SSDs can survive drops and other kinds of hostile treatment much better than hard drives, but they can still be broken if their PCB or one of the chips gets damaged. For those who want to reduce their risk of losing their data, Buffalo has introduced its new family of SSDs — the SSD-PSMU3 — that is specifically designed to withstand drops. Unlike typical rugged devices, the new drives are rather miniature and more resemble flash drives.

Buffalo’s SSD-PSMU3 series SSDs are designed to endure MIL-STD 810G 516.6 Procedure IV drop test, known as the ‘transit drop’. This means that the device was tested to survived six face drop tests, eight corner drop tests, and 12 edge drop tests from a height of around 1.2 meters, remained in working condition and suffered no physical of internal damage. The drives measure 33×9.5×59.5 mm and weigh 15 grams (dimensions and weight akin to those of a box of PEZ mints), so it should not be particularly hard to make them rugged enough to survive drops from 1.2 meters.

The SSD-PSMU3 drives feature a 120 GB, 250 GB, 480 GB, and 960 GB capacity as well as a USB 3.2 Gen 1 Micro-B interface that connects them to their hosts using a USB Type-A or a USB Type-C cable. Buffalo rates the drives for about 430 MB/s throughput, but considering the interface used, we are probably looking at something near ~400 MB/s due to overhead incurred by 8b/10b encoding.

The rugged SSDs fully support Buffalo’s SecureLock Mobile2 technology that encodes data using an AES-256 key. Meanwhile, it is unclear whether encryption is done using hardware or software. In addition, the drives support SMART function and can be used with Mimamori Signal software that predicts failures of storage components based on SMART data.

Set to be available in white, aquamarine, and pink, Buffalo’s rugged SSD-PSMU3 drives will hit the shelves in Japan starting March 4. The cheapest 120 GB drive will cost ¥5,700 ($54) without VAT, whereas the highest capacity 960 GB model will be priced at ¥22,300 ($210) without taxes.

Related Reading:

Source: Buffalo (via Hermitage Akihabara)

POST A COMMENT

24 Comments

View All Comments

  • Eric_WVGG - Sunday, March 8, 2020 - link

    It is dying a slow painful death. It needs to die a swift, clean death. Reply
  • phoenix_rizzen - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link

    It is newsworthy in this case as they are using that horrible USB 3.0 MicroUSB connector that was very short-lived and only showed up on a single phone (that I know of, the Samsung Note 5, I think). Reply
  • Guspaz - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link

    It was found on all USB 3.0 2.5" external hard drives, though. Unfortunately. There was no alternative. Reply
  • ikjadoon - Sunday, March 8, 2020 - link

    I think we've all forgotten just how *shitty* the USB type-C cable market remains.

    1) USB 3.0-qualified type-C cables are rare.

    2) USB 3.0-qualified type-C cables are expensive.

    $6.50 for 3 ft micro-B vs $10.50 for 3 ft type-C. That's a 60% price hike for literally switching just micro-B to type-C.

    Volume is likewise massively discounting micro-B.

    10 x 3 feet USB 3.0 micro-B cables = $15.10
    10 x 3 feet USB 3.0 type-C cables = $104.90

    Nobody on God's green earth is going to pay ~594% more for type-C. You might be asking: "Why did you use the 10-pack for micro-B, but the 1-pack for type-C?" And that's exactly my point: volume pricing is heavily favoring micro-B that you can't even find a 10-pack USB 3.0 type-C.

    Source:
    https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-USB-3-0-Cable-...
    https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Type-C-Adapter...

    P.S. Can we also note the shitty design decision to drop blue-accented USB-A connectors with type-C adapters?
    Reply
  • meacupla - Sunday, March 8, 2020 - link

    But why would volume pricing matter if Buffalo would have provided a 3ft 3.1 A to C cable for you? Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, March 9, 2020 - link

    Because you would be eating the higher cost of the type C cable. By the way, a USB 3 type A to C cable from Belkin costs $35!!! And I had no luck finding anything cheaper. These higher costs are not simply absorbed by buffalo, they would be reflected in the final cost of the drive. Reply
  • valinor89 - Monday, March 9, 2020 - link

    AFAIK true USB type C cables are much harder to manufacture because they use many more internal conductors that need to be separated by hand and the connector itself is quite finicky to properly solder. By contrast cheapu micro-b connectors are mostly automated by now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Tmtd51clI
    Reply
  • phoenix_rizzen - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link

    Ugh, someone must have found a cache of USB 3.0 MicroUSB connectors and sold them off for uber-cheap. There's absolutely no reason they should be using that abomination on anything new! A Type-C port would have been better in every possible way.

    At least they included a MicroUSB-to-A and a MicroUSB-to-C cable. It's very rare to find a USB 3.0 MicroUSB cable of any kind out there, and a lot of people will end up using this thing at USB 2.x speeds with just a regular MicroUSB cable they have lying around.
    Reply
  • rocky12345 - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link

    I like the drive to bad it is not USB type C on the drive itself. At least form the picture it is not USB type C. Reply
  • ambhaiji - Friday, March 6, 2020 - link

    Ok sure cool a rugged ssd with a dogshit connector, I CAN WORK WITH THAT Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now