Question Is it better to backup the system with an SSD or an HDD ?

[brannsiu]

I have decided to clone my hard disk which contains my operating system to another hard disk, to serve as a backup purpose, rather than to create an image which is a compressed single file.

My current drive that runs the system is an SSD. Is it better to clone it to another SSD or HDD? Does SSD or HDD last longer if they are mostly stored in the drawer and not operated? (Which serves as a backup only, so they will be rarely used)

 

[USAFRet]

How long will this be in the drawer, untouched?

 

[hotaru.hino]

As long as the drive is stored in a reasonably cool, dry place, it doesn't really matter.

A long time ago when I did look into this, the rule of thumb for shelf stability was 1 year before a significant chance of a bit flip. But if you're touching the drive once a month, then shelf stability largely doesn't matter as long as storage conditions are good enough.

 

[Bob.B]

I have decided to clone my hard disk which contains my operating system to another hard disk, to serve as a backup purpose, rather than to create an image which is a compressed single file.

My current hard disk that runs the system is SSD, is it better to clone it to another SSD or HDD? Does SSD or HDD last longer if they are mostly stored in the drawer and not operated? (Which serves as a backup only, so they will be rarely used)

Think about what's going to happen if you need to restore 1 yr from today.

1 yrs worth of stuff will come up missing unless you have access to this stuff some other place it's gone.

When you hit winupd it will go crazy with the stuff it needs to load.

 

[Deepwaterlife48]

take it from me, have multiple fresh backups. i lost 20 years of data recently because both the ssd and flash drive failed.

 

[Moonstick2]

You might want to explain more what your purpose is here in order to get better answers.

If your intention is to backup OS plus data, you'd be wanting to back it up at least every month if not sooner, so the longevity question doesn't arise (especially since you should have more than one backup).

If your intention is not to backup data but to make it easier to re-install your OS + programs to a fresh state in future, then I think you're misguided. When I fully upgraded my PC near the start of the year, Win 10 installed in something ridiculous like 5 minutes. Your old image will still need all the OS and driver updates after being put back. You might have your old programs, but they too will probably need updates. Plus there are likely to be settings changed in the intervening time that you might have forgotten about.

TL;DR: There's virtually no point using a disk image that's over a year old even if its flawless. If it's less than a year, HDD or SSD won't really make a difference. (SSDs are far more reliable than USB drives, in case that's the source of your concern.)

 

[brannsiu]

As long as the drive is stored in a reasonably cool, dry place, it doesn't really matter.

A long time ago when I did look into this, the rule of thumb for shelf stability was 1 year before a significant chance of a bit flip. But if you're touching the drive once a month, then shelf stability largely doesn't matter as long as storage conditions are good enough.

In case there is a bit flip, or "a few bits" flip, will the copy be just rendered useless?
Did you mean if I take it out, connect and power it at least once every month or every few month, there is less chance of bit flip, losing or corrupting the data?

 

[brannsiu]

You might want to explain more what your purpose is here in order to get better answers.

If your intention is to backup OS plus data, you'd be wanting to back it up at least every month if not sooner, so the longevity question doesn't arise (especially since you should have more than one backup).

If your intention is not to backup data but to make it easier to re-install your OS + programs to a fresh state in future, then I think you're misguided. When I fully upgraded my PC near the start of the year, Win 10 installed in something ridiculous like 5 minutes. Your old image will still need all the OS and driver updates after being put back. You might have your old programs, but they too will probably need updates. Plus there are likely to be settings changed in the intervening time that you might have forgotten about.

TL;DR: There's virtually no point using a disk image that's over a year old even if its flawless. If it's less than a year, HDD or SSD won't really make a difference. (SSDs are far more reliable than USB drives, in case that's the source of your concern.)

Hi. You can see me as doing backup, but not a regular backup. I will not update the backup every month, in fact, I will not even update the backup. I just want to backup how the system is like now, and keep it for a very long time. Is SSD or HDD a better storage option for me?

 

[Moonstick2]

Hi. You can see me as doing backup, but not a regular backup. I will not update the backup every month, in fact, I will not even update the backup. I just want to backup how the system is like now, and keep it for a very long time. Is SSD or HDD a better storage option for me?

I would reiterate that I don't think it's a useful thing to do, but since you're set on it, you're better with HDD. It'll be cheaper and more reliable.

 

[brannsiu]

I would reiterate that I don't think it's a useful thing to do, but since you're set on it, you're better with HDD. It'll be cheaper and more reliable.

HDD more reliable? Why?

 

[hotaru.hino]

HDD more reliable? Why?

In theory, the way HDDs store data as magnetic fields is theoretically longer lasting than SSDs, which store data as charge in a flash cell. You can think of SSDs as really slowly discharging capacitors. Or a bucket with a tiny leak.

But again, it depends on the storage conditions. I'm pretty sure I've had a USB flash drive that had its data even though I didn't touch it for years.

If you're doing a write-once style of backup for archival storage, you might want to invest in something that's actually meant for that.

 

[USAFRet]

If this is going to be a "write once and sit on the shelf for years" backup, you need to rethink your backup situation.

 

[brannsiu]

In theory, the way HDDs store data as magnetic fields is theoretically longer lasting than SSDs, which store data as charge in a flash cell. You can think of SSDs as really slowly discharging capacitors. Or a bucket with a tiny leak.

But again, it depends on the storage conditions. I'm pretty sure I've had a USB flash drive that had its data even though I didn't touch it for years.

If you're doing a write-once style of backup for archival storage, you might want to invest in something that's actually meant for that.

My drive to backup is about 250GB, so chances are I am not going to use a flash drive. In a nutshell, write-once style for achival, HDD is the best choice right? Thanks.

 

[hotaru.hino]

My drive to backup is about 250GB, so chances are I am not going to use a flash drive. In a nutshell, write-once style for achival, HDD is the best choice right? Thanks.

Technically speaking? No. Tape storage or archival grade optical media (assuming it does what they say it does) is the way to go.

 

[Moonstick2]

My drive to backup is about 250GB, so chances are I am not going to use a flash drive. In a nutshell, write-once style for achival, HDD is the best choice right? Thanks.

In a nutshell, yes. As explained, HDD is more reliable than SSD when it comes to sitting in a drawer untouched. Which doesn't mean an SSD definitely will fail within a certain amount of time where an HDD definitely won't. It's all probabilities only, which is why you shouldn't have only one backup copy of anything you want to keep.

Optical discs are too small for what you want. Tape drives are expensive overkill. SSD's primary advantage over HDD is speed, followed by noise and power consumption, things that don't apply to what you want to do. So you're left with an HDD.

 

[brannsiu]

In a nutshell, yes. As explained, HDD is more reliable than SSD when it comes to sitting in a drawer untouched. Which doesn't mean an SSD definitely will fail within a certain amount of time where an HDD definitely won't. It's all probabilities only, which is why you shouldn't have only one backup copy of anything you want to keep.

Optical discs are too small for what you want. Tape drives are expensive overkill. SSD's primary advantage over HDD is speed, followed by noise and power consumption, things that don't apply to what you want to do. So you're left with an HDD.

Hi. I saw someone on other sites say that a hard drive that sits and not used will likely have bit flip or data corruption in less than a year. Does it mean I should power the drive regularly for a while to let it "exercise" even if I don't need to? Or does it mean it is perfectly natural to have bit flip or data corruption whether or not it is powered so more backups or setting up RAID should be considered?

 

[USAFRet]

Hi. I saw someone on other sites say that a hard drive that sits and not used will likely have bit flip or data corruption in less than a year. Does it mean I should power the drive regularly for a while to let it "exercise" even if I don't need to? Or does it mean it is perfectly natural to have bit flip or data corruption whether or not it is powered so more backups or setting up RAID should be considered?

Repeat after me....

RAID is not a backup
RAID is not a backup
RAID is not a backup
RAID is not a backup

Repeat as many times as it takes to understand.

Data corruption and loss is best prevented with multiple copies.
3-2-1 (i'm pretty sure you've read this here before)

3 copies, on at least 2 different media, at least one offsite or otherwise unavailable.

 

[Moonstick2]

Hi. I saw someone on other sites say that a hard drive that sits and not used will likely have bit flip or data corruption in less than a year. Does it mean I should power the drive regularly for a while to let it "exercise" even if I don't need to? Or does it mean it is perfectly natural to have bit flip or data corruption whether or not it is powered so more backups or setting up RAID should be considered?

More backups should always be considered. And then made.

I haven't a clue if powering a drive up now and then makes bit flips less, more or no more likely. I do know though that bit flips aren't the only concern. Drives (both HDD and SSD) can fail in lots of ways, whether powered up all the time, regularly or not at all.

You started out by saying that you wanted a clone of your OS disk that would sit around for years untouched. I said I don't see the point but you were adamant that it's what you want to do and wanted to know whether an HDD or SSD was better for that. You've been told an HDD but now you want to discuss other backup options?

Proper backup would not be an OS image that's years old.

But if you're set on doing it, buy two HDDs, different brands. Check them regularly to make sure they're sound. If one fails you can then get a new disk and clone the remaining one. But I bet that's all you'll ever end up doing with them.

 

[brannsiu]

More backups should always be considered. And then made.

I haven't a clue if powering a drive up now and then makes bit flips less, more or no more likely. I do know though that bit flips aren't the only concern. Drives (both HDD and SSD) can fail in lots of ways, whether powered up all the time, regularly or not at all.

You started out by saying that you wanted a clone of your OS disk that would sit around for years untouched. I said I don't see the point but you were adamant that it's what you want to do and wanted to know whether an HDD or SSD was better for that. You've been told an HDD but now you want to discuss other backup options?

Proper backup would not be an OS image that's years old.

But if you're set on doing it, buy two HDDs, different brands. Check them regularly to make sure they're sound. If one fails you can then get a new disk and clone the remaining one. But I bet that's all you'll ever end up doing with them.

OK, then what is the best way of cloning a hard disk which contains my system in such a way that bit-by-bit comparison or other similar data verification method will be done? I know that Macrium, Acronis (and thus probably other brands) will not do such a comparison or verification. Thanks for the advice.

 

[USAFRet]

OK, then what is the best way of cloning a hard disk which contains my system in such a way that bit-by-bit comparison or other similar data verification method will be done? I know that Macrium, Acronis (and thus probably other brands) will not do such a comparison or verification. Thanks for the advice.

Macrium Reflect

"When an image is created, after each block of data is read from the disk, Macrium Reflect calculates an MD5 hash and saves it in the index part of the image file. When the image file is read back the hash value is recalculated and compared with the original hash in the index. If the original MD5 hash and the recalculated MD5 hash do not match, the image file is corrupt and cannot be read back reliably."

Verify Image

 

[USAFRet]

And again....

Cloning is for changing the drive right now.

Image is for storing away for later...a backup.

 

[brannsiu]

Macrium Reflect

"When an image is created, after each block of data is read from the disk, Macrium Reflect calculates an MD5 hash and saves it in the index part of the image file. When the image file is read back the hash value is recalculated and compared with the original hash in the index. If the original MD5 hash and the recalculated MD5 hash do not match, the image file is corrupt and cannot be read back reliably."

Verify Image

This probably only means the software creates and remembers the checksum of the final image they create and gives the user an option to verify the image whenever they want. This doesn't mean the contents of the image is identical to the source disk, and I know in fact disk image created by those common and well-known backup software will automatically omit some files e.g. temp files, paging files especially if they are creating image for a disk that contains an operating system.

 

[USAFRet]

This probably only means the software creates and remembers the checksum of the final image they create and gives the user an option to verify the image whenever they want. This doesn't mean the contents of the image is identical to the source disk, and I know in fact disk image created by those common and well-known backup software will automatically omit some files e.g. temp files, paging files especially if they are creating image for a disk that contains an operating system.

Yes, an Image in Macrium does leave out irrelevant data. Pagefile, possibly temp files, hibernation...

Macrium does have a Forensic option, that is (in theory) a 100% duplicate of the source.

What is your worry behind the regular Image (or clone) options?

 

[hedwar2011]

This probably only means the software creates and remembers the checksum of the final image they create and gives the user an option to verify the image whenever they want. This doesn't mean the contents of the image is identical to the source disk, and I know in fact disk image created by those common and well-known backup software will automatically omit some files e.g. temp files, paging files especially if they are creating image for a disk that contains an operating system.

Why would you want to keep your temp files, pagefile, etc. when they are merely going to take up unnecessary space?

Macrium Reflect has it down to an art. I used it personally and professionally before setting up an imaging server for my employer and never had any issues. There were times I even found that it still backed up all those things you wanted (not sure why) and wasn't even trying to do it.