Computer Audio Asylum

Not the opposite at all....

73.229.163.4

AbeCollins

A

In Reply to: RE: My approach is the opposite of yours posted by E-Stat on January 09, 2025 at 14:48:30

Speed + Speed + Slow + Slow here
I prefer the faster access and write speed on my computer across all my applications too AS WELL AS faster direct-attached backups.
The backup for my backups reside on NAS and run while I'm asleep and here speed is a non-issue. And then there are backups of my NAS to external USB HDD which is also slow but doesn't matter.
I have multiple tiers of backups and it varies depending on the computer. We have 4 of them that are in regular use. In general, everything is on an automated and coordinated non-conflicting schedule so they don't 'collide'

Edits: 01/09/25

Follow Ups:

In my system - E-Stat 17:21:24 01/09/25 (2)
All data is stored on the mirrored NAS for fault tolerance and centralized backup. Consequently, don't bother with Time Machine. Only applications, local copy of iCloud photos and messages are found on the MacMini. A third of space used is for Parallels alone! Attach external USB based SSDs for periodic Carbon Copy Cloner OS images.

Sibelius' recent post revealed that Apple still wants $800 for 2 TB internal M.2 storage five years later. Doubt that I will go that route the next time around either.

Spinning rust used exclusively for backup purposes.

Fifteen year old Dell Studio tower running Win7 still working fine. OS on SSD with 2 TB spinning rust drive serving as yet another backup copy of data including multiple copies of Macrium based OS image backups. Used for ripping music and video and running Geoclock as it isn't supported under Win10. Here is other side of office where wifey plugs in university MacBook Pro for working at home.
- RE: In my system - AbeCollins 21:59:53 01/09/25 (1)
  I'm doing Time Machine local, Carbon Copy Cloner local and to NAS, and USB-Copy from NAS to external USB HDD. All bases covered and then some, including a disk in the gun safe and offsite.
  
  I was looking at the Apple website and the storage pricing goes like this:
  
  - 256 to 512 +$200
  - 512 to 1TB +$200
  - 1TB to 2TB +$400
  
  In my case I feel more comfortable having at least 512GB for my general purpose computing for a couple reasons. My Intel Mac Mini has 1TB and 312GB is consumed. Had it been a 512GB SSD I'd have 200GB free which is still plenty of headroom for user and 'wear leveling'. 256 would be insufficient.
  
  However, my Mac Mini M1 music server has only 256GB but it's just a dedicated music server.
  
  My next Mac Mini will either have 512GB of Apple storage.... Or I might 3rd party upgrade to 2TB. Most recent Mac Minis had NAND storage soldered directly to the motherboard but the new Mac Mini M4's (and the Mac Studio) use a proprietary module. The key word being 'proprietary' but at least one company based in China is making them. I'm sure more will come on board including some in the US. We'll have to wait and see.
  
  The end user upgrade process is a little more involved than just swapping a module. You'll need another recent Mac (2015 or newer) to run DFU mode between the two Macs over a USB-C cable.
  - Exactly! - E-Stat 05:42:17 01/10/25 (0)
    - 256 to 512 +$200
    - 512 to 1TB +$200
    - 1TB to 2TB +$400
    
    $800 to meet my storage needs with zero fault tolerance. Pass.
    
    Hard drives are the new CFLs. Use until they die and replace with SSD.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.