[Leaplist] Re: Refurbished Hard Drive

Wed Feb 3 13:34:44 EST 2010

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would agree with this too.  I have never liked the idea of shuffling
around an external hard drive for backups.  I prefer to have a
designated backup computer(s) with internal hard drive(s) that store my
backups.  Not only does this provide better reliability but IMO it
provides better security too.

The way I think that it provides better security is that the backup
server has access to pull backups from other systems but those systems
have no access to the backups at all.  This completely eliminates the
possibility of someone hacking into your web server then wiping the
server and all backups of it even if they happen to get in while a
backup is running.

There have been at least 2 high profile cases of just that happening.

On 02/03/10 12:49, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Consider not putting your eggs in one basket, and maintaining
> a dedicated "full copy" on another drive.
> 
> As you may have read in my other posts, I only use 2.5" portables
> for portable storage, not permanent or backup.
> 
> --- MORE DETAILS ---
> 
> For permanent and backup, I only use internal drives.  This
> includes for off-line backup, in trayless 2.5" bays, which can be
> moved off-site (put into rubber covers and stored for a few weeks).
> 
> Most specifically, for my dSLR photos ...
> - Internal server storage (4x-12x 2.5" tray)
> - Internal backup disks (2x 2.5" trayless, only one copy for photos)
> - Portable disk (2.5") for sharing only (not backup)
> 
> I have only one backup disk dedicated to a second copy of photos.
> I don't keep a running set of backup disks simply because I've already
> taken 1TB of photos (aggregately 50,000 accuations of RAW+JPEG)
> with my 6-14.6MP dSLR cameras over the last 3+ years.
> 
> The most important photos are already edited and published in
> other directories that are regularly backed up with my 1-2-3 cycle
> to 2.5" drives.  Those likely only take up 25GB or so, so I can afford
> to do so.
> 
> 
>  -- 
> Bryan J  Smith           Professional, Technical Annoyance 
> Linked Profile:         http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith 
> ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> Red Hat:  That 'other' American software company built on
> open customer selection of options and value, instead of
> controlled distribution channels of forced bundle and lock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Ram K. Singh <rksingh54 at yahoo.com>
> To: This is the Leap Main List <leaplist at leap-cf.org>
> Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 12:36:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leaplist] Refurbished Hard Drive
> 
> 
> Thanks Gentlemen,
> 
> I appreciate your input. I would stick with new 2.5" portable drives since the files on the drive would be very valuable family photo and documents.
> 
> Ram
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Kevin Inscoe <kevin at inscoe.org>
> To: This is the Leap Main List <leaplist at leap-cf.org>
> Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 6:36:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leaplist] Refurbished Hard Drive
> 
> To add to the cacophony here I agree largely with Bryan. Refurb means
> one thing: it failed for somebody (or several people) at some point in
> it's life cycle (most likely early on) and that by definition make
> something like a hard drive suspect. However it's all about the data.
> How important is this data? Is just backups? Maybe this would be just
> fine. Are you going to use it in a RAID or mirror to another cheap
> refurb drive? There again since the likely hood of two points of
> failure is not likely it would be fine. Have to weight out the cost vs
> risk. Do you get a warranty of any kind? The seller doesn't want this
> returned (yet again) so it's not super likely to fail at least not in
> the warranty cycle anyway. If this were your primary and only data
> drive I would not trust it.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
>> First off, I would never, ever recommend the purchase of a
>> refurbished hard drive.  Mechanics are things I never like to
>> get refurbished.
>>
>> Secondly, as you may have noticed, I'm partial to 2.5" drives.
>> Now I'm partial to 2.5" drives for everything, internal and
>> external.  But while some could argue 3.5" internal drives
>> (especially since 3.5" prices have dropped while 2.5" have not
>> nearly as much), I wouldn't disagree, I absolutely believe 3.5"
>> external drives should _never_ be purchased.
>>
>> So for an external drive, I would recommend this 1TB drive
>> (WDBABM0010BBK):
>> http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=722
>>
>> It is a 2.5"x12mm high drive with 3 platters at 333MB/platter.
>> I've seen them for $160 on-sale.
>>
>> Yes, it's more than a 3.5" drive.
>>
>> But as someone who has flown at least twice per week, pockets his
>> drive in his bag and pulls it out at least twice per day, etc... for years,
>> I can honestly say I abuse the heck out of the half-dozen 2.5" external
>> drives I have.
>>
>> None have died yet.
>>
>> Cannot say the same about the 3.5" FreeAgent Pro drives that sat
>> on my desk in New York for 6 months.  I know others have had issues
>> with their MyBook as well.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ram K. Singh <rksingh54 at yahoo.com>
>>
>> I am looking for a USB Hard Drive of one TB Capacity.
>> I am finding many Refurbished drives for a reasonable price.
>> Do the professionals have opinion on Refurbished drives?
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leaplist mailing list
>> Leaplist at leap-cf.org
>> http://lists.leap-cf.org/mailman/listinfo/leaplist
>>
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
	Kevin Korb			Phone:    (407) 252-6853
	Systems Administrator		Internet:
	FutureQuest, Inc.		Kevin at FutureQuest.net  (work)
	Orlando, Florida		kmk at sanitarium.net (personal)
	Web page:			http://www.sanitarium.net/
	PGP public key available on web site.
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktpwcQACgkQVKC1jlbQAQchIwCggNsJV6REmk17vcuRqj84MOPy
ynUAn1Slvzi483md7h1MhIaIszhexIgD
=3w/Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.