thumb drives are slower and typically can't take a large number of write/re-write cycles.

I recently had to buy a new microSD card reader because I broke mine. I bought this on a whim since it was cheap ($8) and small. I originally thought the microSD card slotted the back but it slots in the front in a space alongside the USB connector. Stealth. MicroSD cards are getting faster and larger all the time. Easy to store too.

Joe.
I was a bit worried when i swapped over to all SSD's, but my mates assured me that the limited life/write cycles aren't really a problem.

Apparently an SSD at the end of its life can't be written to anymore, but you can still read or copy the information as long as you want.

Or you could just invest in some 'secure' cloud storage hihi
Chevron87
I've had too many thumb drives fail to use for archiving. I use SATA drives with an external dock. SATA drives are cheap and you can always double up if worried
ersatzplanet
Chevron87 wrote:
I've had too many thumb drives fail to use for archiving. I use SATA drives with an external dock. SATA drives are cheap and you can always double up if worried


This is a good idea for a backup solution. Get one of those docks that use naked drives and buy a few standard hard drives. They are much cheaper than any SSD solution and since they are not powered up all the time, they will last longer mechanically. You can get 1TB drives for under $30 and 4TB ones for just a little over $100. Get a few and store them well, and make redundant copies.
gruebleengourd
Best solution IMO is to get get a proper backup device like a synology NAS. That way you get the benefit of regular data checks to detect bad sectors and the like. When you back up to a disk and don't have it connected to a computer, you lose the benefit of self healing file structures and active monitoring that SSD drives can offer.

If you want to transfer faster than your network, than a USB 3 SSD for shuttling between your recording computer and the nas might be worthwhile.

OTOH backing up to an SSD drive on a NAS is a waste, although having one as a buffer drive for streaming data off the NAS might be useful in certain situations.

You can also use it as a server...
gruebleengourd
Rex Coil 7 wrote:

Especially when a 1TB thumb drive can be had for less than $20.00


Where do you get these prices?
Chevron87
ersatzplanet wrote:
Chevron87 wrote:
I've had too many thumb drives fail to use for archiving. I use SATA drives with an external dock. SATA drives are cheap and you can always double up if worried


This is a good idea for a backup solution. Get one of those docks that use naked drives and buy a few standard hard drives. They are much cheaper than any SSD solution and since they are not powered up all the time, they will last longer mechanically. You can get 1TB drives for under $30 and 4TB ones for just a little over $100. Get a few and store them well, and make redundant copies.


Yes it really is a cost effective for archiving. The Freecom dock I have was £50 years ago so I imagine they are even cheaper now, and you can use SATA or SSD hard drives and it has Firewire and USB.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Software  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group