As hard drives get bigger, so does the risk of data loss. You need to make your data smaller

I upgraded from a HDD to a SATA SSD and the difference was night and day.

I then upgraded from a SATA SSD to an NVME SSD and whilst the NVME *is* faster in practicality it's nothing major.

If you have an NVME slot get the Crucial P1, the speed/size to $ ratio is the best out there.

If you have a SATA slot get a Samsung EVO.

The NVME upgrade is simply to free-up a SATA slot, there's no real performance increase *yet* in real-world applications (the desktop and laptop consumers).

Why don't they make SSDs the size of a 3.5 HDD?

They make converter kits/cases, but SSD is volatile; it was never meant to replace actual disk storage.
You would basically be expecting a large thumbdrive to safely store your important data. Do you think server farms use SSDs?

I'm doing weekly backs since the ages where a 80GB HDD was big
Now I'm doing weekly backups of my 80TB
Git gud

Flawed, more drives means more points of failure.

They do for hot storage on frequently accessed data sort of like a cache layer.

I always keep my personal data at a level that every backup medium can take a full copy. Because my smallest medium is a 16GB USB stick, I keep all my data under that, and have it across multiple other formats.

This is how you do it zoomer kiddies take notes

Yes, the same way we use SSDs for our OS and main/frequently-accessed software. Everything on that SSD is still backed up with frequent snapshots to spinning rust.
Some things are just tried-and-true, user. There is nothing wrong with using old tech if there is no better replacement yet.

>On the topic of backups
I currently pack everything I have into different VeraCrypt containers and move them around. Is that safe in the long term? Is there an automated way for some backup program to detect a change in containers and move the files automatically?

Have sex.

If its on your machine you don't need it.
Keep everything you need off of your computer.

at least its not volitile

That's a pretty-good way to do it, user. My "absolutely important data" is about 24GB right now..docs, pics, source, etc., i keep it backed-up on a microSD, with two physical HDD backups and one encyrpted buttcloud backup.

I used to keep it small enough to fit on a CD, then a DVD, but as those died away I stopped using them for backup in this way. To be honest the only reason I have 12GB (my actual amount) is because I can. The things I actually care about is probably a quarter of that.

Not only does this increase the quantity of my possible backups, but also means I can use smaller and cheaper mediums, and also spend less time worrying about single errant files.

How do you guys have so little important data? Just the scans of my post come in at 20GB, photos at 80GB

>tfw just bought 16tb of storage

New technology is coming back from the dead. Sony found out that retards want smaller drives so they'll lose smaller data. Minimize risk, minimize gain.

Attached: floppy-disk-500x500.jpg (500x500, 24K)

I don't scan my fucking mail for one. If something in the post is worth keeping I put it with my other paperwork in a folder.

No they don't.

Yes. Everything is snappier especially if you use cache / system pagefile. No hanging with suspended/background processes/windows. Random small (and linear & large) IO operations are hugely faster, benefiting every system's responsiveness and read/write/load/save times.

Anyone who disagrees is a shill or dumb.

SSD is not an interface standard dummy. Even then they're much closer to saturating SATA 3 than any pos mechanical drive.

>Everything is snappier especially if you use cache / system pagefile. No hanging with suspended/background processes/windows. Random small (and linear & large) IO operations are hugely faster, benefiting every system's responsiveness and read/write/load/save times.
Until the bloat increases because of this leeway and it becomes just as slow as a HDD.

>I put it with my other paperwork in a folder.

Attached: 1542510706401.jpg (1024x768, 248K)

Sorry, I said "in a folder," not "on the floor."

>As hard drives get bigger, so does the risk of data loss.You need to back it up on multiple platforms.
Yea all my important TBs are up in the cloud too.

desu NAS systems with proper config can saturate GB ethernet. For normal desktop/laptop use SSD will be a huge upgrade though.

I always thought you used SSD for programs and HDD for files/documents.

I have no idea how your email is at 29 gigs, I dekete everything but oersonal info. Work email can stay in the cloud.
80GB of photos? As much as I love my family and the random pictures of food, roadsigns, and my nephews & nieces doing nothing extraordinary, I tend to curate those. EVERY SINGLE MOMENT IN TIME does not need to be captured. That makes the whole idea useless. My HDD backups, however, are ridiculous. Hell, I still have ISOs of pic-related.

Attached: Mepis.png (1024x768, 233K)

How come we don't just use sas instead of data?

Fucking eurofags

Yes, we are essentially saying the same thing. SSD for OS, but also software that you frequently access AND regularly backup to your HDD/external/cloud/whatever.
For example: Photoshop, Blender, GIMP, Houdini. Office..if you use those daily/heavily, install them on the SSD, but keep the files they create on a different drive.
This is all assuming, of course, that you are on a personal desktop/laptop and you care about backups and the read/write life of your drive.

Agree.
I have like 20GB of photos but overall I just print the really real important ones.
Trips, events, importan family meetings and shit like that NEED to have a tactile back up. As with video, some of it goes to a Private YouTube account

is there anything upcoming that will make these cheaper? 5LC? 6LC?

>Cloud

Enjoy losing it all when the company folds / gets hacked / etc

>I just print the really real important ones.

Enjoy your quality degradation and generational loss

I really don't care if after 40 years my bank statements aren't fully readable.

I'm sure the je- the banks are counting on that stupid attitude as well so you won't be able to prove how they screwed you 40 years ago and won't get the big payout in the class action lawsuit.

A single WD Red can saturate a gigabit line

Do you really think that they wouldn't just be able to accuse you of forgery if you did just say "let me print off this file from my computer that proves I'm right"?

>You think I faked it, Mr Judge? Let me show you my archive of 40 years worth of post. I scan everything.

Dude, these "people" plays those games for a living and make lots of money doing it. You're not going to outsmart them because you, in a fit of decades-long paranoia scanned some junk mail selling panties.

Oh sure you can play pretend the game where everything goes wrong in a court of law just to back up your stupid argument. Even if it doesn't work though, you made them sweat and have to work harder which is worth it. Takes no time at all to drop all your post into a feed scanner once a week.

Please read that again, user. WORK-RELATED EMAIL (non-important) can stay in the cloud. I curate that too, but CCs and meeting reminders and crap like that..why would I save those?
Besides, I archive them on a separate cloud drive...if it goes poof, then it goes poof. Anything and everything is not valuable, or worth saving. There comes a point when archiving becomes just straight-up hoarding.

I'm in a worst situation than this guy

What is he doing in that pic? (not USA here)

Organizing his bookmarks

Attached: URL book - 1542472415838.jpg (700x933, 303K)

But smaller things are easier to lose...

Attached: __reiuji_utsuho_touhou_drawn_by_wool_miwol__03198d98a3931b863563e2fa2a40ceb6.png (772x741, 320K)

larger drives have a higher failure rate.
you're better off buying 4 250gb drives than a single 1tb drive.

No, the issue lies with having only ONE point of failure, and no recourse. A 250GB was considered huge back in the day, too. The soliton is to at least have two of the largest, most-reliable drives you can afford, and use redundancy.