SSD drives versus USB flash drives for backup storage

[pitingres]

You do you boo. We tried to help, they (you?) don't want it.

Sayonara.

No, you didn't help, because you didn't answer the question. It wasn't "are USB flash drives crap for backup", it was "WHY might they be crap for backup." I heard all sorts of derisive replies saying that they are crap, and very few (and only recent) giving any good reason for it. A couple posters suggested that it was because of cheap components, although I find that to be sort of a half-answer; are they regular parts that failed higher binning standards, or are they actually marginal designs, or a different kind of flash, or what?

I personally don't care, but I find it irritating when people answer a different question from the one asked, and then get all pissy about it when the original question is pursued.

 

[Nenu]

His questions were:
"why are SSD drives worth it, for doing backups, compared with USB flash drives? Is it speed? Is it reliability? Is it lifetime? Why do people even bother getting full up SSD drives (e.g. SATA),instead of USB flash drives for storage?"

USB drives break or die often.
When they break or die = crap quality component(s).
Them breaking or dieing so easily makes them unsuitable for backups.
The most important final answer is reliability, though speed figures too.
All of which was covered in the thread.

 

[LigTasm]

I have about a dozen USB flash drives, including a transcend unit that has a whopping 32MB capacity from god knows when, not a single one has ever failed. On the other hand, I have an entire box of 100+ failed SSDs and HDDs (all SATA, I've never seen an NVME drive fail). I have an old 8GB PNY thumb drive that was in a car for almost 10 years plugged into the radio with some songs on it, still works fine.

That being said, I don't bother using them for backups because they're just too slow. The fastest drives on the market can't be compared to a cheap 1TB spinner with a USB to SATA adapter if you want to save a bunch of stuff long term and do it at a decent price, it simply doesn't make sense.

 

[travm]

it was "WHY might they be crap for backup." I heard all sorts of derisive replies saying that they are crap, and very few (and only recent) giving any good reason for it.

Because they are more apt to fail is a pretty damn good reason. Asking why they are more likely to fail is both difficult up answer, and stupid. Just put the sugar in the cookies, trust me...

A couple posters suggested that it was because of cheap components, although I find that to be sort of a half-answer; are they regular parts that failed higher binning standards, or are they actually marginal designs, or a different kind of flash, or what?

Different Flash, I'm not a semiconductor designer. You're also not likely to find one interested in entertaining such a question from someone with an attitude of disbelief about everything.

I personally don't care, but I find it irritating when people answer a different question from the one asked, and then get all pissy about it when the original question is pursued.

We migrated way off the original question. Kind of like how toddlers keep asking why to every question you answer.

 

[uOpt]

The root of the problem is that the manufacturers don't give specific information that could be used to estimate the durability. Especially for flash cards and USB sticks.

 

[Gomar]

SSDs cost x4 than spinners;
Flash(USB) drives and SD cards I keep in the safe box in bank.