regarding resistance to data corruption over the years which of the two technologies is currently more reliable? so I'm not interested in reliability in daily use but the ability to maintain data over time without power.
Asked
Active
Viewed 101 times
0
-
OMG, [that](https://superuser.com/questions/374609/what-medium-should-be-used-for-long-term-high-volume-data-storage-archival) is largely an academic exercise! – Joep van Steen Aug 20 '23 at 19:40
3 Answers
0
SSD's may be slightly better than spinning rust but I would not count on either for reliable storage for more than 3-5 years. Mag tape is the conservative answer but you will then need to keep compatible tape hardware around for that long. Archival-grade optical discs are the best bet but again you need to have hardware that is compatible with your system for the next 20 years. Do you have any EISA slots in your system to read archives made in 1990?
Best bet is to choose something current and convenient and then copy the data to another current and convenient media five years from now.
doneal24
- 633
- 4
- 10
-
"SD's may be slightly better than spinning rust but I would not count on either for reliable storage for more than 3-5 years." - Why? – Ramhound Aug 18 '23 at 20:02
-
I have good SSDs in my computers and my usage against the TBW spec suggests 10 years of use. I have an X230 in my basement from 2013 with a Hitachi HDD and it is still good. Such is why I use working computers to back up other computers (keep data in sync). – John Aug 18 '23 at 20:09
-
I had multiple flipped bits at my SSD (daily usage). The specific data has been laying around untouched for a few years and by accident I noticed a second copy of that folder with similar age. Comparing these to delete one lead to the proof of flipped bits. // The S.M.A.R.T. diagnostics showed no obscure values and resumed that everything is fine. — I prefer HDDs for archives. – dodrg Aug 18 '23 at 20:31
-
Statistics are showing that SSDs are more "reliable" (in terms of MTBF) than mechanical disks, but when they do fail, they usually fail completely and without warning and no data can be recovered after the first sign of issue, so without backups everything may be gone with no hope. for bitrot, consider using a more resilient self-healing filesystem like BTRFS. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/five-years-of-data-show-that-ssds-are-more-reliable-than-hdds-over-the-long-haul/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/bitrot-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/ – Frank Thomas Aug 18 '23 at 23:09
-
@Ramhound Transistors age even when powered off and lose their charge-holding capacity over time. This might not be noticeable in a typical appliance but can become a problem with the sheer number of transistors in an SSD. Most vendors do spec their disks as having a 10 year lifetime under normal use but there are a lot of studies showing the _average_ lifetime as a few years shorter. – doneal24 Aug 19 '23 at 17:58
-
@doneal24 - 10 years is an amazing eternity in this world, and about 5 years, before “long term storage”. Nobody can tell you how to do long term, only that, today’s standard won’t be yesterday’s standards so continuously update your long term storage solution and of course verify it – Ramhound Aug 19 '23 at 21:01
-
@Ramhound I agree that in 10 years pretty much any computer technology can become obsolete. The OP asked for "long term" storage but did not define the term. With appropriate care and the right hardware I can read tapes that were written 20+ years ago. I've never investigated optical disks since their storage capacity never met my needs. As I said in my answer and what you said in your comment, archive to the best media you have today and in five years transfer the data to the best media available then. – doneal24 Aug 22 '23 at 17:13
0
Any consumer storage gear is not made to survive intact for many years.
The best approach (in my experience) is two operating computers, one of which is the backup of the other. Use very large drives.
Use a Sync App (I use Sync Back Pro) to ensure the integrity of the backed up files.
Within the framework above, top grade SSDs will outlast the computers.
Two computers may provide other uses for you as well. This is what I do and have done for about two decades or even more.
John
- 46,167
- 4
- 33
- 54
0
interested in reliability ... to maintain data over time without power.
Then for certain the answer will not be SSD if the requirement is to retain data without power. I have the feeling the other answers seem to overlook this requirement.
Modern SSD's specially suffer from a phenomena called retention loss. To (allow the firmware to) effectively counter this effect a SSD needs to receive power.
The degree of retention loss is determined by several factors such as type of NAND (SLC, MLC etc..), wear already sustained (more wear, retention gets worse) and even temperature at the time the NAND is 'programmed'. And so articles that present figures for retention like 1 year or 2 years are basically useless.
References:
Joep van Steen
- 4,730
- 1
- 17
- 34
-
The references you site are interesting. The first uses data from experiments over 24 days so I am not sure how accurate an extrapolation to years would be. The second reference is more interesting. Figure six is most interesting in particular. If a lightly used SSD (and an unpowered disc meets this definition) is kept at 55 degrees C, the data retention is up to 16 years. However, I still stand by my answer not to trust either SSD or spinning rust for more than a small number of years. – doneal24 Aug 22 '23 at 17:29
-
That concerns *SLC* NAND. It's probably a bad idea taking the best NAND option with regards to retention (being SLC) as the base for this claim of yours with regards to data retention being upto 16 years. As we see retention depends on several factors such as temperature and wear of the cells. If we then add the fact that margins inside MLC, TLC, QLC are worse with each iteration, we see how SSD's are a bad idea for cold storage. – Joep van Steen Aug 22 '23 at 18:17