Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The drives a 3.5 inch drive so it pulls more power than 2.5 inch hdd or usb, ssd. Plug it in or it might not work or it might draw too much power from the port?
Likely a 5400 rpm smr? Pcpartpicker might have the stats?
Running crystal disk will likely tell you the stats. Shouldn't be hard to find the rpm a variety of ways. No need to open stuff up.
Back up your back ups because external drives die to. The components can fry vs disk failure. Same as any external/internal drive.
im guessing keep allocation default? and format ntfs like i have done with my other externals?
Ntfs should be fine.
so, keep POWER plugged in, take out usb when not in use, back up back ups, and proceed as usual. sound about right?
ntfs will work with windows, but is maybe one of the worst file systems there is. When formatting, you will lose a bit of the space, which is normal.
CMR or SMR? SMR will be very very slow when you are copying the data to the drive initially. Oh and SMR is not great for any NAS type of setup.
So for me. Ay data of any importance is on on alder machine being used as a server.
It has a Trunenas Virtual machine 5 x 4TB CMR drives in raidZ1. It give me not far off 16TB storage, with 1 drive redundancy.
I would not put anything remotely important on anything else but ZFS. It is accessed over the network. I think windows cannot read/use ZFS directly.
It is all backed up with USB external drives also - linux drives and not NTFS.
My 5 TB seagate suddenly died at 3 years old and sent it to a professional as my life was on it.
He could not repair it and couldnt place into a donar drive as Seagate doesnt allow switching parts.
May I recomend Western Digital. More reliable lasts longer. Is repairable.
SMR is a method of storing data that overlays the data tracks (think like shingles, hence what the "S" stands for). It does this to fit more capacity in a given area. The drawback is that if it ever has to write where there is already data in a neighboring track that is overlaying it, it will have to rip up some stuff and rewrite it alone with whatever write instruction it was originally trying to do.
CMR doesn't do any of this, but costs more as the same capacity will, all else being equal, need more platter space I believe.
It's personal preference on if you go with CMR or SMR. I dislike SMR and won't even go with it on an internal drive, but my external 5 TB (portable) drive is SMR. While it hasn't been the end of the world, it can get annoying at times when writes only occur at 30 MB/s. Then for seemingly no reason, weeks later, it's going 90 MB/s to 110 MB/s.
I'd say if it's a drive that will serve a "write few, read many" role, where you will put stuff on it and not add to/edit it often (like I do with my storage drives, hence SMR is something I avoid), then SMR is fine for the savings, but otherwise CMR is better.
As for RPM, 7,200 RPM isn't worth paying for in a storage drive IMO. 7,200 RPM HDDs in the consumer space are probably the first to be going the way of the dodo. I know it might seem backwards to say given what I said about SMR and CMR, but the performance gains from 7,200 RPM over 5,400 RPM aren't drastic, at least certainly not for a storage role drive, but maybe even in general. HDDs are slow anyway and 7,200 RPM isn't saving them. It's a needless expense of noise, heat, spin up time, and cost for something that doesn't really matter for a storage drive. Rather have the savings or just use the added cost for a higher capacity (something that can matter for storage drives) instead. SMR on the other hand can bring performance down many times over in the right conditions, so I will avoid it most of the times.
AFAIK though, most things at 8 TB or above should be CMR anyway, so if you're looking at 14 TB I'd be shocked if it's SMR. SMR is mostly on consumer level drives in the TB range below that size. Above that size is mostly enterprise/NAS level drives which, a few exceptions aside, should always be CMR.
Anyways, thank you all. Seriously no other community like Steam
Can also keep the old copies and delete as necessary. Make a delete folder? Should act as a back up at no extra cost since you still perform the same actions. New hdd might break before files are transferred anyways if your unlucky.
Run some short hdd tests and see what crystal disk info says after the data is transferred.
this is typical, 3.5in externals usually contain enterprise disks that fail certain stages of QC