Re: [mythtv-users] Re: Hard Drives that Actually Work?
No, I beleive the Click of Death came from the sound of a dead Jazz/Zip drive. Anyway, I guess I got lucky with that IBM drive then. On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:58:36 -0800, David Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan wolf wrote, On 12/30/2004 2:24 PM: Don't buy Maxtors, they are famous for poor quality and unreliability. Western Digital, too. Seagates and IBMs are the best. I have a drive around 10 years old from IBM and it is still working. I have it hooked up to a server, but I'm not sure why I keep it, has hardly any space. Hah, IBM sold their drive business to Hitachi after producing the 75GXP and 60GXP series of drives commonly referred to the DeathStar and making the Click of Death a household phrase. I've had more IBM drives go bad on me than all others combined out of dozens of drives. -Dave ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users -- I have one Gmail invite left, email me to grab it! ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Re: Hard Drives that Actually Work?
On Friday 31 December 2004 10:58, David Rees wrote: Dan wolf wrote, On 12/30/2004 2:24 PM: Don't buy Maxtors, they are famous for poor quality and unreliability. Western Digital, too. This is not absolutely true. I've owned 4 pcs 40GB maxtors and still own 6 pcs 80GB maxtors. They're just fine after being used 24x7 for 3-4 years. I have them _very_ well cooled though, as I do all of my (server-) drives. My guess is, brands' reliability varies with year / model, or even by batch or by origin (which factory assembled it). So you get lucky, or you don't. In contrast, I also owned 2 WD drives, both 80GB and they both died within the first year (equally well cooled as the rest). Of one of those the replacement was DOA (dead within 2 weeks) and the second replacement is currently in a drawer collecting dust since it has intermittent problems. However, with the newer generation of WD 160GB sata I have no problems whatsoever (as yet). Seagates and IBMs are the best. I have a drive around 10 years old from IBM and it is still working. I have it hooked up to a server, but I'm not sure why I keep it, has hardly any space. Same here. I still have an older 25 GB IBM and it has been on for I think about 5+ years, more or less continuously. A Perfect Drive. (knock, knock) Hah, IBM sold their drive business to Hitachi after producing the 75GXP and 60GXP series of drives commonly referred to the DeathStar and making the Click of Death a household phrase. I've had more IBM drives go bad on me than all others combined out of dozens of drives. Sorry to hear that. But I've even used two of those 60GXPs without any problem. But as I said, the fact that those were cooled to ~25 or 30 degrees may have something to do with that... Maarten -- Linux: Because rebooting is for adding hardware. ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Re: Hard Drives that Actually Work?
I had a Maxtor die in 1 month. That sucked. On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:01:56 +0100, Maarten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 31 December 2004 10:58, David Rees wrote: Dan wolf wrote, On 12/30/2004 2:24 PM: Don't buy Maxtors, they are famous for poor quality and unreliability. Western Digital, too. This is not absolutely true. I've owned 4 pcs 40GB maxtors and still own 6 pcs 80GB maxtors. They're just fine after being used 24x7 for 3-4 years. I have them _very_ well cooled though, as I do all of my (server-) drives. My guess is, brands' reliability varies with year / model, or even by batch or by origin (which factory assembled it). So you get lucky, or you don't. In contrast, I also owned 2 WD drives, both 80GB and they both died within the first year (equally well cooled as the rest). Of one of those the replacement was DOA (dead within 2 weeks) and the second replacement is currently in a drawer collecting dust since it has intermittent problems. However, with the newer generation of WD 160GB sata I have no problems whatsoever (as yet). Seagates and IBMs are the best. I have a drive around 10 years old from IBM and it is still working. I have it hooked up to a server, but I'm not sure why I keep it, has hardly any space. Same here. I still have an older 25 GB IBM and it has been on for I think about 5+ years, more or less continuously. A Perfect Drive. (knock, knock) Hah, IBM sold their drive business to Hitachi after producing the 75GXP and 60GXP series of drives commonly referred to the DeathStar and making the Click of Death a household phrase. I've had more IBM drives go bad on me than all others combined out of dozens of drives. Sorry to hear that. But I've even used two of those 60GXPs without any problem. But as I said, the fact that those were cooled to ~25 or 30 degrees may have something to do with that... Maarten -- Linux: Because rebooting is for adding hardware. ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users -- I have one Gmail invite left, email me to grab it! ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Re: Hard Drives that Actually Work?
Don't buy Maxtors, they are famous for poor quality and unreliability. Western Digital, too. Seagates and IBMs are the best. I have a drive around 10 years old from IBM and it is still working. I have it hooked up to a server, but I'm not sure why I keep it, has hardly any space. On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:26:48 +, Greg Cope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, meant no. Most disk failures that I have seen (100+ disks, in DC's that have 1000's) have been when the systems have been power cycled, and the disks fail at startup or just after. Normal policy at some places is to replace at the the 1st sign of errors, as you can factor this work in when you want to, compared to it failing when you do not want it to (Friday afternoon). The cost of the disk is actually small compared with the work required to replace it properly (take a backup, replace disk, check it etc ... A sysadmin has to do some work, along with a disk swapping monkey (might be one and the same!)) I've only seen a few (less than 10, probably 5) fail whilst in use. So a rough guestimate would be that 95% of disks failures I have seen are at power up. I am supplier agnostic, with Seagate and IBM/Hitachi being a perferance at the mo. But have Samsung/WD drives too. Oh - I also have lots of backups, my preferance being a USB enclosures ~ these are cheap and mobile. Greg On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:06:44 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:00:39AM +, Greg Cope wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:43:33 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does a disk which is spinning 24x7 but is mostly idle (eg my Myth installation) fail more quickly than a disk which is powered off for those other hours? I'd say yes, as in most datacentres I've seen more disks die at spinup/start up than during normal 247 use. Err, did you mean no? I'm confused. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users -- I have one Gmail invite left, email me to grab it! ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Re: Hard Drives that Actually Work?
I'd say yes, as in most datacentres I've seen more disks die at spinup/start up than during normal 247 use. On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:43:33 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does a disk which is spinning 24x7 but is mostly idle (eg my Myth installation) fail more quickly than a disk which is powered off for those other hours? Hamish -- ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Re: Hard Drives that Actually Work?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:00:39AM +, Greg Cope wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:43:33 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does a disk which is spinning 24x7 but is mostly idle (eg my Myth installation) fail more quickly than a disk which is powered off for those other hours? I'd say yes, as in most datacentres I've seen more disks die at spinup/start up than during normal 247 use. Err, did you mean no? I'm confused. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Re: Hard Drives that Actually Work?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:44:26PM -0800, CrAzY mAD wrote: There's a very interesting read on this in a Seagate whitepaper (http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf) The article explains why performance is lower for PS drives, but doesn't actually say a lot about why reliability is lower. The only thing it says is that the duty cycle is higher due to less intelligent seeking. Does a disk which is spinning 24x7 but is mostly idle (eg my Myth installation) fail more quickly than a disk which is powered off for those other hours? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
