Before SSDs and USB sticks, some people would use external hard drives
as a backup medium. Being faster and more capacious than optical media
made it more convenient. But there was always the risk that, after
sitting on the shelf for months or years, when it came time to power
the drive up, it would no longer work.

Now it seems something similar may afflict SSDs <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/unpowered-ssd-endurance-investigation-finds-severe-data-loss-and-performance-issues-reminds-us-of-the-importance-of-refreshing-backups>.
Of course this sample is too small to draw any definite conclusions
from. But as always, it reinforces the idea that more backups is
better than fewer.

That is, so long as you label them properly and don’t get mixed up
mistaking an older, obsolete backup for a newer, more up-to-date one
...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Now it seems something similar may afflict SSDs ><https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/unpowered-ssd-endurance-investigation-finds-severe-data-loss-and-performance-issues-reminds-us-of-the-importance-of-refreshing-backups>.
Of course this sample is too small to draw any definite conclusions
from. But as always, it reinforces the idea that more backups is
better than fewer.

This is a well-known effect.... basically the charge leaks out of those
little cells. The fewer states per cell, the longer they last, but on
the whole you want to keep power on them if you have long-term data storage, just like Seagate says in the datasheet.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)