The unit has air vents around its base, and has an internal fan, in an effort to keep the hard drive cool. All of the Ethernet ports are of the gigabit variety, as large backups over 100Mbit would be, well, unbearable. The firmware for the Time Capsule is set up to dedicate the internal drive solely for Time Machine. It is, more or less, an AirPort Extreme base station with an internal single-channel SATA bus. I lived with the noise, and worried about the hard drive's longevity due to the heat it produced, for about nine months before deciding to do something about it.įirst, some background on the Time Capsule's innards. My Time Capsule sits on my desk I didn't want to stuff it in a corner somewhere, as I didn't want to reduce its wireless range (especially since there are no external antenna ports to which I could attach high-gain antennas, as I had with my previous Linksys wireless router). When I got it home and set it up, it worked perfectly, except I soon realized that the internal hard drive, which Apple calls "server-grade," was fairly noisy and ran hot. I picked up a 500GB model as soon as they hit store shelves I could have opted for the 1TB unit, but felt that almost $500 for it was a bit excessive. It even sports a USB 2.0 port for connecting a printer or external hard drive to share over the network. Overall, Time Capsule is a great product - a draft-802.11n wireless router, 3-port gigabit Ethernet switch, and hard drive all in one compact unit. It would work with Time Machine, the built-in backup software in OS X 10.5, to quietly and seamlessly back up the hard drives in both my own and my wife's Macs. When Apple's Time Capsule - a wireless router with a built-in hard drive - was announced at the 2008 Macworld Expo, I knew I needed one. It's not that I didn't care about my data I simply didn't have the time to spend to set up a full backup solution. Maybe once a year I'd burn a DVD with my most important files and stick it in a drawer somewhere, but that was about all the more protection I gave myself against data loss. HD's are now mostly used for bulk storage of data.Like most computer users, I used to only back up my data occasionally (if ever). Other vendors have also improved too with their quality! Today we use SSD's throughout our systems both laptop & desktop. In fact just a year later we encountered no SSD failures! We moved to Samsung and we continued to use them with I think just one failure in the last five years. Update: its five years later with this entry A lot has changed! SSD's are now 1000's of times better than what we were using back then. But, unlike desktops & laptops this data is not altered as often and better quality SSD's are used (more expensive) and use high speed inter-connections. Now in a data center using SSD's as a front end storage makes sense as the speed it offers across the servers has its advantages. If its in a desktop or NAS device that is not being moved about it a HD drive is still ideal. A HD over it's lifetime can be rewritten a lot more times, but the mechanics of the drive can fail. But, the point still remains SSD's do wear out. Granted these were early versions of SSD's & we are very hard on constant changing of data on these laptops so that could be a factor as well. I've now replaced a good dozen of SSD's which are just worn out this year. But even still, the amount of data on the device that is altered wears it. A device that is mobile like a laptop I do think it is a better fit. I'm not so sure if SSD's are more reliable in all cases. As to the question on reliability between a HD Vs SSD storage.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |