3 ms·

I've read USB sticks and backup in the same phrase, something must be wrong.

by kkfx 3y ago

TonyTrapp 3y ago
Given that it's just one out of several backup media, that's kinda fine, I guess? Just don't put all your eggs in one basket. Which is why I'd add at least one HDD to the mix, as all the local options appear to be flash-based. Flash memory can develop defects especially if it's not turned on for a while. For long-term backup storage, a HDD might be a better solution.
- starquake 3y ago
  Redundant USB stick might be more reliable than a single USB stick. But for me a USB stick is just too unreliable. I prefer putting my eggs in soft cosy baskets. Not in concrete baskets full of holes.
NikkiA 3y ago
Depends on the stick, I have a couple of ~15 year old sticks that still work 100% reliably whenever I need a 4GB installation media, compared to HDDs that are less than 2 years old and riddled with remapped sectors :/ I think I've only ever thrown away 1 USB stick due to failure, microSD is my nemesis when it comes to putting 'reliable' and 'flash' in the same sentence, everything else seems to last just fine as long as it's not used constantly.
- NikkiA 3y ago
  Just checked, my eldest is a 2007 lexar "twist n turn" 4GB, last formatted in 2019 with intel lan drivers on it, still 100% reliable, files on it verify ok.
dist-epoch 3y ago
USB sticks are much more reliable than hard drives.
- TonyTrapp 3y ago
  That really depends on the stick. In Germany, there is a brand called Intenso that is unfortunately rather popular here, you'll find their low-priced USB sticks everywhere and I've had nothing but problems with the few I had to use. They often were much slower than advertised, sometimes they would just break down completely in the middle of copying files. It always felt like they try to source the cheapest flash chips that barely pass quality assurance. Not to mention all the "fake" USB sticks that report a larger size than what their actual capcity is, which you may only find out after it's too late. In contrast, I have had a single hard disk with a fatal failure in the last twenty years or so.
- 1oooqooq 3y ago
  They are not. Most of this misconception is when people evaluated flash memory quality, when flash memory was expensive. Today flash memory is the most cheap stuff you can get your hands on. And quality nose dived, and nobody re-did the comparisons. Meanwhile HDD are not used anywhere but datacenters, and quality went up. For the same reasons flash storage was good quality before: low inventory only bought by quality conscious clients.
Aachen 3y ago
Why?
- kkfx 3y ago
  Quality of most USB sticks (meaning not all, but almost all) on sale is crap. As a result you might get a stick working for many years, for all files you put on it, while many others with important silent data corruption in a little time. Of course you can use them with a "modern" filesystem with block-level checksums but... It's like playing Russian roulette. SSD tend to be better but are still good for fresh storage only, HDD are complicated, most have evolved toward crap, but good ones exists and are reliable and cheap and big enough for most usages. Long story short: choose three HDDs from good brands/series and use them normally the likelihood of multiple concurrent failures are scarce and the final price is not that high. For really important stuff a simple desktop tape reader and few tapes TOGETHER with HDDs complete the games. SSDs inside desktops/laptops/home-servers do their jobs well.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    I was of the opinion that the reliability of the storage medium does not matter much for backup purposes, so long as it's reliable enough to survive the days between a failure of another copy and the rebuilding of that. But you've convinced me that it's not a blanket statement one can make, due to silent data corruption. Even with systems that have checksumming, you're right that I'm not doing a full data read on my restic backup regularly. I guess it can still be an option to use regular USB sticks, given the right software and discipline to run its checks, but at that point, it's probably easier to use a more suitable storage medium, especially since HDDs are the cheapest option per GB. (Not that I personally use USB sticks for backup currently, but I do repurpose old hardware for things like my email server.) Thanks!

I've read USB sticks and backup in the same phrase, something must be wrong.

by kkfx 3y ago

I've read USB sticks and backup in the same phrase, something must be wrong.

Given that it's just one out of several backup media, that's kinda fine, I guess? Just don't put all your eggs in one basket. Which is why I'd add at least one HDD to the mix, as all the local options appear to be flash-based. Flash memory can develop defects especially if it's not turned on for a while. For long-term backup storage, a HDD might be a better solution.

starquake 3y ago
Redundant USB stick might be more reliable than a single USB stick. But for me a USB stick is just too unreliable. I prefer putting my eggs in soft cosy baskets. Not in concrete baskets full of holes.

NikkiA 3y ago

Depends on the stick, I have a couple of ~15 year old sticks that still work 100% reliably whenever I need a 4GB installation media, compared to HDDs that are less than 2 years old and riddled with remapped sectors :/ I think I've only ever thrown away 1 USB stick due to failure, microSD is my nemesis when it comes to putting 'reliable' and 'flash' in the same sentence, everything else seems to last just fine as long as it's not used constantly.

NikkiA 3y ago
Just checked, my eldest is a 2007 lexar "twist n turn" 4GB, last formatted in 2019 with intel lan drivers on it, still 100% reliable, files on it verify ok.

dist-epoch 3y ago

USB sticks are much more reliable than hard drives.

TonyTrapp 3y ago
That really depends on the stick. In Germany, there is a brand called Intenso that is unfortunately rather popular here, you'll find their low-priced USB sticks everywhere and I've had nothing but problems with the few I had to use. They often were much slower than advertised, sometimes they would just break down completely in the middle of copying files. It always felt like they try to source the cheapest flash chips that barely pass quality assurance. Not to mention all the "fake" USB sticks that report a larger size than what their actual capcity is, which you may only find out after it's too late. In contrast, I have had a single hard disk with a fatal failure in the last twenty years or so.
1oooqooq 3y ago
They are not. Most of this misconception is when people evaluated flash memory quality, when flash memory was expensive. Today flash memory is the most cheap stuff you can get your hands on. And quality nose dived, and nobody re-did the comparisons. Meanwhile HDD are not used anywhere but datacenters, and quality went up. For the same reasons flash storage was good quality before: low inventory only bought by quality conscious clients.

Aachen 3y ago

Why?

kkfx 3y ago
Quality of most USB sticks (meaning not all, but almost all) on sale is crap. As a result you might get a stick working for many years, for all files you put on it, while many others with important silent data corruption in a little time. Of course you can use them with a "modern" filesystem with block-level checksums but... It's like playing Russian roulette. SSD tend to be better but are still good for fresh storage only, HDD are complicated, most have evolved toward crap, but good ones exists and are reliable and cheap and big enough for most usages. Long story short: choose three HDDs from good brands/series and use them normally the likelihood of multiple concurrent failures are scarce and the final price is not that high. For really important stuff a simple desktop tape reader and few tapes TOGETHER with HDDs complete the games. SSDs inside desktops/laptops/home-servers do their jobs well.
- Aachen 3y ago
  I was of the opinion that the reliability of the storage medium does not matter much for backup purposes, so long as it's reliable enough to survive the days between a failure of another copy and the rebuilding of that. But you've convinced me that it's not a blanket statement one can make, due to silent data corruption. Even with systems that have checksumming, you're right that I'm not doing a full data read on my restic backup regularly. I guess it can still be an option to use regular USB sticks, given the right software and discipline to run its checks, but at that point, it's probably easier to use a more suitable storage medium, especially since HDDs are the cheapest option per GB. (Not that I personally use USB sticks for backup currently, but I do repurpose old hardware for things like my email server.) Thanks!