Google Photos will end its free unlimited storage on June 1st, 2021

In article , Paul
wrote:

Ugh. Is there a list of USB HDDs that have and don't have SATA interfaces?

check the relevant disk drive forums. it's mainly a few 2.5" drives.

Which ones? Maybe someone should do the same in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage
newsgroups too which I prefer!

The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.

nope. they're sata.

There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
because they're not to be offered to the retail
market as internal drives.

wrong on that too.

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barra...h-ST5000LM000/
dp/B01M0AADIX

Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
external drives.

nope.

they work perfectly fine in desktops (usually with a 3.5" adapter).

most external enclosures are not thick enough for a 15mm drive,
although there are some.

it will also work in a drive dock.

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

See also this thread:
o Comparison of the hundred dollar Costco Seagate 5TB USB & 8TB USB HDD on sale now
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage/c/nXXYOAypvqs

In these dejagoogle archives:
o http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-hardware-storage
o https://tinyurl.com/sys-ibm-pc-hardware-storage (30 char limit)

We have a response in those thread, but people forget these are _backup_
drives, which I guess I wasn't clear about, where _elapsed_ time is what
matters, not spinning time.

Here's the response verbatim just now....
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:12:02 -0600, wrote:

Which is more likely to work in a decade or two from now?

Neither. Rotating drives wear out over time. So do SSDs. If an SSD is
not used much, it could last longer--but I would not rely on it.
Expect to replace any drive (with today's technology) within 5-7
years.

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for trying to help, where I apologize that _time_ is the issue.
o Not rotation time.

The drives will likely have fewer than 100 hours on them in 25 years.

While I completely understand your answer, you have to remember these
drives are _external_ drives, connected via USB, for _backup_ purposes.

Hence, rotation time isn't an issue in and of itself.
o Elapsed time is the issue (and technology changes).

Given how standards change, and the fact the 2.5 inch "portable" drive
isn't the same mechanics as the 3.5 inch "hub", and given SATA connections
and other changes over time, the question is simply one of how to choose
between them.

I apologize for not being clear that rotation time is never the issue for
backup drives (which are only connected once every few months, and even
then, for only a few hours at a time).

What matters is the technology changes that may likely occur over time, and
the reliability of the equipment over long periods of elapsed time in
storage.

I'm not so much worried about spinning time as I am the basic stone cold
logic of which drive is most likely to be still working a decade or two
from now after being stored (and while technology changes over time)?

Am 13.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Alan Baker:
On 2020-11-12 4:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to
iCloud
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8

A lie.

Plain and simple.

Stop feeding this sick Troll.

nospam wrote:
In article , Paul
wrote:

Ugh. Is there a list of USB HDDs that have and don't have SATA interfaces?
check the relevant disk drive forums. it's mainly a few 2.5" drives.
Which ones? Maybe someone should do the same in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage
newsgroups too which I prefer!
The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.

nope. they're sata.

There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
because they're not to be offered to the retail
market as internal drives.

wrong on that too.

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barra...h-ST5000LM000/
dp/B01M0AADIX

Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
external drives.

nope.

they work perfectly fine in desktops (usually with a 3.5" adapter).

most external enclosures are not thick enough for a 15mm drive,
although there are some.

it will also work in a drive dock.

It's finally got a datasheet. This is proof of the possibility
of not getting a shuck or a pull. So they've changed their business plan.

Now all you have to do, is find a legitimate seller selling
real fresh product with an actual valid warranty. A non-shuck
for $230 USD ? So I should be able to find this on my local
computer store website (which is not a bazaar seller).
And my computer store does have a listing, for $270 CDN,
which means the US price should be quite a bit lower
(like less than $230).

https://www.seagate.com/www-content/...7-1-1609us.pdf

5TB

140MB/sec

5400RPM

Startup 5V @ 1.2A === a little high
Read 1.9W
Write 2.1W
Idle 1.1W

15mm

And this is an example of a serious but weird offering. I've
never heard of a thing like this before, a 2.5" drive with
both 12V and 5V power. It's suggestive of maybe the same
platters being used.

https://www.seagate.com/www-content/...9-8-1602gb.pdf

2TB (no larger ones listed)

136MB/sec

7200RPM

Power Supply Requirements +12 V and +5 V !!!

Startup ?
Read 5.22W
Write ?
Idle ?

15mm 70mm x 100mm x 15mm

So you are correct Nospam, a leopard can change its spots.
Just be careful who you buy those from, so you don't
get some old stock. My local store sells them, but
has no local stock so would likely be ordering them
in. Not that I'm particularly attracted to a $270 CDN price
but still, if you wanted one, it's there. I don't
have an adapter to put something like that in a desktop.
Usually, it's an SSD if it is that size and you can just
lay the SSDs anywhere in the desktop. All my SSDs are
tiny capacity boot drives.

For $270 CDN (exactly the same price as that 5TB one),
I can get one of these: WD6003FZBX
which is a 3.5" 6TB Black.

Paul

In article , Paul
wrote:

The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.

nope. they're sata.

There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
because they're not to be offered to the retail
market as internal drives.

wrong on that too.

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barra...h-ST5000LM000/
dp/B01M0AADIX

Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
external drives.

nope.

they work perfectly fine in desktops (usually with a 3.5" adapter).

most external enclosures are not thick enough for a 15mm drive,
although there are some.

it will also work in a drive dock.

It's finally got a datasheet. This is proof of the possibility
of not getting a shuck or a pull. So they've changed their business plan.

nothing has changed.

the 5tb drive has always had a data sheet and been available as a bare
drive.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 22:56:11 -0500, Paul wrote:

The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.

There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
because they're not to be offered to the retail
market as internal drives.

Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
external drives.

Hi Paul,
I appreciate that you're always three things many others can't be:
1. Detailed
2. Knowledgeable
3. Purposefully helpful
(while I only own the first and last traits, and lack the middle).

This is good to know that the 15mm-thick 2.5" drives will likely never be
SATA, which means you can't as easily "shuck" them when needed (although
you may not need shucking as much since they also do not require an
additional 12VDC power source like my 8TB 3.5" Seagate needs to run.

The 3.5" drives are still "suitable" for usage in
external housings or as raw drive mechanisms for
the retail market.

The 8TB drive in question, has a visual hint. It has
two USB connectors on the front. And one USB on the back.

The 8TB Seagate has 2 output USBs on the back & 1 USB 3.0 input in front.
o 8TB Costco Item #8888881 P/N 1XAAY5-570 (STEL800401 on sticker)

I get it though that it's a "visual hint" that there must be a "powered
hub" somewhere inside since each of those output ports has to fit the USB
standard on simultaneous output current sourcing.

This suggests a separate PCB to house the hub function.
It makes sense then, to also have a SATA to USB function
on the (separate) adapter board too (hub chip, converter chip).

I understand the logic you present and do not disagree.
o Thanks for breaking it down into its component parts (which is helpful).

(NOTE: Logic needs to be stepwise; if steps are missed, it's "intuition",
and intuition is almost always wrong (read quantum mechanics for why).

Note below... understanding _each_ sentence you write takes me a while as I
have to look up each of the things you say (unlike those moronic Apple
Apologists like Alan Baker who never seem to look up _anything_ ever!).

But before getting too excited, the seagate drive is:

1) SMR (the good kind is PMR)

Here you go again using those damn big words on me!

Looking up what the heck SMR & PMR are...
o What are PMR and SMR hard disk drives?
https://www.synology.com/en-uk/knowledgebase/DSM/tutorial/Storage/PMR_SMR_hard_disk_drives
o Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (aka Conventional Magnetic Recording)
o Shingled Magnetic Recording (offers greater areal density)

Hmmm... who knew about "idle time" being important?
"When the HDD becomes idle, it will enter a reorganization mode where the
old bits of data on the original track will be erased and made fully
available for future use. This reorganization mode must occur to
completely delete tracks, making the idle time essential for an SMR
drive."

Bearing in mind that these disks will not be used frequently, the question
is how that matters over _elapsed_ time of decades from now (the actual use
of a "backup" disk is, oh, let's say, oh, about, um, oh, one hour a month,
let's say, over a 25 year period - so that's 300 actual hours in 25 years
(let's make it 500 hours in 25 years just for easy numbers).

I guess it simply means that we can _double_ the time we hook up SMR
drives, such that the idle time is equal to the running time, which doubles
that spinning time to 1,000 hours in 25 years.

2) 120MB/sec ("hello to year 2007" or so, this is the SMR rate)

Hi Paul,
Unlike the Apple apologists, I'm all about "logic", where I don't think
read/write time should matter all that much for a _backup_ disk, do you?

It's a _backup_ disk, right?
o All I should care about is what matters to a _backup_ disk, right?

To me, the key thing that matters is the data must be available
25 years from now - and that the disk can be used an hour a month (or so)
to easily back up the data - and that it must hold a _lot_ of backup data.

Looking at this article on SMR speeds from Western Digital:
o https://hddscan.com/blog/2020/hdd-wd-smr.html
"it is not recommended to use SMR drives for applications
with significant load"

But this is a portable _backup_ drive.

By definition, the "load" on a portable _backup_ drive is puny, right?
o The thing spins for 1,000 hours in 25 years, max, right?

What seems to me to matter a lot about _backup_ drives is elapsed time.
o Will your data still be accessible to you in 25 years from now?

3) *Could* have aggressive spindown behavior.
Requires a tester to test. Without spindown the
drive could overheat.

I can appreciate overheating, but we have to always keep in mind these are
external _backup_ disks which have a known amount of cooling given they
basically sit temporarily on the desktop while being used an hour a month.

The key question for backup disks, particularly in light of the fact we're
storing precious photos of the kids and grandkids, is whether those photos
will be accessible in 25 years from now, due to technology changes and
storage issues (and the simple fact that fewer parts is better and more
interchangeable parts is better from the standpoint that we don't know if
we'll even have the cables handy in 25 years).

In summary, if we store our own photos, which of the two Costco
hundred-dollar backup drives are better for eventual use in a few decades?
--
Usenet allows an exchange of ideas & logic between us for all to benefit.

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:44:13 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

Am 13.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Alan Baker:
On 2020-11-12 4:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to
iCloud
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8

A lie.

Plain and simple.

Stop feeding this sick Troll.

What's amazing is how the Type III apologists react to mere facts:
o On the adult OS newsgroups, people simply accept facts
(e.g., facts about Google or Microsoft)

It's only the Apple newsgroups where apologists can't accept facts.
1. Jolly Roger claims there are no facts (i.e., no cites for them)
2. Alan Baker claims all facts (in the cites) are all "lies"
3. Joerg Lorenz tells JR & AB to stop responding to any facts

Why are Apple apologists so deathly afraid of mere facts?
o I don't know why.

I suspect facts aren't what their belief systems are comprised of.
o Hence, facts instantly _destroy_ their imaginary belief systems.

Why do the Apple apologists react with personal vitriol to facts?
o I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ finding out what Apple is
o Much like a 5th-grade bully hates that Santa Claus is imaginary

In this case, the apologists _hate_ that Apple reads their data.

On 13 Nov 2020 17:05:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

He's really good at losing. It's all he does. Look at the timestamps of
his posts. He spends his every waking moment trolling Apple news groups.
He's just ****ing pathetic.

Adults will notice how much hateful vitriol Type III apologists have.
o They literally personally hate anybody who bears facts they don't like

Notice the type I apologists (e.g., nospam) aren't hateful that way.
o Neither are the Type II apologists (e.g., Savageduck) hateful that way.

Type I apologists simply parrot (always!) exactly whatever MARKETING says
o Type II aren't malicious like the rest - they just don't check facts
(e.g., Steve Scharf still thinks Qualcomm royalties went down.)

The Type III apologists (Lewis, Jolly Roger, Alan Baker, Chris, Joerg, et
al.) are different than Type I or Type II in that they all despise any
person who bears facts they don't like.

Notice _every_ post by Jolly Roger to facts is to spew hateful vitriol
against the mere messenger of those facts which he simply doesn't like.

He can't dispute the facts (he tried by saying there were no cites)
o When provided with the cites, he then spewed hateful personal vitriol.

Why do these apologists spew hateful vitriol against the messenger of fact?
o I don't know why.

I suspect facts are a mortal _danger_ to their entire feeling of self worth
o I suspect that's because they identify with the Apple MARKETING messaging

I suspect these Type III Apple apologists hate the messenger of facts even
more than the facts themselves, since they can banish the facts from their
minds, but the messenger of facts is still there to bring new facts to the
fore.

Hence, apologists literally personally hate the messenger of mere facts.

On 2020-11-13 7:40 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

See also this thread:
o Comparison of the hundred dollar Costco Seagate 5TB USB & 8TB USB HDD on sale now
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage/c/nXXYOAypvqs

In these dejagoogle archives:
o http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-hardware-storage
o https://tinyurl.com/sys-ibm-pc-hardware-storage (30 char limit)

We have a response in those thread, but people forget these are _backup_
drives, which I guess I wasn't clear about, where _elapsed_ time is what
matters, not spinning time.

Here's the response verbatim just now....
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:12:02 -0600, wrote:

Which is more likely to work in a decade or two from now?

Neither. Rotating drives wear out over time. So do SSDs. If an SSD is
not used much, it could last longer--but I would not rely on it.
Expect to replace any drive (with today's technology) within 5-7
years.

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for trying to help, where I apologize that _time_ is the issue.
o Not rotation time.

The drives will likely have fewer than 100 hours on them in 25 years.

Let's do a little simple arithmetic, shall we?

Fewer than 100 hours in 25 years means 100 hours in 9,131 days, or 1,300
weeks.

So for a once daily backup, the drive would have to run for less than 40
seconds.

For a once weekly backup, you could have just more than 4.5 minutes of
run time.

I'd love to see the backup strategy where either of those is workable.

:-

On 11/11/2020 11:26 pm, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/11/2020 07:15 PM, Brutus wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
On 2020-11-11 2:03 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:48:14 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

Â*Â* Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
Â*Â* accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."

The perfect backup! :-)

By the byÂ* Costco has a special for a Seagate 8TB outboard hard drive for
$119.99....

For a while Best Buy had 8TB WD Red drives inside a USB housing for that price
or less.Â* Maybe last Black Friday.Â*Â* Remove it from the housing and you had a
really nice internal drive.


That's what I've done. Good price and amuch better R/W speed than USB.