Clone to a SSD

Each week I clone the 2 drives on my computer.

Is there any reason NOT to use a SSD to clone TO.

Thanks
mega1999

wrote on 12/29/2014 6:09 PM:

Each week I clone the 2 drives on my computer.

Is there any reason NOT to use a SSD to clone TO.

Thanks
mega1999

Other than SSD's have a limited # of read/writes.

And for static backups IMHO a standard HD is so much cheaper than an SSD.

Ken1943 wrote on 12/29/2014 7:19 PM:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:06:59 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

wrote on 12/29/2014 6:09 PM:

Each week I clone the 2 drives on my computer.

Is there any reason NOT to use a SSD to clone TO.

Thanks
mega1999

Other than SSD's have a limited # of read/writes.

And for static backups IMHO a standard HD is so much cheaper than an SSD.

Prices are coming down and you never will see the SPEED of an ssd.
Fantastic


KenW

I just took advantage of those dropping prices and upgraded my laptop to SSD. No argument...it's faster!

And they sure are lightweight and quiet!

Big_Al wrote on 12/29/2014 7:59 PM:

I just took advantage of those dropping prices and upgraded my laptop to SSD. No argument...it's faster!

How big a drive did you get? How big was the one it replaced?

Alek wrote on 12/29/2014 8:20 PM:
Big_Al wrote on 12/29/2014 7:59 PM:

I just took advantage of those dropping prices and upgraded my laptop to SSD. No argument...it's faster!

How big a drive did you get? How big was the one it replaced?

Went from a 500G HD to 120G SSD.

My system was win8 dual booting with Linux mint and then about 350G of a data partition. Data had MP3's, Photos, backup
images, etc. All which was duped on other drives elsewhere. So moving the 500G to an enclosure was a no brainer. When
I need something it just gets plugged in.

I cloned the Linux and Windows + MBR to the SSD and it's great. Linux runs like a champ, it was fast to begin with,
now it screams. Makes me think long about where the road will lead me with windows 10. But that's another story.

Ken1943 wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:06:59 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

wrote on 12/29/2014 6:09 PM:
Each week I clone the 2 drives on my computer.

Is there any reason NOT to use a SSD to clone TO.

Thanks
mega1999

Other than SSD's have a limited # of read/writes.

And for static backups IMHO a standard HD is so much cheaper than an SSD.

Prices are coming down and you never will see the SPEED of an ssd.
Fantastic


KenW

Hard drives are actually getting faster on sequential. Of the four
drives available by the pull-down menu here, a couple do 210MB/sec.
Which is faster than the old record of 180MB/sec for the WD 600GB
drive. So if you need to clone, this isn't actually that bad.
Beats the 135MB/sec of the drives I use. It's nice to see
the pressure offered by SSDs, squeeze a bit more performance
out of hard drives.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8772/s...-6-tb-review/3

On SSDs, the real performance is on the PCI Express
card ones. Which presumably have changed from storage-chip
plus SATA-drive-module, to a native PCI Express solution.

Paul

On 12/29/2014 7:06 PM, Big_Al wrote:
wrote on 12/29/2014 6:09 PM:

Each week I clone the 2 drives on my computer.

Is there any reason NOT to use a SSD to clone TO.

Thanks
mega1999

Other than SSD's have a limited # of read/writes.

And for static backups IMHO a standard HD is so much cheaper than an SSD.

HDDs also have a limited number for read/writes. I have well over a
dozen ssds with a zero number of failures. I would say any "limites" are
not a factor what-so-ever. I also use external HHDs for backup but SSDs
exclusively for clonning.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:34:52 -0500, Paul wrote:

Ken1943 wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:06:59 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

wrote on 12/29/2014 6:09 PM:
Each week I clone the 2 drives on my computer.

Is there any reason NOT to use a SSD to clone TO.

Thanks
mega1999

Other than SSD's have a limited # of read/writes.
A once a week cloning, which is about 0.14 disk capacity per day,
could be a factor, but is unlikely to be if you follow reasonable
practice and have at least 3 entries in the backup set.

A bigger factor would be the 3 months (typical for high performance
drives*) to 1 year storage life when powered down. Connect any
drives to a powered up but not booted computer every few months
for a day or so. (Some drives require access every once and a
while, so you may need to boot to DOS or UNIX and do reads every
once in a while.)

* The high performance drives are assumed to be busy and some
current MLC and TLC drives are only rated for 3 months retention
of data when powered down. (Perhaps the expected powered down
retention time is much higher for relatively unused cells, but
I didn't see any numbers for such when I was looking for
800GB drives recently.)
(Flash memory started out with 15 years expected powered down
retention time and went to 100 years expected, but since about 2010
capacity has trumped powered down retention time. Even camera memory
cards seem to only be rated 1 year retention at end of life. Again,
I haven't see estimated times for "new" cells.))


Also, probably not a factor for this use, flash memory tends to
use more power when reading or writing than the same capacity spinning
drive unless the capacity is "low". For example, a 2TB spinning
disk probably uses more power than 2TB of SSD when being read
or written.

And for static backups IMHO a standard HD is so much cheaper than an SSD.

Prices are coming down and you never will see the SPEED of an ssd.
Fantastic


KenW

Hard drives are actually getting faster on sequential. Of the four
drives available by the pull-down menu here, a couple do 210MB/sec.
Which is faster than the old record of 180MB/sec for the WD 600GB
drive. So if you need to clone, this isn't actually that bad.
Beats the 135MB/sec of the drives I use. It's nice to see
the pressure offered by SSDs, squeeze a bit more performance
out of hard drives.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8772/s...-6-tb-review/3

On SSDs, the real performance is on the PCI Express
card ones. Which presumably have changed from storage-chip
plus SATA-drive-module, to a native PCI Express solution.

Paul