I think with modern SSDs, the improvement in write endurance means that you'll probably upgrade the drive before you end up wearing out the NAND flash anyway. Now there are applications with a lot of writes that will wear out the flash like using the SSD for a video editing scratch drive but for normal use and backup you'll probably get a decent amount of years from a SSD.

Personally I use HDDs for backup but the main reason for that is the low cost per TB on HDDs compared to SSDs.

I recommends mechanical HDD over SSD as a backup device, because SSD, being a flash memory based drive, have a limited write lifetime, and backup consists of mainly writing. Eventually after lots of backups, the SSD will loss its speed and performance and causing writes problems.

We had a mechanical HDD failure a few years ago. We had to send it out to a data recovery service for $1000 to recover the data.
Fortunately, being a mechanical HDD they were able to recover the data as it is physically still on the disks. Unfortunately, it cost a ton of money.

I think with modern SSDs, the improvement in write endurance means that you'll probably upgrade the drive before you end up wearing out the NAND flash anyway. Now there are applications with a lot of writes that will wear out the flash like using the SSD for a video editing scratch drive but for normal use and backup you'll probably get a decent amount of years from a SSD.

Personally I use HDDs for backup but the main reason for that is the low cost per TB on HDDs compared to SSDs.

Not be too confident with ssd: they are unpredictable compared to hdd.
Where i work, we have a lot of pc with ssd, various brands, sometimes they lose data or fail completely (best case scenario: they become ROM, worse case: disk is totally inaccessible, worst case: some cells become corrupted smart values are ok, FS structure seems to be ok, but silently, all files are corrupted)
Also, beware of TLC and QLC disks: more bit stuffing for cell, less reliable are cells.

About backup: you can use optical media and external hdd, this combination provides good chances to data recovery in case of failure, accidental deletion or ransomware (due rom, they cannot be wiped due a virus)
Personally, i don't rely on cloud: everything can vanish in case of error, delayed payment, eula change.
I store most of my data on a NAS, which i backup on 6 month basis: multiple external hdd for fast access and on multiple 25GB BDs in case of HDD failure or accidental file deletion.

Not be too confident with ssd: they are unpredictable compared to hdd.
Where i work, we have a lot of pc with ssd, various brands, sometimes they lose data or fail completely (best case scenario: they become ROM, worse case: disk is totally inaccessible, worst case: some cells become corrupted smart values are ok, FS structure seems to be ok, but silently, all files are corrupted)
Also, beware of TLC and QLC disks: more bit stuffing for cell, less reliable are cells.

About backup: you can use optical media and external hdd, this combination provides good chances to data recovery in case of failure, accidental deletion or ransomware (due rom, they cannot be wiped due a virus)
Personally, i don't rely on cloud: everything can vanish in case of error, delayed payment, eula change.
I store most of my data on a NAS, which i backup on 6 month basis: multiple external hdd for fast access and on multiple 25GB BDs in case of HDD failure or accidental file deletion.

My Windoze machine (which is used very rarely, only when I need something that won't run under Linux) has a 250GB SSD and so far it's performed ok. I may consider fitting them to the Linux machines, we'll see how the finances go over the next few months.

I also back up everything here to NAS drives, we have two Buffalo Terastation units in the rack, one is used mainly as a shared drive/file server, the other is for making backups of the systems on all three computers (all Dell E6430 laptops on docking stations).

We're looking to replace the Buffalo drives soon though, as one of them is starting to report bad sectors, although it swaps them out at least for the time being, but they're both well over 10 years old so they've done well.

My Windoze machine (which is used very rarely, only when I need something that won't run under Linux) has a 250GB SSD and so far it's performed ok. I may consider fitting them to the Linux machines, we'll see how the finances go over the next few months.

I also back up everything here to NAS drives, we have two Buffalo Terastation units in the rack, one is used mainly as a shared drive/file server, the other is for making backups of the systems on all three computers (all Dell E6430 laptops on docking stations).

We're looking to replace the Buffalo drives soon though, as one of them is starting to report bad sectors, although it swaps them out at least for the time being, but they're both well over 10 years old so they've done well.

About bad block, they are a nuissance, i replaces all old 3TB (3.5" WD Green) drive with newer 2.5" mixed 3TB and 4TB drives, at the moment, no issues despite all new drives use SMR (i use nas for document and media storage, so write performance isn't a big issue).

However, suzukir122, do you have any news?

The amount of writing done during a backup is nothing compared to what the drive gets all the time on a Windows computer just from being ON and left displaying the desktop. Yet the latter is where SSD gives a good performance advantage...

Using SSDs for backups ?

Cost/GB is definitely in favor of HDDs

Reliability is probably in favor of HDDs if treated well, however, an SSD have better chance of surviving being dropped on the floor. So it could work both ways

But as long as you back up, you are good to go with whatever drive you want - Both for the computer and for the backup media

Indeed. My Buffalo NAS drives are running in Raid 5 configuration so a failed drive is not the end of the world so long as replacements are available. In any case, we will have to replace them soon as the next release of Fedora will stop supporting SAMBA 1 so we won't be able to access them at all  

They say it's for security reasons, well isn't it up to me as the administrator of my own network to decide what I consider a security risk..? Why should I have to replace perfectly good (assuming I can get the drives) equipment because some anonymous developer decides it's a "security risk"  

Sorry, rant over..

Indeed. My Buffalo NAS drives are running in Raid 5 configuration so a failed drive is not the end of the world so long as replacements are available. In any case, we will have to replace them soon as the next release of Fedora will stop supporting SAMBA 1 so we won't be able to access them at all  

They say it's for security reasons, well isn't it up to me as the administrator of my own network to decide what I consider a security risk..? Why should I have to replace perfectly good (assuming I can get the drives) equipment because some anonymous developer decides it's a "security risk"  

Sorry, rant over..

Raid5 can have big side effects if one of the disks get an bad sector during rebuilding.

However, no firmware updates for your NAS?
Fedora? I abandoned it long time ago (2012), would you try Debian or Ubuntu?

Raid5 can have big side effects if one of the disks get an bad sector during rebuilding.

However, no firmware updates for your NAS?
Fedora? I abandoned it long time ago (2012), would you try Debian or Ubuntu?

Well let's just hope it doesn't happen..!

No firmware updates that I'm aware of, but they rarely issue them for devices once they're no longer in production. Yes I've tried Debian and Ubuntu, which is based on it and I don't like it. Besides, if Fedora is good enough for Linus Torvalds, it's good enough for me  

The command structure on Debian systems is too different and the security isn't as good. I don't like systems that give end users root access with little or no extra security. Find me another rpm based system and I might consider it, but not Debian and certainly not Ubuntu.

The human behind root username is you, not an attacker from outside. If you want the power to decide over your own system, it most of the time comes along with trusting yourself...

Anyway, the support can be enabled or disabled at the kernel build, using menuconfig