Portable vs desktop hard drives

[Scott_R]

I'm finally replacing the NAS drive I've been using for Time Machine, having gotten fed up with corrupted backups.

I'm looking into a 4TB Seagate Backup Plus Drive. There are two models: a desktop and a portable (USB-powered) drive.

It seemed to be a no-brainer, as the portable is only $5 more and doesn't need a power brick. That has me wondering: why would someone choose the desktop model over the portable? As far as I can see, the specs are the same. I don't really need the portability itself, but not having to find a spot to plug in yet another brick seems compelling.

 

[chscag]

Before you spend your dollars, do some research on which large capacity hard drives are durable and last the longest. Seagate comes in at around the bottom of the list.

 

[Ember1205]

Commonly, a portable drive will be slower on data transfer rates as the limiting factor is in the enclosure and electronics that connect the drive to the machine. Check the data transfer rate of the drive itself, then check to see what the max transfer rate is of the portable version based on the USB connectivity. Convenience typically has a cost associated with it.

 

[RadDave]

Before you spend your dollars, do some research on which large capacity hard drives are durable and last the longest. Seagate comes in at around the bottom of the list.

@ Scott - first, I'm assuming that you are looking at the two Seagate external HDs below (from Amazon) - there has been some discussion in the forum about using USB-powered vs. an AC adapter for power to backup drive(s) w/ a number of members here using AC powered HDs; but the smaller size & portability of the USB HDs is attractive - for myself, I have about 6 external HDs (mixture of manufacturers) and all are USB-powered, so I've opted for those features and also the goal to reduce 'cord clutter'.

As to which manufacturer to favor, PC Mag did a review just a few months ago and two Seagate HDs were included in their 'Editor's Choice' - click the link for more information.

Finally, as stated above, Seagate has had a poor reputation for higher failure rates of its HDs, and I've in the past posted charts from the online backup firm, Backblaze clearly showing poorer longevity from this company; however, some of their most recent data/charts seem to indicate an improvement (see the 2nd pic below & the quote) - SO w/ this information in hand, you should be able to make a choice. Good luck. Dave

All of the 4TB drives have acceptable failure rates, but we’ve purchased primarily Seagate drives. Why? The HGST 4TB drives, while showing exceptionally low failure rates, are no longer available having been replaced with higher priced, higher performing models. The readily available and highly competitive price of the Seagate 4TB drives, along with their solid performance and respectable failure rates, have made them our drive of choice (Source - click Backblaze link)

.

 

[pigoo3]

That has me wondering: why would someone choose the desktop model over the portable?

Why?? Because to the best of my knowledge 3.5" desktop hard drives have always been more durable than 2.5" laptop/notebook HD's (kind of the price that's paid for smaller size & lightweight).

Apple has always used 3.5" hard drives in the Time Capsule…which makes sense to me. A backup device like the Time Capsule is always on (24-7-365)…with years & years of expected service life. You don't put an "el-cheapo" hard drive into a backup device like this.

Now I do know folks who like to carry with them (on the go) a portable USB powered 2.5" HD for on-the-fly backing up. But if I was going to have one main backup drive (that might be running all the time)…I would get a good quality 3.5" enterprise drive (business quality drive).

- Nick

p.s. Time Capsule HD's may be put to sleep from time to time. The Time capsule device is always on (the WiFi portion)…and the backup HD inside is ready to be put to into action at anytime backups are automatically scheduled (which can be hourly).

 

[RadDave]

Why?? Because to the best of my knowledge 3.5" desktop hard drives have always been more durable than 2.5" laptop/notebook HD's (kind of the price that's paid for smaller size & lightweight)................

Great point, Nick, and yet another consideration! When still working and on PCs, my external BU HDs were all AC-powered 3.5" drives - now, I'm just using 2.5" portable USB-powered HDs.

But, I was doing some 'googling' trying to find information pertaining to reliability & longevity of these two different size HDs - not much available except 'opinions' of forums - would be curious? Thanks again - Dave

 

[pigoo3]

But, I was doing some 'googling' trying to find information pertaining to reliability & longevity of these two different size HDs - not much available except 'opinions' of forums - would be curious?

Great question Dave. I did some "Googling" as well to try to find something to link…but not much showing up (other than opinions on various forums).

With SSD's and the like being the much more "sexier" topic for the past few years…recent info on HD durability is not so common.

For what it's worth…I've read that many "server farms" use 2.5" drives. The goal here could be lower energy consumption or more gigabytes/terabytes per unit area compared to 3.5" HD's (rather than pure durability being the goal).

3.5" drives used to be less expensive as well…so at one time they would be the lower cost choice. But the price gap may be closing (OP mentioned only $5.00 difference between the drives they were looking at).

I've also trusted that if Apple was using 3.5" drives in the Time Capsule (even the newest version)…that was for a reason other than just cost. I still feel (gut-feeling) that 3.5" drives are more durable long term.

Finally I've also heard of some "server-class" 2.5" HD's…versus "consumer-class" 2.5" HD's. So these "server-class" 2.5" HD's may be the way to go (but maybe they are also more expensive than "server-class" 3.5" HD's).

Maybe the better answer is…the cost (lower) and availability (easier) of a server-class 3.5" HD is better than server class 2.5" HD's.

- Nick

 

[elf69]

If your wanting NAS they why not buy a LAN/Ethernet caddy?

I would suggest desktop and NAS quality drives like WD RED drives as they are designed for constant on.

Not cheap but will last longer.

We have supplied these to a museum and NHS as backup drives.

 

[pigoo3]

Thanks for mentioning WD Red drives "elf69".

Did a quick look…and found this (link below). There are "WD Red" and "WD Red Pro" drives. And interestingly…the WD Red Pro only comes in the 3.5" desktop size. Not 100% sure if this implies that 3.5" drives are more durable than 2.5" drives or not. Or maybe the technology used in 3.5" WD Red Pro drives is too bulky to implement in a WD Red Pro 2.5" drive.

http://promotions.newegg.com/wd/14-...gclid=CMvUnOOm88wCFYJZhgoducoONw&gclsrc=aw.ds

Found this interesting graphic from the link as well.



- Nick

 

[pigoo3]

And in case someone was interested in what WD Purple HD's were all about:

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=1210

- Nick

 

[Scott_R]

If your wanting NAS they why not buy a LAN/Ethernet caddy?

I would suggest desktop and NAS quality drives like WD RED drives as they are designed for constant on.

Not cheap but will last longer.

We have supplied these to a museum and NHS as backup drives.

I don't want NAS. I've had nonstop corruption issues ("Time Machine completed a verification of your backups. To improve reliability, Time Machine must create a new backup for you."), where I'll have to create a new backup, then get a verification error the next day. From what I've read this seems to be SOP for Time Machine via NAS--less so for Time Capsule than a non-Apple networked drive, but still annoyingly frequent (current drive is a WD that supposedly has TM support). I'd gone for NAS over gigabit Ethernet so I could easily back up my iMac and MacBook to the same big volume, but the nonstop corruption issues aren't worth it. I'll get direct hookup drives for now on.

 

[Scott_R]

Thanks for the replies. I had in fact looked at the Backblaze ratings, but only the info about drives overall and not 4TB specific; for the former, Seagate had seemed reasonably reliable.

There are only a few drive manufacturers left now. The PC Mag review doesn't mention which mechanisms the drives use--LaCie is owned by Seagate, for example, and the Buffalo also has a Seagate drive; I guess they aren't rating reliability, only features and ease of use. I want a reliable, relatively speedy drive, though speed is a lesser factor since it's just backing things up in the background rather than real-time need.

In the past I've probably had more enclosure failures than drive failures (obviously mostly less of a disaster), and I haven't found reliability reviews for enclosures.

(I'd written this reply before the one above and thought I'd posted it, but obviously I hadn't.)

 

[elf69]

Scott we see many enclosure fails at my work but as you say few HDD fails.

 

[Gary Brackins]

Scott,

a multiple backup strategy is what I use since my data for work is important to the success of my business. My thought is that all drives eventually fail (no matter who makes 'em), so if I have my data in multiple locations then less likely am I to lose the data. I have a couple of old LaCie's (replaced the drives in them with WD Red drives) that I backup to every month ( use automator) just as a static non-powered storage option. I have 6 G-Technology powered units (HGST & Hitachi drives), 2 set to Time Machine, and 4 set to Carbon Copy Cloner (set to different clone intervals), one gets cloned weekly and stored off-site in a safe deposit box at my bank (use two units for this). I also use Carbonite (off-site) and iCloud (use automator to back certain files types to iCloud).

just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I won't lose my data .... but hopefully not. hmmm, maybe I should get a few more drives just in case ......

moral of the storage story the more the better, I originally started with Seagate and WD drives (less expensive options) and replaced them over time, but I always had multiple backup sources.

 

[Scott_R]

I do have redundant backups, to an extent. I use a Time Machine backup for my Home folder, and I backup my Documents folder to a second drive using Carbon Copy Cloner--that folder only as it contains my irreplaceable user data. Worst case scenario, I can always reinstall applications if both my internal drive and my Time Machine backup fail, so I don't absolutely need by whole Home folder, but the rest, the irreplaceable stuff, gets backed up into a second location on a removable drive.

But the NAS has proven to be much too unreliable. I have that second drive but with how easily corrupted and useless the network TM backup has proven to be, that second drive, practically speaking, has become the main backup.