[SOLVED] USB sticks versus SSDs for storage

DLes

Commendable
Dec 2, 2019
54
0
1,530
0
I've ordered a full-up SSD (Western Digital Passport) for my daily backups. This replaces an ancient disk drive. A hundred bucks or so. I'm wondering why a ten buck USB stick/flash drive isn't just as good. EVERYONE says it isn't, but I'm not sure why. Isn't the storage mechanism the same for both? What makes SSDs more reliable for storage?
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
You already answered your own question. SSDs ARE more reliable, because, they are more reliable. They don't have the same sort of common failure rates that flash media can tend to have sometimes. In reality, for anything important, you REALLY should have that data in AT LEAST two places at all times anyhow. So, flash media AND an SSD. Or, your primary drive AND a backup drive. Or any media AND a cloud backup, etc. Three locations, one of which is not in the same location as the rest of them, so, for example, a flash drive in your glove box or at work, so that if something catastrophic happens, like your house burns down, you don't lose all your backups at one time. Of course, with cloud backups, which are a sketchy proposition to me simply due to the number of intrusions that happen these days, you would still have another backup to draw from but even CDs, DVDs and BD disks are viable as one form of backup that can be kept in a fire proof safe or at another location, fairly easily.

As for the reason why, it's because PHYSICALLY the components used are relatively cheap in comparison to the type of memory used for solid state drives. Also, flash drives tend to get plugged and unplugged a lot, tossed down on the desk or table, other stuff dropped on top of it, and so on, which makes them a lot more susceptible to being damaged than a drive which is relatively well protected in an external enclosure or in your PC case.
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
You already answered your own question. SSDs ARE more reliable, because, they are more reliable. They don't have the same sort of common failure rates that flash media can tend to have sometimes. In reality, for anything important, you REALLY should have that data in AT LEAST two places at all times anyhow. So, flash media AND an SSD. Or, your primary drive AND a backup drive. Or any media AND a cloud backup, etc. Three locations, one of which is not in the same location as the rest of them, so, for example, a flash drive in your glove box or at work, so that if something catastrophic happens, like your house burns down, you don't lose all your backups at one time. Of course, with cloud backups, which are a sketchy proposition to me simply due to the number of intrusions that happen these days, you would still have another backup to draw from but even CDs, DVDs and BD disks are viable as one form of backup that can be kept in a fire proof safe or at another location, fairly easily.

As for the reason why, it's because PHYSICALLY the components used are relatively cheap in comparison to the type of memory used for solid state drives. Also, flash drives tend to get plugged and unplugged a lot, tossed down on the desk or table, other stuff dropped on top of it, and so on, which makes them a lot more susceptible to being damaged than a drive which is relatively well protected in an external enclosure or in your PC case.
 

DLes

Commendable
Dec 2, 2019
54
0
1,530
0
OK, thanks. So the reason is that although the storage mechanism is the same for both, flash drives are just made with less reliable parts, and endure more physical abuse. I do daily backups and monthly backups to different places, so I'm covered in that respect. Optical disks aren't sufficient, simply because I'm looking to back up several hundred GB. Now a cloud backup is a lot more doable for me these days because I just moved up to Google Fiber, and the data rate is exceptional. I should look into that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts