Please, Which is Safer?

[D!egoSnow]

Hello, thank you for opening and taking the time to read my post.

Very well, I am not going to extend this more than what is needed... I need to know from those of you who understand about this particular subject, which Hardware is safer to keep my data, a Solid State Drive [ SSD ] or a Hard Disk Drive [ HDD ] 

I believe I don't need to specify what I mean by safer... So please, could you tell me which one is the safest choice to store my data, and of course... the why?

Thank you for reading this.

- D.

[Adorable Cat]

An SSD. no moving parts means less risk of stuff breaking if you dropped it or something.

 

People will say SSDs only have a limited lifespan, but in reality you'd have to be writing the entire drive like every day for it to die in any meaningful time.

[LukeSavenije]

2 minutes ago, Adorable Cat said:

An SSD. no moving parts means less risk of stuff breaking if you dropped it or something.

if you take it with you that is

 

it's kinda like this

 

taking with you, need to be really fast: ssd

not taking with you, good enough speed: hdd

much data, for archival use: tape drives

[flibberdipper]

For normal people SSD's are probably the safest bet.

 

If you are an /r/datahoarder regular then tape drives would be more up your alley.

[KING OF THE DIRTY DANS]

AN SSD IS WAY SAFER
Half of CIS 150 and 185 is just SSD propaganda

[D!egoSnow]

:sigh: ... I was expecting more detailed information with the replies, not what I received.

 

[Hiya!]

if you really concern about your data use cloud storage such as gdrive but of course its costly..but hell i still have my data in 4shared from 5 years ago

 

1 minute ago, D!egoSnow said:

:sigh: ... I was expecting more detailed information with the replies, not what I received.

 

what did u expect? their response is clear enough

[Bajantechnician]

10 minutes ago, D!egoSnow said:

:sigh: ... I was expecting more detailed information with the replies, not what I received.

 

what did you expect?

[Sousuke]

Thing is that if your going for a basic setup like one drive then the basic information is what your going to get however, for my sanity I will go trough a few options.

 

Hard drive has moving parts and like any mechanical part, they wear out and can fail. However an SSD has no moving parts so a lower chance of failing due to mechanical reasons. 

 

However if you are looking at longevity of your data, backups is the only real way to keep your data safe, you can do this in a few ways:

 

RAID Array: So if you really want to keep your data safe without uploading it to the cloud then an external RAID Array is your best bet as you can have SSD's or HDD's (If I'm honest HDD's are better suited to this such as WD Red drives and other NAS Spec drives). I would personally go with 4 Hard Drives with the highest capacity you can and run them in a RAID 4/5 Array (Both have different upsides and downsides). As long as the RAID Array can sustain a drive failure then your data will be safe as long as not more than one fails. Also is good for being able to access your data whist its being protected. Even better if you can have this off site incase of fire or use a fire proof RAID Box.

 

Tape: I have no idea about the technical aspect of tape however tape backups are good for large amounts of data in which you need infrequent access to or for pure backups as tape drives are very slow. 

 

Online: Depending on your internet connection and the service you will use if this will be effective, also privacy is also a big issue with these services as you do not know what they may do with your data. Also some companies may limit the amount you can backup in a certain period. Also monthly payments, ensuring the company won't shutdown etc. 

 

There are other options I'm sure however this is what I know. I personally use a RAID Array using 4x 3TB WD Red Drives which have been working perfectly for the last 4 years. 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Any storage media, HDD, SSD, optical disc, floppy disk, tapee, stone tablets, etc. are subject to sudden, irrecoverable failure resulting in data loss, no matter the age or condition of the media. However, media failure is not the only way data can be lost. Loss can be caused by a variety of things, such as malware (viruses, ransomware, etc.), PSU failures, power surges (even with surge protection in place), hackers, fire, flood, theft, user error (such as accidental deletion), asteroid strike (ok, that was pushing it a bit), etc. can also cause data loss.

 

As Sousuke kinda sorta pointed out, the only way to ensure data is reasonably safe is for it to exist in three, separate places. For most people, this means on the computer, on an onsite backup drive, and on an offsite backup drive. For a drive to be a true backup, it must be kept disconnected from the computer and powered down except while updating the backup (this eliminates most automatic backup schemes because they require that the backup drive be powered up and connected to the computer). Onsite backup drives and offsit backup drives must be swapped out as often as practical to keep the offsite drive as up to date as possible.

 

RAID by itself is NOT a backup. RAID is redundancy, which only protects from drive failure (up to the fault tolerance of the RAID) and, as I already pointed out, drive failure is not the only way to lose data. An external RAID can be used as a backup drive, but only if it is kept powered down and disconnected from the computer at all times except while updating a backup. If it is kept powered on and connected to the computer at all times, it is essentially part of the computer and is not a backup.

 

One major disadvantage to using an external RAID as a backup is a second one is often needed for the offsite backup, especially if the RAID's volume exceeds that of any single drive available today. It's usually far more practical and economical to have two backup drives, one onsite and one offsite, for each data drive in the computer.

 

This isn't to say RAID is useless. It, and other forms of redundancy, will ensure continuous operation should a drive or two (depending on the redundancy level) ever fail. Most of us don't need that level of protection.

 

My suggestion to D!egoSnow is to use hard drives in the computer and for backup drives since they cost far less than SSDs. You can use SSDs if you need (or even just want) the speed, reduced weight and power consumption, smaller size, and/or etc. and your budget will allow it. The most popular and cost effective compromise between cost and speed is to use an SSD for the OS and programs, and HDDs for the data on the computer and the backup drives.

[Pickles von Brine]

I agree with what Fitz just said.