|
lw@zi wrote: I read SDD are more fragile compared to HDD
I've never bought into that. A hard drive's platters rotates at thousands of RPMs with the heads flying less than a hair's thickness above them. Smack it hard enough and you're looking at a disaster.
Whereas there's nothing mechanical inside an SSD; I've dropped some on a hardwood floor and haven't had them show any sign of any problem.
lw@zi wrote: even HDD is fine as I do not really care about read write speeds.
Then there's your answer. For a backup drive, if I/O speed isn't an issue, then IMO a spinner will always win out - until SSDs catch up in terms of price/capacity. Heck, with the money you'll save with a spinner you can buy a spare one, or future-proof and buy extra capacity.
|
|
|
|
|
I should have used better words. I read SDD is temperature sensitive (I am not going to pretend I understand any of this) while HDD is not. Hence reliance on it if I choose it.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
lw@zi wrote: I read SDD is temperature sensitive (I am not going to pretend I understand any of this) while HDD is not
"To what extent" would be my question. I have a NUC whose CPU has reached 100C a number of times (until I blew the dust out of it) - high enough to make the system shut itself down in a self-preservation attempt.
NUCs are compact, very tight inside, have a tiny fan and very little airflow. The SSD inside of it hasn't shown any sign of any problem.
Besides, if it's only going to be powered on when doing backups (as opposed to 24/7/365)...are you really that concerned about it running hot?
|
|
|
|
|
If you are really concerned, get a DVD read write drive and put them on there.
Moist Von Lipwig
|
|
|
|
|
A finalized DVD is ransomware proof, so keeping all critical documents on DVD is a good idea.
I work with the understanding that hardware failure is a "when", not an "if". So I have 2 SSD in my desktop, an external HD, several portable HD, an external HD caddy, and a stack of old EIDE and SSD drives. [I replace my main HD every 2 years.] Between all this I have sufficient backups that I don't worry about hardware failure.
Online systems are ok for most files, although I operate under the assumption that access can be cut at any time. OTOH, anything financial stays local only.
|
|
|
|
|
An external drive you can grab on the way out; an SSD not so much. If you bugger up your account, you may lose your online backups.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-pronged approach
1. All "data" is on a RAID 1 array. (Save my butt twice in 10 years when one of the drives went out)
2. That is imaged (Macrium Reflect) to a large external USB drive (cheap and efficient)
3. That is backed up to BackBlaze along with almost the entire system (warranty against ransomware because I have a 1 year retention)
Just added the Backblaze component this year. Best decision I've made all year.
|
|
|
|
|
My system is very similar. Offline copies for ransomware protection. Ability to restore everything in house without external internet access. Do what you need to do to satisfy those two conditions. Then test it to make sure it will work when needed.
|
|
|
|
|
The rule hoary old IT professionals use (born of long and sometimes painful experience) is: You need at least three copies of anything you don't want to lose. That is, your working copy plus at least two backups sets. A set will usually have at least the last three backups on it, in case the most recent, or its preceding one, turn out to be faulty. Sometimes errors occur right in the middle of a backup, rendering it useless.
Of the two backups, one should be local (SSD, HDD, NAS, whatever) and one off-site in case of disasters like fire or a very thorough burglar. You can achieve off-site by having two (preferably three) hard drives, keeping one at, say, the office or nearby relatives', and rotating them using the grandfather-father-son principle. Why three? Well, say you only have two and you bring the HDD from the office home on an evening to do the next backup, intending to take the other drive to the office in the morning. For a night, both drives are in the same place and the worst happens...
Or your off-site backup could use a cloud backup service. Note that OneDrive, Google Drive etc are not backup services: they are synchronisation services. If you accidentally delete a file or it gets corrupted and you subsequently need to restore it, you will find that it has already gone from your cloud drive, and worse, the change has been replicated to all the other computers you had linked to the same account. OneDrive does give you a 30 day window when you can reclaim files from the online recycle bin, but that is all. It is not an archive. Microsoft's terminology gets confusing here, describing the service correctly as a synchronisation service most of the time, then having a tab named Backup. Bad! That said, it is good for wholesale restoration of files to their last known state after a disaster and has saved many a person's bacon.
So the short answer to your either/or question is 'both'!
The choice between HDD and SSD is less important than having multiple tested backups in place and keeping them up to date. You choice will hinge on cost, capacity and longevity: nothing lasts for ever, you can drop an external drive at any time, so I rely on two local and one cloud solution for my personal files. DVDs deteriorate over time as well: I have many over 10 years old that cannot be read any more, so check and copy them every few years.
Don't forget that you also need system backups on a less frequent cadence, which can be local (on the grounds that they are rather large for uploading to the cloud and in the event of a disaster, you have to buy a new computer anyway so the previous one's system won't be much use (though Win10 is getting quite good at converting itself for different hardware these days).
|
|
|
|
|
At work my data is backed up on a nightly schedule to a personal network folder on one of our build servers. That server has a 24TB external RAID array which collects these backups along with those from our other build machines. All of this is automated, and I receive an email every morning from the process with a summarized log.
I use two external drives to back up my home machine. The one drive contains a recent full backup and one or more differential backups courtesy of Macrium Reflect[^], which run automatically at night. The second drive is a 'mirror' backup data backup of everything on the machine that is neither Windows nor installed software. This one is updated using robocopy on demand, with an icon in the Start menu. Two clicks and it runs, and typically only takes a few seconds. This pair of drives gets swapped with a second pair fairly regularly. I'm reasonably confident that this scheme leaves me with less than a day's recovery time should something awful happen.
The mirror drives and one of the backup drives are SSD's. The remaining backup drive is a hard drive at the moment, but will be replaced fairly soon. I don't have hard data about the fragility of SSD's versus hard drives, but my personal experience has been for SSD's to be more physically robust.
I'm not willing to pay for 1-2TB of online 'cloud' storage for backups. This is not to mention the routine security breaches incurred by these services.
Software Zen: delete this;
modified 22-Dec-21 10:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
I am in the process of setting up redundant backups, using the cloud and 2 local SSDs as well as regularly making a VM from my machine. I recently had a computer failure where my computer died, and somehow it managed to kill my backup flash drive which was attached at the time. All lost in a microsecond. Fortunately, the folks in my IT dept were able to retrieve the data off my computer. Lesson learned. An important thing going forward will be to always be redundant and keep updated with current tech. Remember all those floppy backups?
|
|
|
|
|
SSDs are more likely to give no warning of failure and more likely to fail in ways where nothing is recoverable. But they are fast.
I don't know how much you have to backup, but cloud storage with a reliable company has the huge advantage of not having your backup lost to the same disaster (fire, flood, theft, asteroid, etc.) as the original. If you use Microsoft office, a family 365 plan gets you 5 terabytes of cloud storage (in five 1 terabyte chunks) in addition to perpetually latest Office Apps.
As for backup tools, I've tried or used most paid and free alternatives. Macrium Reflect is in a league of its own for home use. They have a version that's free for home use although the free version omits incremental backups. Incremental saves so much time and space (and bandwidth for backing up to cloud), it's well worth springing for the paid version after confirming you're happy with the free.
I don't even use virtual machines for testing or trials I can finish in a setting anymore. I run an incremental backup right before testing since an automated incremental was done not long before, that takes less time than getting a cup of coffee. Then I disable the drive I backed up to (Macrium software protects its own backups but I'm super cautious). Install what I want to test, do the test/trial and then restore from the incremental.
All backups run in the background off shadow-copies. Volume restores occur under PE environment. Volume backups can be mounted with or without write ability and can even be opened as virtual machines if your hardware is capable or you use compatible virtual machine software. So much more.
Check it out. No affiliation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winter has been cancelled where I live (southern Ohio, U.S.) and it's all my fault.
I bought a Columbia winter jacket almost 30 years ago. It's washable and very warm. Unfortunately the end of the zipper has frayed can no longer be used. The snaps along the opening don't hold the jacket closed well enough.
I've retired the old jacket and bought a new one (Columbia, of course). For this reason, our temperatures have only dipped to the freezing mark a couple of times since I bought the new jacket.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
If you're the cause, please set up a budget for an annual jacket purchase! My creaky old knees prefer warmer temperatures, and my new EV appears to hate the cold even more than my knees do - I lose 50-60 miles of range when the temperature drops below 35F.
|
|
|
|
|
With the battery technology of today, reduced range in the cold is just something that you will have to accept. It is how battery technology is. Also, they charge a lot slower when temperature is low. So some cars use a little extra electricity to heat up the battery at the start of charging. Later on in the charging cycle, the charging produces enough heat loss to keep up the temperature, but without preheating of the battery, the first half hour won't get much power into that battery!
Norway is The EV Country - more than half of all new cars sold are purely electric, and the hybrids come on top of that. Typical winter temperatures are 5 to 10°C below zero (23F to 14F; right now, we are at 17F, -8.3°C around here). During cold waves, it can easily drop down to -20°C (-4F), or in the inland even to -40°C (-40F). So car magazines and websites all the time bring winter test reports of EV ranges. Loosing 50-60 miles is not at all surprising. At -20°C you should be happy if you get half the summer time range!
This is partly due to the batteries not liking low temperatures, but also also, unless you love to keep the car interior at -20°C as well, to the heater. And, on slippery roads, the anti-skid systems use extra power to keep the car on the road.
Traditionally, electric power has been cheap here in Norway. Gas prices have been at the same level as in the US - except that for a given amount, we get a liter, while in the US, you get a gallon  . So people buy EVs to save money. This winter is different: The shortage on natural gas in Europe (due to arguments with the largest supplier, Russia) has brought all sorts of energy prices to extreme levels: A couple days ago, the electricity price was only slightly below 1 USD/kWh in south Norway. So charging your electric car was more expensive than filling your diesel tank (for a given driving distance), even at Norwegian fuel prices!
|
|
|
|
|
Inspired by what we do at work, I started to replace my old .png or simply add new .svg in lieu of icon in my own home app.
Wow, they are so sharp and crisp, great idea! 
Although.. downloading free SVG is harder... and the only free app I found to edit them, InkScape, while cuter than a few years ago, has a sort of a learning curve....
On the clearly annoying side those goddamn .svg don't show preview in the Windows explorer (ok they in fact do because I added Microsoft Powerpack but).. InkScape's .svgz doesn't! 
And neither .svg nor .svgz preview in Visual Studio (2022), I wonder if there is an app for that?! 🤔
EDIT
Haha, of course there is an app for that, SVG Viewer - Visual Studio Marketplace
EDIT2
Time, perhaps, to mention I have an updated version of an unmaintained svg2xaml in my GitHub?!  
modified 21-Dec-21 3:16am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice link...
I think I saw it before and dismissed VECTR right away because it is online.
But as I thought about it later (not VECTR in particular but about SVG editor) it looks like the designers at work are also using a web editor (I guess it help with work sharing), that might be worth a look after all!
|
|
|
|
|
VS Code can view them. It makes it really convenient when developing with SVG
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Nice! 
Mmm... is there an SVG Editor for VSCode btw?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if there's an editor. I haven't looked for one, but if there is it won't be a visual editor.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
ha, yes, silly me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing about our existence is a simulation, as cool as that sounds.
That is not to say that we were not engineered by other higher life forms - I believe this.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
