Using 5400RPM HDD as backup

B

Backdraft

Guest
Hello fellow geeks,

I'm looking to get another HDD, mainly as a general backup as well as for storing certain "media", and I was wondering if using a 5400RPM internal HDD was going to make any difference. I've looked at some pretty good deals in the 1-2TB range, but was wondering if it was going to make any difference vs. a 7200RPM drive. Note that I'm not looking run apps/games of this, just use it as storage and occasional read/write of data.

I'm probably looking at something like this: http://www.frys.com/product/6443552?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

Thanks.
 
I've never noticed a difference between 5400 and 7200 rpm hard disks in terms of reliability. But if it is used for backup I'd save some cash and get a 5400.
 
The 5900rpm Barracuda LP drives are great. Linearly they'll still do triple figure MB/s.
 
All drives have a percentage of bad batches... some more than others. It's always a gamble on new models. But if the drive isn't going to be used regularly, I'd say it's pretty safe as a back up. You could use it as a true back up for extra safety, as in copy data and unplug the drive after the heads are parked.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245&Tpk=hd204ui

New egg's reviews on the drive are pretty good. 5400rpm isn't going to make much of a difference in most systems. I'd say go for it!!

-Robert
 
Spindle rotation speed will have no noticeable effect on performance, games or back up won't matter. Reason for it is because the HDD is a huge bottleneck either way and any data that needs fast access goes to RAM. If performance is an issue huge amounts of RAM and SDD are pretty much the only way to get it.

As far as reliability goes - anything 1.5 or 2TB will fail ALOT. Reason for it is that those drives are getting the tried and true method of increasing storage, which is to say that they are using more platters of the same size as opposed to larger platters. However the physical size of the drive is the same which means you have less space between platters and more heat. So those drives fail because essentially they are overheating no matter what you do with them.

If you need reliable storage I suggest an array (JBOD or RAID is up to you really) of 1TB drives. If you want to spend the money you can get one of the new 3TB drives that WD is selling but it has somewhat iffy OS support in Windows because of the MBR limitations. Unix-like systems are fine with it since they don't use MBR.

But do keep in mind that if you want to boot off of a 3TB you need an EFI enabled motherboard, which is very iffy in the PC world right now unless you happen to have a Mac, they will work fine.

I've been looking into storage for a while now I get to impart the knowledge :p
 
Right now I have a 4 disk (1TB each) RaidZ array. It has been chugging along nicely running 24/7 for almost 3 years. My last batch of drives latest 3 years before they started to die. I would consider a raid set up of some kind if you plan on keeping this setup for a few years.
 
Last edited:
So basically the most reliable way of storage/backup right now is no more than 1 TB (RAID or otherwise), otherwise you're asking for trouble? Also, having never played around with RAID before, how difficult is it to setup?

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk
 
A RAID setup is going to be the most secure way for a backup of data. If it's just media you're storing, and not your personal data that you can't recover... then you will be fine without a RAID.

If you want to insure the longevity of your drives make sure your system is cool and dust free. A dedicated hard drive cooling fan/heatsink helps a lot, as well as software temperature monitoring.

-Robert
 
So basically the most reliable way of storage/backup right now is no more than 1 TB (RAID or otherwise), otherwise you're asking for trouble? Also, having never played around with RAID before, how difficult is it to setup?

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk
1 or 3TB would be the most reliable of the drives right now. RAID is very easy to set up (most modern motherboards come with RAID controllers). If you are using hardware RAID like that its usually in the BIOS where you would set it. The one thing you need to keep in mind with RAID is that you usually have to use same sized drives.
 
I would warn against hardware raid as that locks you into one vendor and isn't necessarily good (I lost an array due to a 3Ware corruption bug). Have the OS do the raid.
 
Spindle rotation speed will have no noticeable effect on performance, games or back up won't matter. Reason for it is because the HDD is a huge bottleneck either way and any data that needs fast access goes to RAM.

While HDD indeed is the biggest bottle neck in every computer, saying no noticeable effect is weird. If it is the bottle neck, why make its worst features such as random access time even worse?
For backup and data storage it's fine, for system files it's not. Reducing the spindle rotation speed will increase the time it needs to wait for the correct place on the spindle to come round again. On average that's half a rotation, or 5ms for a 5900rpm drive, or 4ms for a 7200rpm drive. Starting up some program can easily yield a few thousands of accesses, adding 1ms to each just for the rotational wait will add a few seconds to the waiting time. That's without taking slower transfer speeds into account.
 
This is going a bit off topic, but the best set-up I've found for desktops/workstations is a combination of SSD and HDD. My MacMini has a 40GB SSD for the OS and most apps and a 7200RPM for my home directory and bigger applications.

For raid arrays it is a good idea to mix and match drives from different venders if possible. It ensures they won't be all from the same batch or failed drive design (see IBM Deathstars) . Here are the drives on my server (the 500GB is the system, the 2TB is a replacement).

[root@pluto ~]# cat /var/run/dmesg.boot | grep ^ad
ad4: 953869MB <Seagate ST31000528AS CC35> at ata2-master UDMA100 SATA 3Gb/s
ad6: 953869MB <Hitachi HDT721010SLA360 ST6OA31B> at ata3-master UDMA100 SATA 3Gb/s
ad8: 1907729MB <WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0 50.0AB50> at ata4-master UDMA100 SATA 3Gb/s
ad10: 953869MB <SAMSUNG HD103UJ 1AA01118> at ata5-master UDMA100 SATA 3Gb/s
ad14: 476940MB <Seagate ST3500630AS 3.AAK> at ata7-master UDMA100 SATA 1.5Gb/s
 
Last edited:
Looking into SSDs for the future as a main boot drive, but not right now, gotta spread the cash around.

I'm probably going to get a 1TB HDD as backup (that's more than sufficient for now), and perhaps expand it in the future with RAID as need arises (I usually only keep media around once after viewing them, unless it's something I really find special, ie. TG, Band of Brothers, etc.). Also, which is better in terms of reliability for RAID, software or hardware?
 
As I mentioned above I do not trust raid hardware. You will be locked into a vendor and be at their mercy if they EOL the format or have a bug you are screwed. Windows has raid support built in, I'd use that. If 1TB is more than enough, buy two drives and mirror them.
 
This is going a bit off topic, but the best set-up I've found for desktops/workstations is a combination of SSD and HDD. My MacMini has a 40GB SSD for the OS and most apps and a 7200RPM for my home directory and bigger applications.

That's exactly what I'm running. 60G SSD + 500G HDD in my desktop, 120G SSD + 500G HDD in the laptop.
 
While HDD indeed is the biggest bottle neck in every computer, saying no noticeable effect is weird. If it is the bottle neck, why make its worst features such as random access time even worse?
For backup and data storage it's fine, for system files it's not. Reducing the spindle rotation speed will increase the time it needs to wait for the correct place on the spindle to come round again. On average that's half a rotation, or 5ms for a 5900rpm drive, or 4ms for a 7200rpm drive. Starting up some program can easily yield a few thousands of accesses, adding 1ms to each just for the rotational wait will add a few seconds to the waiting time. That's without taking slower transfer speeds into account.

With enough RAM it will only matter at start up of the program. Start up is generally not a big concern for most people. Compared to SSD 7200 or 5400 make no difference at all :p
 
Top