Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (
More info?)
Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:LzRPd.41482$EG1.9692@lakeread04...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>>>>> CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote
>>>>>>>>> Considering how often hard drives crash for no reason, it's
>>>>>>>>> incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive. I've had at least
>>>>>>>>> three hard drives crash on me and have talked to numerous
>>>>>>>>> others who have experienced such. The odds are against you.
>>>>>>>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>>>>>>>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say
>>>>>>>> ten years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days,
>>>>>>>> but it can be a matter of perspective.
>>>>>>> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability
>>>>>>> of hard drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained
>>>>>>> the 3.5" physical form but increased the capacity by perhaps
>>>>>>> an order and a half magnitude. I don't think it's coincidence
>>>>>>> that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their drives
>>>>>>> for three years as was standard a few years ago.
>>>>>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting
>>>>>> some of theirs for 5 years now.
>>>>> Of course you have to compare apples to apples.
>>>> We are with that particular question.
>>>>> WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.
>>>> Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.
>>> Both my desktop Caviars (1200jb and 2000jb)
>>> have 8MB cache and 1 year warranties.
>> Clearly that isnt true with drives purchased today
>> and its been like that for a couple of years now.
>>> Both were purchased as boxed retail versions
>>> and I have confirmed the warranty status of each.
>> Likely purchased before that change or you got dudded.
> Nope.
Yep.
> Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
> on the boxed retail versions of those drives.
Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.
> Apparently OEM drives are different.
Nope.
> You can't compare apples with oranges.
Not doing that. Just comparing WD drives with 2MB and 8MB
caches and the warrantys on those two versions of their drives.
> The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in the 2000
> - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties.
Clearly the WD site says that the 8MB cache drives have a 3 year warranty.
> The one I bought last month did not.
Then you got dudded.
>>> The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.
>> You must have got dudded somehow.
>> And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
>> warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.
>> And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.
>> >> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year warranty.
>>
>> >> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
>> >> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache size.
>>
>> >>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
>>
>> >> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
>> >> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
>>
>> >>
>
http
/www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-144-118&depa=0
>> >>
>
http/www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-144-107&depa=0
>>
>> >>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
>> >>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>>
>> >> Not with the 8MB cache version.
>>
>> >>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>> >>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>>
>> >>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>>
>> >>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
>>
>> >> I never said you did.
>>
>> >>> But you might want to consider reliability results at
> storagereview.com.
>>
>> >> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
>> >> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
>>
>> >>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
>> >>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
>> >>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
>> >>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
>> >>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
>> >>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
>> >>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
>> >>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
>>
>> >> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
>> >> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
>> >> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.
>>
>> > Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
>>
>> Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
>> have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.
>>
>> And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.
>>
>> >>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
>> >>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.
>>
>> >> I'll take the record on that.
>>
>> >>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
>> >>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
>>
>> >> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
>> >> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
>> >> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.
>>
>> > There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
>> > interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.
>>
>> And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
>> ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.
>>
>> >>> the size of which has not increased while the
>> >>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
>> >>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
>>
>> >> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
>> >> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
>> >> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.
>>
>> > Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
>> > since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
>> > size and confined to drives since the year 2000.
>>
>> Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
>> much more complicated than your original allowed for.
>>
>> > I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
>> > improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.
>>
>> Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.
> My original comment only mentioned the last few years
Irrelevant when its the longer history that shows your claim is wrong.
> and only suggested we might have reached a peak in reliability.
Not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
> I presented some data to support that.
Like hell you did. Your original presented useful 'evidence' what so
ever and the most recent comment about storagereview is useless
on the general question because you only included WD drive data
and hard drive stats are absolutely notorious for seeing particular
drives go thru periods of higher than normal failure rates.
> You have made counterclaims
Nope, just rubbed your nose in the fact that YOUR claims
dont have a shred of evidence to substantiate them on that
claim that drives are getting less reliable now.
> - if you have some reliability numbers to
> back them up, please share them with us.
Dont need any.
YOU made the claim.
YOU get to provide evidence that substantiates the claim.
THATS how it works.
>> The reliability has improved significantly over the original 3.5" form
>> factor drives, particularly those with stepper motor head actuators
>> because you dont get sector jitter with voice coil drives.
>>
>> >> We dont see much stiction anymore either, where the head
>> >> sticks to the platter so the drive wont spin up at boot time.
>>
>> >> And drive prices are now so low that RAID is very viable too.
>> >> With a decently designed system you just yawn on drive failure.
Facebook
Twitter