|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
January 22nd 14, 06:36 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:15:35 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
These are in a server environment and are four years old. Electronics and hardware in these environments only last a few years. I'm sure the other drives will have a high failure rate within one year. The 1.5TB Seagate drives in particular are likely to be all the same model (7200.11) that were a disaster. They aren't quite so bad now. So the overall picture here is probably a bit out of date. That IS likely. -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is Communism 
|
| Ads |
|
#17
January 22nd 14, 06:50 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On 2014-01-22, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Silver Slimer: I notice that Seagate hard disks usually always cost less than WD ones with the same specifications. Usually, this is a sign that the cheaper company is also cheaper when it comes to reliability. Either way, I would avoid them considering what the article showed. I came away from the web page with the notion that higher failure rate/lower price made sense to the users in question because the overall cost was lower. They are not nearly so dire now. That is reflected in that data. You can clearly see the failure rates trail off the further away they got from drive sizes likely to be dominated by the 7200.11 models. With enough spindles, it matters a lot less how reliable the drives are. That's why I have not shied away from the Seagates. My data is redundant, and running on RAID, and is backed up in multiple places. Some of the smaller stuff has even made it into "the cloud". -- "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." ||| ~ John Lennon / | \
|
|
#18
January 22nd 14, 07:35 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 21:58:42 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote:
Looks like buying a Seagate is asking for your data to be lost. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-are-equal/#p3 Good thing I'm using Windows 7. -- s|b
|
|
#19
January 22nd 14, 08:01 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On 1/22/2014, (PeteCresswell) posted:
Per Silver Slimer: I notice that Seagate hard disks usually always cost less than WD ones with the same specifications. Usually, this is a sign that the cheaper company is also cheaper when it comes to reliability. Either way, I would avoid them considering what the article showed. I came away from the web page with the notion that higher failure rate/lower price made sense to the users in question because the overall cost was lower. Another fact cited in the article is that they are in RAID configurations, but that's a bit ambiguous: Some RAID setups use redundancy to make the data very safe against the failure of a drive, but not all RAID setups are configured like that. If the RAID setups are redundant, failure is much less destructive. I assume the server farm *does* set it up like that :-) -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
|
|
#20
January 22nd 14, 08:12 PM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
... On 1/22/2014, (PeteCresswell) posted: Per Silver Slimer: I notice that Seagate hard disks usually always cost less than WD ones with the same specifications. Usually, this is a sign that the cheaper company is also cheaper when it comes to reliability. Either way, I would avoid them considering what the article showed. I came away from the web page with the notion that higher failure rate/lower price made sense to the users in question because the overall cost was lower. Another fact cited in the article is that they are in RAID configurations, but that's a bit ambiguous: Some RAID setups use redundancy to make the data very safe against the failure of a drive, but not all RAID setups are configured like that. If the RAID setups are redundant, failure is much less destructive. I assume the server farm *does* set it up like that :-) I have a hardware RAID configuration that runs off an Adaptec 4-port SATA RAID controller. It's configured for RAID-5 where it stripes the data over all 4 drives (3 drives, plus parity.) Over the holidays I bought myself 5 new drives and updated the array. It's "hot swappable" but I powered down between drives. Basically remove one drive, plug in the replacement drive and power up. The RAID controller will automatically rebuild the (intentionally) failed drive. Eight hours later, go in there and do the same for the next drive and then the next until all 4 drives have been swapped. The 5th drive that I bought is a spare in case one fails for real I can swap it out the same day. RAID level 1, 5 and 6 are fail-safe redundant. A lot of people trying to squeeze extra disk performance run RAID 0 which stripes the data across two drives (parallel reads and writes) but doubles your chance of total data loss.
|
|
#21
January 23rd 14, 02:01 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
In news
Silver Slimer typed:On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:17:25 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote: On 2014-01-22 1:47 AM, Andy wrote: I only use Seagate hard drives after having western digital drives fail over and over again over the years and in clients systems. 23 years 1,000 plus drives put in my clients systems and my own NO failures to date. Be careful of branded external drives, the vendors apparently buy the cheapest components they can get. Of two supposedly identical 500GB drives bought 3 years ago, one had a Seagate, the other a WD, which failed around 18 months. The Seagate is still going strong. If so many of you swear by Seagate, I have to question the results. The hard disk which came with the laptop I'm using at the moment is a Seagate. Since I don't trust the company that much, I pulled it out in favour of a Kingston HyperX SSD and put it into a case to be used as an external HD. To be honest, to this day it has yet to produce bad sectors and I'm starting to wonder if I didn't act too hastily. Actually the results fall right in line with my own experience. Over the decades, my hard drive failure rate is at 21%. And most of them were Seagates. And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. -- Bill Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2
|
|
#22
January 23rd 14, 02:14 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:01:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
Actually the results fall right in line with my own experience. Over the decades, my hard drive failure rate is at 21%. And most of them were Seagates. And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. Sounds like it is indeed a good idea to avoid Seagate and to buy either Hitachi or Western Digital if I'm in the market for a hard disk (though I prefer SSD technology myself). -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is Communism The intellect and maturity of GNU/Linux advocates: "Does Snot's penis taste salty, Silver Slipper?" - Onion Knight v3.0 "Isn't it time you went home to alt.suicide.holiday?" - Nobody
|
|
#23
January 23rd 14, 02:53 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
BillW50 wrote:
In news
Silver Slimer typed:On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:17:25 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote: On 2014-01-22 1:47 AM, Andy wrote: I only use Seagate hard drives after having western digital drives fail over and over again over the years and in clients systems. 23 years 1,000 plus drives put in my clients systems and my own NO failures to date. Be careful of branded external drives, the vendors apparently buy the cheapest components they can get. Of two supposedly identical 500GB drives bought 3 years ago, one had a Seagate, the other a WD, which failed around 18 months. The Seagate is still going strong. If so many of you swear by Seagate, I have to question the results. The hard disk which came with the laptop I'm using at the moment is a Seagate. Since I don't trust the company that much, I pulled it out in favour of a Kingston HyperX SSD and put it into a case to be used as an external HD. To be honest, to this day it has yet to produce bad sectors and I'm starting to wonder if I didn't act too hastily. Actually the results fall right in line with my own experience. Over the decades, my hard drive failure rate is at 21%. And most of them were Seagates. And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction#Hard_disk_drives Stiction was an issue because: 1) No landing ramp. Heads landed in the landing zone. Modern drives push the arm up a landing ramp, so the head is no longer "loaded" and flying. Then the platter can stop spinning. 2) Platters used to be lubricated with an actual liquid. Modern disks, the surface lubrication is one or two molecules thick, and would be considered to be closer to a "wax" than a liquid. This avoids the lubricant moving across the platter. The description I saw, a one molecule thick layer is bonded to the platter, and perhaps one or two molecules thick sits on top. To the eye it might look like "polishing". 3) They attempted to fix the stiction problem, by making the landing area rougher (textured). But that really wasn't a complete solution. I think more than one brand, had the stiction problem. Here, a Miniscribe brand drive is mentioned. http://www.ccadams.org/se/stiction.html And the landing ramp idea is not such a clever idea either. Friction between the arm and ramp, created debris that can pollute the HDA. I lost a Seagate 2GB drive here, with landing ramp technology, when some portion of the arm snagged in the ramp or head lock solenoid, and I heard an audible "twang" as my drive was ruined forever at startup. The funny part, was probably the look on my face, when that happened. (I still have the drive, but have never opened it up for a look.) I don't know how they've done it, but modern drives have a 50,000 to 300,000 start-stop cycle rating, implying the ramp landing must be pretty gentle. In this patent, you can see they use a groove or "detent", to hold the heads in place after sliding up the ramp. No sign in the picture at least, of a heavy handed lock. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070091507.pdf Paul
|
|
#24
January 23rd 14, 03:20 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:47:39 -0500, "Andy" wrote:
I only use Seagate hard drives after having western digital drives fail over and over again over the years and in clients systems. 23 years 1,000 plus drives put in my clients systems and my own NO failures to date. Give it up, Andy. If you didn't have a key to the office at the mall where you work as a janitor, you wouldn't have access to a computer at all.
|
|
#25
January 23rd 14, 03:23 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
|
|
#26
January 23rd 14, 03:32 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:01:14 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:
And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Two things: 1. Weren't most of those drives from Quantum rather than Seagate? 2. Stricken*? I think your auto-correct got the best of you. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. In other words, your advice is all over the board. *You meant stiction, of course.
|
|
#27
January 23rd 14, 03:35 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:14:54 -0500, "Silver Slimer" wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:01:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote: Actually the results fall right in line with my own experience. Over the decades, my hard drive failure rate is at 21%. And most of them were Seagates. And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. Sounds like it is indeed a good idea to avoid Seagate and to buy either Hitachi or Western Digital if I'm in the market for a hard disk (though I prefer SSD technology myself). Every drive maker takes their turn at the bottom of the barrel. Even when they ride high, they can deliver a bad batch or a bad sample within a good batch. Even if the advice right now is to avoid Seagate, which is doubtful, a month or 6 months from now it will be someone else's turn to be avoided.
|
|
#28
January 23rd 14, 03:45 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
In ,
Char Jackson typed: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:01:14 -0600, "BillW50" wrote: And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Two things: 1. Weren't most of those drives from Quantum rather than Seagate? Nope. Creative Micro Designs (CMD) used only Seagates back then. 2. Stricken*? I think your auto-correct got the best of you. Yes of course. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. In other words, your advice is all over the board. What do you mean? Does Seagate make some junk? Yes! Does Seagate make some really good drives? Yes. I am not all over the board, Seagate is. *You meant stiction, of course. -- Bill Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2
|
|
#29
January 23rd 14, 03:55 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
In , Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:14:54 -0500, "Silver Slimer" wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:01:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote: Actually the results fall right in line with my own experience. Over the decades, my hard drive failure rate is at 21%. And most of them were Seagates. And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Of course customers were upset that they now had dead drives. The manufactured turned to Seagate to replace the drives and Seagate said it wasn't their problem. And the manufacture couldn't afford to replace the drives at their own expensive. Last I heard Seagate left everybody high and dry. This was when I learned how Seagate really works. I will still purchase Seagates from time to time and I noticed how they operate more and more. I believe Seagate actually knows that they have a lot of drives that will have a very short life. And they will still sell them instead of recycling like most good companies would. And they will often sell them at a slight discount as OEM drives with little or no warrantee. OTOH, the ones Seagate sells at retail with great warrantees are generally just fine. Although once in awhile, they are not. Sounds like it is indeed a good idea to avoid Seagate and to buy either Hitachi or Western Digital if I'm in the market for a hard disk (though I prefer SSD technology myself). Every drive maker takes their turn at the bottom of the barrel. Even when they ride high, they can deliver a bad batch or a bad sample within a good batch. Even if the advice right now is to avoid Seagate, which is doubtful, a month or 6 months from now it will be someone else's turn to be avoided. Does a manufacture have a lemon from time to time? Of course. But does most companies sell off known defective units and then say they are not responsible after the sale, hardly! This seems to be the standard operating procedure from Seagate. -- Bill Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2
|
|
#30
January 23rd 14, 07:16 AM
posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all hard disk manufacturers are created equal
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:45:40 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:
In , Char Jackson typed: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:01:14 -0600, "BillW50" wrote: And a manufacture in the late 80's sold hard drives for Commodore computers. They only used Seagate hard drives back then and they sold thousands of these things. Then they all started failing. Seagate used too much oil on the disk platters and caused the famous stricken problem. Two things: 1. Weren't most of those drives from Quantum rather than Seagate? Nope. Creative Micro Designs (CMD) used only Seagates back then. I never heard of CMD, but GVP (Great Valley Products) was a big player in the Amiga hard drive space. All of my GVP drives were Quantums inside.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
