Which external hard drive should I buy?

[GeorgeO]

I currently have an assortment of 3TB (7drives) and 2TBs-one is a portable 2.5 inches 2TB drive and others are 3.5 inch drives, totalling about 24-25TB. By and large they perform well, until trouble starts-then you have to face ASS issues.

 

[rohitmusic]

I have around 16 terabyte of hard drive space. Most of these are 2TB drives. All are either esata or USB 3.0.
I have ones from hitachi, western digital and seagate. I even have the seagate momentous hybrid and western digital Scorpio black drives as well as a Samsung 256 GB SSD. Got to test them a week ago for performance.

Going back to reliability. Any hard drive can fail. There have been some batches of seagate hard drives with an unreliable firmware glitch. The only drives I have seen failing are the ones that the my friends and airport officials were careless to drop. SO ALWAYS BACKUP YOUR DATA.

Most of my 2TB drives were purchased in the good old days when they cost between 4000 to 5000 bucks. Most store movies, music and pictures. Run on a UPS power supply and are not powered on all the time. In my opinion it is better to buy 2TB ones instead of 3 or 4TB ones and back up your important data to both.

Regarding transcend drives most used third party hard disks. Personally I have two eSATA casings from transcend running WD green drives and are working fine since 2009.

With respect to performance of ready made 3.5 inch USB 3.0 drives the seagate go flex performs better than the western digital. Sequential transfer speeds of greater than 80 MBps in the later case. USB 3.0 performs slightly better than eSATA.

Thanks everyone for inputs!
It is really scary to think of all the imp. data going kaput! Especially data that can not be sourced again like digital family photographs! :O

Since I use a DSLR so writing on DVDs is in vain. I do write most imp stuff on DVD as extra backup option. Seems good old way of printing the photos is safest which I keep doing at times.

I am now contemplating storing on cloud. Has anyone tried this? At least the service providers would have higher data availability and recovery infrastructure (disaster recovery/replication/etc)

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Well, there have long been sites like Flickr, but the IT industry loves to sell us old ideas under new names. I think that internet-accessed storage is a convenient way of sharing, or getting multi-location access to data. If you have the bandwidth, it also makes a great secondary backup system.

I would never, ever, never use it as a either primary storage or primary backup. Not personally, and not professionally. In fact, I would accuse IT directors that sign up to the current cloud fad of being criminally negligent!

There are all kinds of ways that you can loose access, probably temporarily, but also permanently, to data stored for you by a third party. It doesn't matter how big the service provider's name is: even the biggest are not immune to technical issues, and some pretty big companies suddenly don't exist any longer. I'm not even going to get started on privacy and security issues. To be honest, I'm not well-informed enough about that anyway, partly because I think it is such a bad idea in the first place.

Use the "cloud" for convenience and sharing, not for secure data storage. Your data is secure when it is on equipment/media that you own, that you are responsible for, and that you know, and control, the physical whereabouts of.

If I were still an IT manager, I know exactly what my response to a cloud salesman would be. And I'm not usually a violent person :lol:

Another big practical cloud issue, for us, is bandwidth, with the data speeds and caps we have here. Keeping this week's pics/music/docs up to date might be feasible, but uploading that first terrabyte or three would be impossible.

 

[rohitmusic]

Well, there have long been sites like Flickr, but the IT industry loves to sell us old ideas under new names. I think that internet-accessed storage is a convenient way of sharing, or getting multi-location access to data. If you have the bandwidth, it also makes a great secondary backup system.

I would never, ever, never use it as a either primary storage or primary backup. Not personally, and not professionally. In fact, I would accuse IT directors that sign up to the current cloud fad of being criminally negligent!

There are all kinds of ways that you can loose access, probably temporarily, but also permanently, to data stored for you by a third party. It doesn't matter how big the service provider's name is: even the biggest are not immune to technical issues, and some pretty big companies suddenly don't exist any longer. I'm not even going to get started on privacy and security issues. To be honest, I'm not well-informed enough about that anyway, partly because I think it is such a bad idea in the first place.

Use the "cloud" for convenience and sharing, not for secure data storage. Your data is secure when it is on equipment/media that you own, that you are responsible for, and that you know, and control, the physical whereabouts of.

If I were still an IT manager, I know exactly what my response to a cloud salesman would be. And I'm not usually a violent person :lol:

Another big practical cloud issue, for us, is bandwidth, with the data speeds and caps we have here. Keeping this week's pics/music/docs up to date might be feasible, but uploading that first terrabyte or three would be impossible.

Hm.. very true.. such is life
The more we know the more we realize our limitations..

So it all boils down to taking a "calculated risk" and nothing seems "fool proof" afterall.

Not surprising, considering life in itself is all but a game of "chance"

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Ahhh... nothing indeed is foolproof, and when I arrived at work to find something broken, my first question was always "what did I do yesterday?"

My backup system: Three copies of the data...

My data is on the discs in my PC.

My first backup is on an external drive on my desk.

My second backup is on an external drive at someone else's house.

Whilst it is not quite the same as sending tapes offsite every morning, and having the possibility of calling any tape back by cab within an hour or so if the onsite one in the safe failed, I personally don't have to answer to directors and auditors, and there is no statutory responsibility on me to keep my photos safe

Whether it is single disks or multi-Tb NAS boxes, I'd always try to stick to this rule of three copies. Yes, it could get expensive, but, legal liability or no, our family pics etc are priceless to us.

 

[AshD]

Hey Guys,

Any one is aware of any better deal than the foll for Seagate Backup Plus Desktop 4 TB External Hard Disk
Flipkart: 13,089

Seagate Backup Plus Desktop 4 TB External Hard Disk - Seagate: Flipkart.com

 

[Rupam]

Hey Guys,

Any one is aware of any better deal than the foll for Seagate Backup Plus Desktop 4 TB External Hard Disk
Flipkart: 13,089

Seagate Backup Plus Desktop 4 TB External Hard Disk - Seagate: Flipkart.com

Ash,
Its always better to use 2X2 TBs instead of 4TB. If it is more important that your data is safe (i. e. a backup), use separate disks and sync them manually (maybe even keep multiple copies as you can always accidentally delete important files). Using smaller individual drives all you'd be doing is splitting up the damage should one fail (lose half the data instead of losing all of it).
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[arunlouie]

Many have mentioned that 2TB is more reliable than 3 or 4TB drives. I personally have 2TB internal and 2TB external, both are 3.5 inchers. External running in 7200 rpm with USB 3.0 is backup, can run your weekly incremental backup in few minutes. So no worry on data loss.

Soon will be plugin external with USB3 router which will be then hi-speed NAS without dedicated NAS server.

 

[arvindrao15]

As per me you must try Toshiba CANVIO harddrive
you will really like it !

 

[GeorgeO]

So Rohit

What did you finally end up buying?

 

[manojbhagat]

As per me you must try Toshiba CANVIO harddrive
you will really like it !

This hardive is really good for me, I will plan to get it.:thumbsup:

 

[arvindrao15]

This hardive is really good for me, I will plan to get it.:thumbsup:

Hey thank you so much for your like!

 

[oglio]

I'm considering buying it too, but I got confused after reading your topic... I need it mostly to save billion of my photos, because it's obvious that CDs will die few years after. Is it better to keep them on HDD or buy a simple memory stick? :/

 

[mandyrhtdm]

Hard Drive

You hasve to understand like hard Drives like anything else are Mechanical Components. They have rotating parts, a magnetic Disk and hence are prone to accidents. One Bump or one Surge and all your Data is lost.

Consider buying a Good Flash Drive or a Solid State Hard Disk. Solid State hard disks have tons of advantages.
1.) No mechanical parts .. 100 years Life !
2.) Superior read and Write Speeds
3.) Low Voltages required.
4.) Much Smaller in Size.
5.) In case you have a laptop you can directly connect an even smaller SSD through Express Card Slot or through eSata card Slot.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

CDs will die... so will HDDs...

SSDs are as subject to power surges or system faults as HDDs.

I remember this line from my first Systems Admin book: "Imagine a disk controller which goes bad and writes when it should read."

There is no everlasting, secure data storage techniques (apart, maybe, from carving in granite, but that is just too slow ) and the only security is in numbers. Minimum two backups as well as your in-use data, and one of them must be at a different location.

 

[musicbee]

it's obvious that CDs will die few years after.

I have CDs and DVDs that are 10-12 years old and still work perfectly. In fact I've not lost any data stored/backed up on "quality" CD/DVD media... just use good quality media to burn/backup your material like Sony and not some cheap/bulk media that's available for cheap like Memorex or Dynex. Not bashing these brands but I did lose a ton of data when using Dynex. I've since used only Sony and never had any issues in many years (more than 8 years for some).

I also advocate what Thad says about having multiple backups. I typically have 3-4 backups, the PC I use, 1 or 2 external HDDs and definitely a DVD backup too.

PS - DVDs are dirt cheap... like Rs. 16-20 for each disc that stores 4.37 GB worth of data and a writer is like 2K. I remember we paid Rs. 95,000 for a DVD writer that did 1x or 2x and failed a ton around 10+ years ago.

Blu-ray burners/writers are still cost prohibitive because the media is not easily available and also expensive and I'm not too sure how safe or long lasting the data backed up on them is... but I am planning on adding them to my backup arsenal too.

 

[amol12]

Hard Drive

Consider buying a Good Flash Drive or a Solid State Hard Disk. Solid State hard disks have tons of advantages.
1.) No mechanical parts .. 100 years Life !
2.) Superior read and Write Speeds
3.) Low Voltages required.
4.) Much Smaller in Size.
5.) In case you have a laptop you can directly connect an even smaller SSD through Express Card Slot or through eSata card Slot.

I am typing from a laptop whose SSD has been replaced under warranty 3 times (ater 2 years, after 3 years and after 3 years and 2 months) by Dell.
Same laptop also has another regular(mechanical) HD which hasn't failed even once.
There is no guarantee of 100 years of life for SSD.

 

[mandyrhtdm]

But any intel manufactured SSD and kill me if it dies before at least 20 years.
If you buy cheap substance even of newer technology it will still suck!

In SSD you have to pay special attention on two things
1.) a good quality Flash storage ( the registers etc)
2.) a good quality controller for data

If you check your drive, that it has a good controller and a good flash installed I doubt if it will last less. Than a HDD
HDD has evolved for 20 years SSD is still a Baby but in future what you will see is only SSD no HDD. That is my guarantee .

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Then we shall have to wait for the IT companies to give us similar guarantees. They won't. Probably they won't ever.

Also, buying "Intel" will not protect me from thieves, fire, flood, lightning, power problems etc etc.

I wouldn't put my life on the line for any manufacturer . Nor my data.

I have CDs and DVDs that are 10-12 years old and still work perfectly.

Yep, I think I do too. We can't say that any storage device or medium will fail after a given amount of time any more than we can say it won't.

Well, there are guidelines, eg that tape backups should be renewed after [iirc] two years. I don't suppose that many of us here use tape drives.

Perhaps security is in numbers ...and variety!

 

[amol12]

But any intel manufactured SSD and kill me if it dies before at least 20 years..

It has nothing to do with brand.
When it comes to data you would be worst hit even if 1 in trillion of a particular manufacturer/type fails and it fails for you. As Thad has mentioned multiple redundant backups are the only way you can build up reliability in data storage system.