Hard drive life expectancy

Thanks for earlier advice about my USB 3 expansion card, which
eventually I replaced.

I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).

I assume the risk of failure has now increased. I see 'chat' about
discs lasting four years but is this years of ownership or years of
actual use? I turn my PC off when not in use. Is there an argument
for preventive replacement or can I rely on warning signs to tell me
when the drive is on its way out (with regular back-ups of course)?

Thanks

On 06/04/2017 09:14 AM, Scott wrote:
Thanks for earlier advice about my USB 3 expansion card, which
eventually I replaced.

I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).

I assume the risk of failure has now increased. I see 'chat' about
discs lasting four years but is this years of ownership or years of
actual use? I turn my PC off when not in use. Is there an argument
for preventive replacement or can I rely on warning signs to tell me
when the drive is on its way out (with regular back-ups of course)?

Thanks

Personally if you do regular images of the drive, I see no reason to
worry about it. Unless those 'regular' are monthly.

Yes, warning signs (SMART info?) can help but if the drive runs 15
years, why waste 5 years of life. IMHO.

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 14:14:08 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Thanks for earlier advice about my USB 3 expansion card, which
eventually I replaced.

I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).

I assume the risk of failure has now increased. I see 'chat' about
discs lasting four years but is this years of ownership or years of
actual use? I turn my PC off when not in use. Is there an argument
for preventive replacement or can I rely on warning signs to tell me
when the drive is on its way out (with regular back-ups of course)?

Thanks

I have an external drive that is used for a daily backup of my main
computer and a backup of a laptop. The backup disc is more than 10
years old. Copying doesn't involve much activity and it's a nearly
silent process. If the disc gets noisy it's a warning sign.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com

"Scott" wrote

| I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
| probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).
|
Lasting over 10 years is not unusual, but in test
reports I've seen it's also not unusual for them to die
early. In some cases there seems to be a pattern
whereby if it lives through the first few years it will
probably live many more. You won't always get
warning when a disk goes.

The hard disk is the weakest link in the system
and they're not terribly expensive. If it were me I'd
get a new disk, copy all partitions to the new disk,
start using that, and store the old disk in the same
box, unplugged. Then if anything happens you have
a backup to work from.

If by secondary you mean an *exact* copy of the
first disk, I'd still replace it. Why not? At 10
years old it's like asking whether your 90 year old
grandmother might die this year. Yes, there's a
very good chance. Maybe she won't. But if you
see a good deal on cemetery plots....

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:06:08 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Scott" wrote

| I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
| probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).
|
Lasting over 10 years is not unusual, but in test
reports I've seen it's also not unusual for them to die
early. In some cases there seems to be a pattern
whereby if it lives through the first few years it will
probably live many more. You won't always get
warning when a disk goes.

The hard disk is the weakest link in the system
and they're not terribly expensive. If it were me I'd
get a new disk, copy all partitions to the new disk,
start using that, and store the old disk in the same
box, unplugged. Then if anything happens you have
a backup to work from.

If by secondary you mean an *exact* copy of the
first disk, I'd still replace it. Why not? At 10
years old it's like asking whether your 90 year old
grandmother might die this year. Yes, there's a
very good chance. Maybe she won't. But if you
see a good deal on cemetery plots....

No, by secondary I mean a data only disc. The operating system and
programs are all on a solid state drive with the mechanical drive used
for the data.

"Scott" wrote

| No, by secondary I mean a data only disc. The operating system and
| programs are all on a solid state drive with the mechanical drive used
| for the data.

Then I'd certainly replace it and keep the old
as backup. I'd also put disk images of the OS
partition(s) on there before disconnecting. Why
not, given the relatively low price? Presumably
you also have external data backup, but suddenly
losing a disk will still probably cause problems.

Mayayana wrote:
"Scott" wrote

| I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
| probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).
|
Lasting over 10 years is not unusual, but in test
reports I've seen it's also not unusual for them to die
early. In some cases there seems to be a pattern
whereby if it lives through the first few years it will
probably live many more. You won't always get
warning when a disk goes.

The hard disk is the weakest link in the system
and they're not terribly expensive. If it were me I'd
get a new disk, copy all partitions to the new disk,
start using that, and store the old disk in the same
box, unplugged. Then if anything happens you have
a backup to work from.

If by secondary you mean an *exact* copy of the
first disk, I'd still replace it. Why not? At 10
years old it's like asking whether your 90 year old
grandmother might die this year. Yes, there's a
very good chance. Maybe she won't. But if you
see a good deal on cemetery plots....

That pattern has changed with time.

The flying height of modern (large capacity)
drives is perilously close to a head crash. Even
without debris under the head.

Modern drives are more likely to unload the heads
(park on ramp), as a means to extend life.

The suspicion is, the drive wears, due to the
3nm or so flying height. At one time, the flying
height was 10u. The peaks and valleys in a MFM
picture of a platter, appear to be 2nm high (and
could be artifacts of the measurement process, where
two scans are subtracted from one another).
Just to give some idea what a moonscape is involved.

*******

This drive is one of the weirdest, in that
time seems to have no effect on it. On other
drives, the transfer rate curve, you can see
that the drive is sparing sectors internally,
just by changes in the benchmark curve. This
drive is "steady-eddy". I wish all my drives
aged as well as this one.

https://s15.postimg.org/apk2owfp5/good_HDD.gif

For external drives, I'd "safely remove" and switch
off their power source.

The longest time I've had a drive last, was seven years
of continuous rotation (on a drive at work). The Unix
workstation ran 24 hours a day, and didn't have
suspend or hibernate. My good drive has a ways to
go yet, to match that.

Paul

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 16:05:50 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"Scott" wrote

| I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
| probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).
|
Lasting over 10 years is not unusual, but in test
reports I've seen it's also not unusual for them to die
early. In some cases there seems to be a pattern
whereby if it lives through the first few years it will
probably live many more. You won't always get
warning when a disk goes.

The hard disk is the weakest link in the system
and they're not terribly expensive. If it were me I'd
get a new disk, copy all partitions to the new disk,
start using that, and store the old disk in the same
box, unplugged. Then if anything happens you have
a backup to work from.

If by secondary you mean an *exact* copy of the
first disk, I'd still replace it. Why not? At 10
years old it's like asking whether your 90 year old
grandmother might die this year. Yes, there's a
very good chance. Maybe she won't. But if you
see a good deal on cemetery plots....

That pattern has changed with time.

The flying height of modern (large capacity)
drives is perilously close to a head crash. Even
without debris under the head.

Modern drives are more likely to unload the heads
(park on ramp), as a means to extend life.

The suspicion is, the drive wears, due to the
3nm or so flying height. At one time, the flying
height was 10u. The peaks and valleys in a MFM
picture of a platter, appear to be 2nm high (and
could be artifacts of the measurement process, where
two scans are subtracted from one another).
Just to give some idea what a moonscape is involved.

So counter-intuitively and older drive could be more reliable than its
potential replacement?

I have now discovered (through HDD Guardian) that my disc's working
time is one year and six and a half months. On that basis, it sounds
like any thoughts of replacement could be premature.

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:38:05 +0100, Scott wrote:

...

So counter-intuitively and older drive could be more reliable than its
potential replacement?

I have now discovered (through HDD Guardian) that my disc's working time
is one year and six and a half months. On that basis, it sounds like
any thoughts of replacement could be premature.

My Seagate 160GB has 3 years, 25 hours of "on" time.
It's old, one of a series that had a stellar reputation.
Some recent Seagates, particularly 3TB, have a dismal reputation.

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 16:05:50 -0400, Paul wrote:

The flying height of modern (large capacity)
drives is perilously close to a head crash. Even without debris under
the head.

Modern drives are more likely to unload the heads (park on ramp), as a
means to extend life.

The suspicion is, the drive wears, due to the 3nm or so flying height.
At one time, the flying height was 10u. The peaks and valleys in a MFM
picture of a platter, appear to be 2nm high (and could be artifacts of
the measurement process, where two scans are subtracted from one
another).

https://s15.postimg.org/apk2owfp5/good_HDD.gif

Another good old Seagate.
It's run for 35297 hours, and the heads have been flying for 49110 hours.
Do they fly off somewhere at night and return next morning?

New Profile wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 16:05:50 -0400, Paul wrote:

The flying height of modern (large capacity)
drives is perilously close to a head crash. Even without debris under
the head.

Modern drives are more likely to unload the heads (park on ramp), as a
means to extend life.

The suspicion is, the drive wears, due to the 3nm or so flying height.
At one time, the flying height was 10u. The peaks and valleys in a MFM
picture of a platter, appear to be 2nm high (and could be artifacts of
the measurement process, where two scans are subtracted from one
another).

https://s15.postimg.org/apk2owfp5/good_HDD.gif

Another good old Seagate.
It's run for 35297 hours, and the heads have been flying for 49110 hours.
Do they fly off somewhere at night and return next morning?

You really have to view the totality of information
in SMART with suspicion.

http://www.cropel.com/library/smart-attribute-list.aspx

My computer has three drives in it right now. The
good_HDD never parks the head, and its flying hours
are higher than the power on hours (ridiculous).

The other two drives are "head parking addicts", yet,
those drives don't even have a Flying Hours field!
The manufacturer doesn't want us to know what is going on.

Paul

In article , am says...

"Scott" wrote

| No, by secondary I mean a data only disc. The operating system and
| programs are all on a solid state drive with the mechanical drive used
| for the data.

Then I'd certainly replace it and keep the old
as backup. I'd also put disk images of the OS
partition(s) on there before disconnecting. Why
not, given the relatively low price? Presumably
you also have external data backup, but suddenly
losing a disk will still probably cause problems.

I kinda feel if the disk is working and SMART info looks ok then why
worry about it. I've had disks die inside a year and disks last well
over 10 years. Yes, sometimes they die without warning but that seems a
rarity, usually there's some indication which gives you enough time to
save most of the info of the drive although granted often loose a file
or two.

In fact I have a stack of older IDE 40-120Gb drives all hold info on
them. When I want that info I simply plug "taht" drive into my nice
little "one connector does all types" cable makes the drive into an
external drive. Cable was $30 Canadian and has proved very handy. Much
better than an actual enclosure for many uses.

On 4/6/2017 9:14 PM, Scott wrote:
I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).

Backup backup backup frequently!

I assume the risk of failure has now increased. I see 'chat' about
discs lasting four years but is this years of ownership or years of
actual use? I turn my PC off when not in use. Is there an argument
for preventive replacement or can I rely on warning signs to tell me
when the drive is on its way out (with regular back-ups of course)?

I still 3 IDE hard disks (40G, 60G, 120G) that are still spinning and
working.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:05:49 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote:

On 4/6/2017 9:14 PM, Scott wrote:
I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).

Backup backup backup frequently!




Read his next paragraph, which you quoted. He says he backs up
regularly.

And "frequently" is not good advice for everyone. How often you should
back up depends on you and what you have on your drive.

It takes time and effort to backup, but it also takes time and effort
to recreate lost data. If you back up daily, you should never have to
recreate more than one day's worth of lost data. If weekly, there's
potentially a lot more to recreate. You should assess how much pain
and trouble you would have if you lost x days of data, and then choose
a backup frequency that doesn't involve more pain and trouble than
that you would have if you had to recreate what was lost.

Some things (photographs, for instance) can never be recreated, and
more frequent backup may be wanted for them.

At one extreme is the professional user who would likely go out of
business if his data was lost. He probably needs to back up at least
daily. At the other extreme is the kid who doesn't use his computer
except to play games. He probably needs no backup at all, since worst
case he can easily reinstall his games.

Most of us fall somewhere between those extremes, but nobody can tell
you where you fall; you need to determine that for yourself.


I assume the risk of failure has now increased. I see 'chat' about
discs lasting four years but is this years of ownership or years of
actual use? I turn my PC off when not in use. Is there an argument
for preventive replacement or can I rely on warning signs to tell me
when the drive is on its way out (with regular back-ups of course)?

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:59:37 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:05:49 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote:

On 4/6/2017 9:14 PM, Scott wrote:
I am now wondering about the (secondary) hard drive, which I think is
probably now 10 years old (moved from an earlier computer).

Backup backup backup frequently!




Read his next paragraph, which you quoted. He says he backs up
regularly.

And "frequently" is not good advice for everyone. How often you should
back up depends on you and what you have on your drive.


Backup frequently also carries the risk of copying malware from drive
to drive. I backup my system everyday but the copying process waits
for malware checks to complete with a safe report. If anything is
suspect the backup does not run.

Steve



--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com