Will the hard drive last for a week if under heavy use?

[kingknightrider]

15 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

You just don't pay attention and you even contradicted yourself.

 

You never said that you backed up your data, not to mention a backup you can't access for recovery or updating is useless.

This thread was and still is not about data it is about the physical hard drive errors and them alone!

That said -there is no reason to believe the something so blatantly obvious needed to be said.

Who in their right mind would not have backed up their data?

I guess some just can't infer the obvious..

.

My main system is supposed to have 5 main drives and a dual drive backup on the main system for each.

That is 10 drives backing up 5.

However 3/4ths of my drive system is in those 7 states away and didn't get in with the move -it turned out. 
Will be getting everything back together near Thanksgiving -I hope.

Been using the bare essentials for the past 2 months: 3 drives.

9 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I've already said if kingknightrider doesn't want to use SSDs, he doesn't have to. What I'm saying is the reasons (more like excuses) he is trying to pass off as why no one should use SSDs are pure bunk.

I DID NOT say the reasons were for others -they are mine.

If they don't approve to you then fine don't use them it doesn't change the fact that is a fact.

But don't be putting words in my mouth of something I did NOT say:

Quote

I still prefer manual hard drives for the simple reason: when a SSD fails -it fails completely and without warning.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I have stated more than once that SSDs are more expensive than SSDs. That doesn't make them bad. A Lincoln cost more than a Ford; that doesn't make Lincolns bad, either. While, overall, SSD prices have been dropping, I seriously doubt that SSDs good enough to be worth having will drop to $0.08 next year.

Till a SSD surpasses the HHD's size to price ratio I will avoid.

For IF I was going to use them.

I would go all out:

2 2TB SSD's to back up the main 2TB SSD and 2 2TB SSD's to back each other SSD in the system a piece.

Then I would triple backup each and every single one of those drives.

Do you know the price point at that:

5 2TB  SSD's backed up on to two others so 15 SSD's and backing them up again would put me over 30 SSD's.

Financially unsound -unless the lottery would be won.

9 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I've also said multiple times that HDDs often do give warnings before failing but they don't ALWAYS give warning. Even kingknightrider inadvertently admitted that. I've also agreed that most of the time, SSDs don't always give warning before failing and that, when they fail, it's pretty much always irrecoverable. What I'm trying to convey is that depending on getting a warning on impending failure so one can move their data to another drive to avoid losing it is foolish since even HDDs do not always give warning before failure. People like kingknightrider can't seem to grasp that concept nor that the ONLY, I repeat, the ONLY way to reasonably ensure the safety of their data is for it to exist in at least three, separate places.

Again not about data just was concerned about the drive -save maybe OS -but that is another matter now.

Since figured out a way to make it self contained and be restored in bits and pieces if necessary.

ALL the other data is safe -albeit a few GB short at that location spoken of earlier.

The physical hardware error codes were all that this thread was supposed to be about.

15 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

You are wise not to use cloud storage. Those sites, especially the free ones, are usually unreliable and insecure. Good paid cloud backup services are secure and reliable. However, they do cost money and they do require a reasonably fast broadband connection, which also costs money (even ore so if the connection has a data cap). It does take a long time for the initial upload and full recovery will also take a long time. Still, they do serve well as a good, last resort backup.

Not to mention the very uncanny possibility -no matter how rare that the hub of the storage service gets hacked, vandalized or crashes and data is lost.

15 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

You keep insisting that you are vigilant enough to catch the warning signs of HDD failure then turn around and say you have been able to do so only ten times out of thirteen. If you had up to date, easlily accessable backups, you wouldn't have any data loss, even if you ever lost all your drives at once.

Yes.

10 of 13 across 20 +years .

Though those 10 were complete recoveries.

The other three were so gone could only regain partial data with Recuva and another program.

Again the data backup issue is done as mentioned above.

15 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Just what on earth kind of work requires you to save data on the desktop? You can just as easily save to a drive other than the C:/ drive. You complain that you can't use storage that is slower than the drive the OS is on. Why is that? Why does the speed of SSDs makes them less efficient? My experience is very much the opposite.

It is not required but makes the process less hassle -instead of having 14 windows open each with a different part of the project.

Sound and video editing -with the latter both 2D and 3D -the prior using multiple codecs without compression on each.

The merging and spliting of these combining across multiple formats with not compression.

Many of these have more than one version too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not the speed of the SSD but the speed of whatever is working in conjuction with it.

That is what creates the bottleneck...

 

Lets say a SSD OS and data HDD:

The SSD OS can't pull data from the HDD any faster than the HDD can communicate with SSD can it?

If not then the HHD creates a bottleneck with the SSD OS and only transfers data to the SSD at the rate the HHD can send it.

Again if reverse and the HHD is the OS then a SSD data drive can only acquire data as fast as the HDD OS sends it.

It may not be much of a difference but it still can create a bottleneck and anything that bottlenecks even a little is in my opinion an inefficient use of time.

15 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

OK, SSDs are too expensive for you. That's just you. Others may (and many do, otherwise no one would be buying them) find them to be worth shelling out the shekels for their higher speed, smaller size, lower power consumption, possible lower heat ouput, hight mechanoical shock resistance, etc. or any combination of those. If you can't justify  their expense, then don't buy them; no one is making you buy them. But just because you can't justify their expense is no excuse to unreasonably denigrate them with your utterly absurd allegations.

Who do you mean by them?

People or SSD or something else?

Explain how I denigrated the name of the person or SSD?

Was it me saying that when SSD's fail -it is usually a complete hard fail or that HDD failings can be detected?

Don't see how those are allegation to denigrate a piece of hardware or person...

Those are facts not allegations.

15 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

If you truly need (or even just want) to ensure continuous operation despite a drive failure, then redundancy is what you need. But, even then, you still need to backup the data, not depend on being able to detect when a drive is going to fail (which you have already stated you cannot do every time).

True and I have previously stated about the back up and done with it.

Redundancy and the efficient nature of computers' functions while golding continuous operation.

My main issue here is efficiency of the physical hard drive

15 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Btw, the largest consumer grade SSDs are 4TB, not 2TB. Most people are able to make SSDs for the OS and programs and HDDs for storage work just fine and, frankly, I fail to see why you can't. The amount of time it takes for you save a project on the same HDD the OS is on will be no different than the time it takes to save it on another HDD. If the OS is on an SSD, it still will take the same amount tof time to save it on an HDD.

Thus the HDD bottleneck.

If I was to use an SSD OS for this project I would expect the same transfer speed for the HDD as the SSD.

Different transfer speed in my system between drives is an inefficient use of time.

9 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I agree that SSDs are more reliable than HDDs.

I still feel a NAS for a backup is overkill for most people and, if the NAS is kept running and connected to the computer at all times, it is NOT a backup. it is much less expensive and easier to just use two, separate external drives (or internal type bare drives in a dock or hot swap bay) for backups for each drive in the computer. While a NAS can be part of a backup scheme, the same as RAID in a computer, it is not a backup in itself.

True. In a 'true' backup there are no active or running parts.

Thus no chance of degradation or failure of hardware or data.

9 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I'm not trying to change how the OP is doing things. If he wants to gamble with his data, that's his choice. What I have issues woth is him trying to pass off inaccurate and downright dangerous information, such as why SSDs are (according to him) are inferior to HDDs (using invalid rationalization) and using dangerous practices for securing data.

 

No gambling or dangerous practices with my data -this has already been covered above.

The only thing I said about SSD's is that when they fail they do so hard and that with HDD detecting errors is possible more often than not and makes recovery easier. Nothing about one being inferior to the other or is this as I am suspecting more inferred misconstrued facsimiles of my speech?