Hello,

Does anyone here use those tiny USB flash (stick/drive/media)s for macOS' Time Machine?

Thank you for reading and hopefully answering. :)
--
"O LORD, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief." --Psalm 143:1. Easter eve & 2 finally clean, fix, & upgrade my PCs!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

In article <LZKdndEZT5mEcq_5nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@earthlink.com>, Ant
<ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Does anyone here use those tiny USB flash (stick/drive/media)s for macOS'
> Time Machine?

doubtful.

although it will work, it's not recommended because the capacities are
small and they're less reliable than an actual ssd/hd

On 2023-04-09, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <LZKdndEZT5mEcq_5nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@earthlink.com>, Ant
><ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone here use those tiny USB flash (stick/drive/media)s for macOS'
>> Time Machine?
>
> doubtful.
>
> although it will work, it's not recommended because the capacities are
> small and they're less reliable than an actual ssd/hd

I use one for the weekly backup of my Raspberry Pi, but I would never
consider doing that on my Mac.

--
chrispam1@me.com is a filtered spam magnet. Email replies may be lost.
You're better off replying to this newsgroup.

Am 09.04.23 um 19:00 schrieb Ant:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone here use those tiny USB flash (stick/drive/media)s for macOS' Time Machine?
>
> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering. :)

Still no mercy?!

All sorts of USB-sticks are inherently cheap stuff and very unreliable.
In addition they experience an enormous thermal stress when really used.
That kills them sooner or later.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2023-04-09, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone here use those tiny USB flash (stick/drive/media)s for
> macOS' Time Machine?
>
> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering. :)

No. That's a horrible idea. They are extremely unreliable compared to a
spinning hard drive.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 4/9/23 5:56 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-04-09, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Does anyone here use those tiny USB flash (stick/drive/media)s for
>> macOS' Time Machine?
>>
>> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering. :)
>
> No. That's a horrible idea. They are extremely unreliable compared to a
> spinning hard drive.
>

Why spinners and not an SSD?

--
The most effective way to reduce gun violence is to revert to treating
its primary cause— mental illness— rather than normalizing it and
celebrating it as is currently fashionable among the woke set

On 2023-04-10, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:
> On 4/9/23 5:56 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-04-09, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Does anyone here use those tiny USB flash (stick/drive/media)s for
>>> macOS' Time Machine?
>>>
>>> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering. :)
>>
>> No. That's a horrible idea. They are extremely unreliable compared to
>> a spinning hard drive.
>
> Why spinners and not an SSD?

To each his own, but SSDs are generally more expensive per terabyte. And
backup processes run in the background where speed isn't a general
concern. So that extra cost isn't really getting you nearly as much bang
for the buck as using an SSD as a boot drive would.

Personally, I back up all of my computers to network-attached storage
(NAS) with a bunch of hard drives in a RAID, where if a drive fails I
can just replace the drive and go on with life with no worry about
losing access to my data.

But a USB stick is one of the worst choices for backups due to their
typical low speed, small capacities, and horrible reliability.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Apr 10, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <k9iqn8Flc2kU1@mid.individual.net>):

> To each his own, but SSDs are generally more expensive per terabyte. And
> backup processes run in the background where speed isn't a general
> concern. So that extra cost isn't really getting you nearly as much bang
> for the buck as using an SSD as a boot drive would.

As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have to
listen to the noise generated by spinners. At least with the old external
Maxtor spinners I used to use, maybe some other brands are fairly quiet.

In article
<0001HW.29E4C54A0003BAC2700000AC32EF@reader.eternal-september.org>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have to
> listen to the noise generated by spinners.

what noise?

portable drives (2.5" mechanism) and 5400 rpm desktop drives (3.5"
mechanism) are not noisy.

> At least with the old external
> Maxtor spinners I used to use, maybe some other brands are fairly quiet.

a lot has changed since then.

On 2023-04-10 18:29, super70s wrote:

> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have to
> listen to the noise generated by spinners.

Have a USB powered 2.5" HDD 1 TB external for my SO's backup disk.

Silent.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-04-10, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <k9iqn8Flc2kU1@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> To each his own, but SSDs are generally more expensive per terabyte.
>> And backup processes run in the background where speed isn't a
>> general concern. So that extra cost isn't really getting you nearly
>> as much bang for the buck as using an SSD as a boot drive would.
>
> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have
> to listen to the noise generated by spinners. At least with the old
> external Maxtor spinners I used to use, maybe some other brands are
> fairly quiet.

Backup drives you can get cheaply today don't make noise like that
anymore. You can pick up a 2TB portable external backup drive from
Amazon for ~$60 today, whereas a reputable brand 2TB SSD will run you
over $100. Or a 4TB external hard drive will run ~$100, while a 4TB SSD
will run $220-250.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-04-11, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2023-04-10, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
>> (in article <k9iqn8Flc2kU1@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>>> To each his own, but SSDs are generally more expensive per terabyte.
>>> And backup processes run in the background where speed isn't a
>>> general concern. So that extra cost isn't really getting you nearly
>>> as much bang for the buck as using an SSD as a boot drive would.
>>
>> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have
>> to listen to the noise generated by spinners. At least with the old
>> external Maxtor spinners I used to use, maybe some other brands are
>> fairly quiet.
>
> Backup drives you can get cheaply today don't make noise like that
> anymore. You can pick up a 2TB portable external backup drive from
> Amazon for ~$60 today, whereas a reputable brand 2TB SSD will run you
> over $100. Or a 4TB external hard drive will run ~$100, while a 4TB
> SSD will run $220-250.

There is one benefit of using an SSD that is pretty valid though: no
moving parts. If you introduce physical shock (bumping it the wrong way
or dropping it, for instance) to a hard drive, you could crash the
drive. That can't happen with an SSD.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-04-11 17:25:57 +0000, Alan said:

> On 2023-04-10 16:47, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-04-10 18:29, super70s wrote:
>>
>>> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have to
>>> listen to the noise generated by spinners.
>>
>> Have a USB powered 2.5" HDD 1 TB external for my SO's backup disk.
>>
>> Silent.
>>
>
> I can second that.
>
> I have two USB powered HDDs I rotate for backup and neither makes any
> discernible noise.

OK I sort of abandoned my noisy spinners which were pretty old a while
ago in favor of SSDs and never looked back.

Maybe I can also put forth the SSD advantage of the small footprint on
your desk, my two SSDs only take up 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" of space (stacked).

On 2023-04-11 15:19, super70s wrote:
> On 2023-04-11 17:25:57 +0000, Alan said:
>
>> On 2023-04-10 16:47, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2023-04-10 18:29, super70s wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have to
>>>> listen to the noise generated by spinners.
>>>
>>> Have a USB powered 2.5" HDD 1 TB external for my SO's backup disk.
>>>
>>> Silent.
>>>
>>
>> I can second that.
>>
>> I have two USB powered HDDs I rotate for backup and neither makes any
>> discernible noise.
>
> OK I sort of abandoned my noisy spinners which were pretty old a while
> ago in favor of SSDs and never looked back.
>
> Maybe I can also put forth the SSD advantage of the small footprint on
> your desk, my two SSDs only take up 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" of space (stacked).

Encased 2.5" HDD's : 2.4" x 3.5" x 0.45" - in my SO's case they fit in
a slot in her antique desk.

Lots more storage / $. Quiet. Rather: silent.

My external storage is disk caddies on the corner of my desk sporting
3.5" drives. I rotate these out monthish-ly.
(Also quiet).

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-04-10 20:31, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-04-11, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-04-10, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
>>> (in article <k9iqn8Flc2kU1@mid.individual.net>):
>>>
>>>> To each his own, but SSDs are generally more expensive per terabyte.
>>>> And backup processes run in the background where speed isn't a
>>>> general concern. So that extra cost isn't really getting you nearly
>>>> as much bang for the buck as using an SSD as a boot drive would.
>>>
>>> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have
>>> to listen to the noise generated by spinners. At least with the old
>>> external Maxtor spinners I used to use, maybe some other brands are
>>> fairly quiet.
>>
>> Backup drives you can get cheaply today don't make noise like that
>> anymore. You can pick up a 2TB portable external backup drive from
>> Amazon for ~$60 today, whereas a reputable brand 2TB SSD will run you
>> over $100. Or a 4TB external hard drive will run ~$100, while a 4TB
>> SSD will run $220-250.
>
> There is one benefit of using an SSD that is pretty valid though: no
> moving parts. If you introduce physical shock (bumping it the wrong way
> or dropping it, for instance) to a hard drive, you could crash the
> drive. That can't happen with an SSD.

2.5" drives usually have "fall detection" which retracts the head to a
safely parked position that can withstand quite a shock. (And when
unpowered, that is where the head is parked)

Many years ago (90's) I dropped a 3.5" drive onto the floor while doing
an install and assumed the drive would be toast. It went on for many
years of reliable main drive use on that Windows machine.

In my old digs I wrote s/w for flight data recorders (for engineering
purposes for various airborne sensors (radar, GPS, etc.)) and some of
them used HDD's from the late 80s to early 90's. Never had a dropped
bit (that was detected, anyway - used pretty basic checksums /
reasonableness checking).

I agree that SSDs should be more immune to shock than HDDs but HDDs are
still remarkably robust.

Example HDD - Seagate Barracuda - (2007).
Operational shock 68g / 2ms.
Non-op shock: 300g / 11 ms.

2ms is a narrow shock band. (For reference military and commercial
avionics are usually qualified in a 11ms shock period - and to far less
shock than above) - OTOH, the vibration requirement is probably too hard
on an unprotected HDD to survive 1000's of hours. Esp. if machine gun
fire is included in the platform spec. (equipoment could be mounted on
vibration mounts - but that does have its limits).

https://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda%207200.10/100402371f.pdf

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-04-10 16:47, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-04-10 18:29, super70s wrote:
>
>> As far as external hard drives go SSDs are worth it just to not have to
>> listen to the noise generated by spinners.
>
> Have a USB powered 2.5" HDD 1 TB external for my SO's backup disk.
>
> Silent.
>

I can second that.

I have two USB powered HDDs I rotate for backup and neither makes any
discernible noise.