OT: Hard Drive Opinions? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on OT: Hard Drive Opinions? - Ubuntu ; Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be as reliable anymore. So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it for back up/archives etc....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

  1. OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be
    as reliable anymore.

    So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    for back up/archives etc.

  2. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:46:24 -0500, Nico wrote:

    > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to
    > be as reliable anymore.
    >
    > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    > for back up/archives etc.


    I'd say Seagate, but WD is still fine also. I would avoid Maxtor at all
    costs.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  3. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Nico illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be
    > as reliable anymore.
    >
    > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    > for back up/archives etc.


    Samsung Spinpoints have been solid and reliable for me. Also been
    great VFM.

    --
    "Well, my brother says Hello. So, hooray for speech therapy." ~ Emo
    Philips

  4. Re: Hard Drive Opinions?


    "Nico" wrote in message
    news:vuGdnZPv3vldH5nUnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@giganews.com ...

    > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be
    > as reliable anymore.
    >
    > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    > for back up/archives etc.


    I only use mostly Seagate but also have some Western Digital. I used
    Deskstar drives for awhile when IBM owned them, now Samsung I think. But of
    8 or so I purchased, some 6 died prematurely so I haven't tried them since.
    I retired the other two before they failed. They ended up with the nickname
    of Deathstar drives. They may have fixed the problem but I haven't had the
    need to switch. At home I haven't had any failures for years with Seagate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Deskstar

    But in today's competitive environment and increasing densities, failures
    are inevitable. You are on the right track, make sure you are backed up.
    And with Linux, use the LVM and mirror them. The drives are cheap to do
    this.

    I also don't run drives until they die. I regularly replace old drives.
    The oldest one in service is a 120GB Seagate about 4 years old, due for
    replacement, as I never use them for more than 5 years at home.

    Work, a different story. They all fail given time. It is why we use LVM
    mirrors, RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 or variants there of.








  5. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Nico wrote:

    > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be
    > as reliable anymore.
    >
    > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    > for back up/archives etc.


    I've used Seagate Barracuda 7200. in production and all my systems with
    excellent results. There are many version of the Barracuda and any one
    will work for you (ATA/SATA) and sizes up to 1.5TB now. I just purchased a
    couple of 500GB's for <$100 a piece.

    At those prices you could even keep a spare if desired.

    Good luck - Bob

    ps: Hitachi purchased IBM's disk drive division quite a number of years ago.
    I had several fail in my RS6K farm.


  6. Re: Hard Drive Opinions?

    In article ,
    Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    > "Nico" wrote in message
    > news:vuGdnZPv3vldH5nUnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >
    > > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be
    > > as reliable anymore.
    > >
    > > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    > > for back up/archives etc.

    >
    > I only use mostly Seagate but also have some Western Digital. I used
    > Deskstar drives for awhile when IBM owned them, now Samsung I think. But of
    > 8 or so I purchased, some 6 died prematurely so I haven't tried them since.
    > I retired the other two before they failed. They ended up with the nickname
    > of Deathstar drives. They may have fixed the problem but I haven't had the
    > need to switch. At home I haven't had any failures for years with Seagate.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Deskstar
    >
    > But in today's competitive environment and increasing densities, failures
    > are inevitable. You are on the right track, make sure you are backed up.
    > And with Linux, use the LVM and mirror them. The drives are cheap to do
    > this.
    >
    > I also don't run drives until they die. I regularly replace old drives.
    > The oldest one in service is a 120GB Seagate about 4 years old, due for
    > replacement, as I never use them for more than 5 years at home.
    >
    > Work, a different story. They all fail given time. It is why we use LVM
    > mirrors, RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 or variants there of.


    I run two identical drives, main and backup, with the backup drive spun
    down ~23 hrs a day. Every night, a backup process copies main ->
    backup. When one dies, all I have to do is move a cable and some
    jumpers and I have a hard drive that was identical as of last night.
    This seems to me to be a fair tradeoff between only manual backups and
    the added noise and power consumption/heat of actual RAID. YMMV. And
    I _hope_ that one spin-up/spin-down cycle per day causes less wear than
    does 23 hours of use.

    My previous drives were Death^H^H^Hskstars (Hitachi, I think), these are
    Seagate Barracudas, the next ones (drive died, already placed the order)
    will also be Seagate Barracudas but SATA this time. It's not that I'm
    particularly attached to the brand, but the drive had good features. I
    think if you pick a well-known brand, you probably won't get burned.

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP http://royalty.mine.nu:81
    ARIES: The look on your face will be priceless when you find that 40lb
    watermelon in your colon. Trade toothbrushes with an albino dwarf, then
    give a hickey to Meryl Streep. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_

  7. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:57:26 -0400, Bob M wrote:

    > Nico wrote:
    >
    >> Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be
    >> as reliable anymore.
    >>
    >> So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    >> for back up/archives etc.

    >
    > I've used Seagate Barracuda 7200. in production and all my systems with
    > excellent results. There are many version of the Barracuda and any one
    > will work for you (ATA/SATA) and sizes up to 1.5TB now. I just purchased a
    > couple of 500GB's for <$100 a piece.
    >
    > At those prices you could even keep a spare if desired.
    >
    > Good luck - Bob
    >
    > ps: Hitachi purchased IBM's disk drive division quite a number of years ago.
    > I had several fail in my RS6K farm.


    Seagate is my pick, especially the Barracuda drives which is mostly what I
    use for digital audio work.

    Avoid IBM/Hitachi at all costs because they have all kinds of problems.

    I used to use WD until they made a stink over a warranty claim I made.
    The sticker on the drive said I had 2 months left, the online database said
    I was 1 month over.
    They refused to honor it even with a receipt.
    That was the last WD drive I bought, about 3 years ago in fact.

  8. Re: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Hactar wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Canuck57 wrote:
    >>
    >> "Nico" wrote in message
    >> news:vuGdnZPv3vldH5nUnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>
    >> > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to
    >> > be as reliable anymore.
    >> >
    >> > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use
    >> > it for back up/archives etc.

    >>
    >> I only use mostly Seagate but also have some Western Digital. I used
    >> Deskstar drives for awhile when IBM owned them, now Samsung I think. But
    >> of 8 or so I purchased, some 6 died prematurely so I haven't tried them
    >> since.
    >> I retired the other two before they failed. They ended up with the
    >> nickname
    >> of Deathstar drives. They may have fixed the problem but I haven't had
    >> the
    >> need to switch. At home I haven't had any failures for years with
    >> Seagate.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Deskstar
    >>
    >> But in today's competitive environment and increasing densities, failures
    >> are inevitable. You are on the right track, make sure you are backed up.
    >> And with Linux, use the LVM and mirror them. The drives are cheap to do
    >> this.
    >>
    >> I also don't run drives until they die. I regularly replace old drives.
    >> The oldest one in service is a 120GB Seagate about 4 years old, due for
    >> replacement, as I never use them for more than 5 years at home.
    >>
    >> Work, a different story. They all fail given time. It is why we use LVM
    >> mirrors, RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 or variants there of.

    >
    > I run two identical drives, main and backup, with the backup drive spun
    > down ~23 hrs a day. Every night, a backup process copies main ->
    > backup. When one dies, all I have to do is move a cable and some
    > jumpers and I have a hard drive that was identical as of last night.
    > This seems to me to be a fair tradeoff between only manual backups and
    > the added noise and power consumption/heat of actual RAID. YMMV. And
    > I _hope_ that one spin-up/spin-down cycle per day causes less wear than
    > does 23 hours of use.
    >

    So is it dd that you're running to clone the drive over? How long does it
    take each night? What is the size of these drives?

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.


  9. Re: Hard Drive Opinions?

    In article , NoStop wrote:
    > Hactar wrote:
    >
    > > I run two identical drives, main and backup, with the backup drive spun
    > > down ~23 hrs a day. Every night, a backup process copies main ->
    > > backup. When one dies, all I have to do is move a cable and some
    > > jumpers and I have a hard drive that was identical as of last night.
    > > This seems to me to be a fair tradeoff between only manual backups and
    > > the added noise and power consumption/heat of actual RAID. YMMV. And
    > > I _hope_ that one spin-up/spin-down cycle per day causes less wear than
    > > does 23 hours of use.
    > >

    > So is it dd that you're running to clone the drive over?


    Yup, bs between 2^4 bytes and 2^19 bytes (I think) to see what works
    best.

    > How long does it take each night?


    Lessee, the transfer runs about 40 MB/s, so that means it'd take about
    an hour and a half. It's significantly faster if they're on separate IDE
    cables, but my cables won't reach that way.

    > What is the size of these drives?


    250 vendor gigabytes.

    Both end up with the same UUIDs and LABELs, which is a problem if you
    use either one of those. I was forced into using one or the other about
    when a drive died, so I didn't really get to explore possible solutions.

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
    Two atoms are discussing whether or not to go into a bar. The first atom
    says, "I don't know about this place. Last time I went in there, I lost
    an electron." The second atom says, "Don't worry, I'll keep my ion you."

  10. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Dan C wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:46:24 -0500, Nico wrote:
    >
    >> So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    >> for back up/archives etc.

    >
    > I'd say Seagate, but WD is still fine also. I would avoid Maxtor at all
    > costs.
    >


    Everyone's experience is different. I've had better luck with Maxtor
    than with anyone else.

  11. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:48:45 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:

    > Dan C wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:46:24 -0500, Nico wrote:
    >>
    >>> So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    >>> for back up/archives etc.

    >>
    >> I'd say Seagate, but WD is still fine also. I would avoid Maxtor at all
    >> costs.
    >>

    >
    > Everyone's experience is different. I've had better luck with Maxtor
    > than with anyone else.


    I have had good luck with Maxtor as well, especially those liquid bearing
    drives or whatever they are called.
    Super quiet and knock wood I have not had a single failure.

  12. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Larry Blanchard wrote:

    > Everyone's experience is different.


    Exactly!

    > I've had better luck with Maxtor than with anyone else.


    The /only/ major drive failures I've had were Maxtor ones! I now use a
    mixture of Western Digital and Seagate.

    C.

  13. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Nico wrote in
    news:vuGdnZPv3vldH5nUnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@giganews.com :

    > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to
    > be as reliable anymore.
    >
    > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use
    > it for back up/archives etc.


    My 2....

    The last 5 drives I've had to replace, mine and for others, have all been
    WD.

    All replaced with Seagate drives.

  14. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    On 2008-10-26, Nico wrote:
    > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to be
    > as reliable anymore.
    >
    > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    > for back up/archives etc.


    Worrying which is reliable is the wrong approach. Assume it will fail
    and have appropriate backups in place.

    --
    -Toby
    Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

  15. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:48:45 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:
    >
    >> Dan C wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:46:24 -0500, Nico wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    >>>> for back up/archives etc.
    >>> I'd say Seagate, but WD is still fine also. I would avoid Maxtor at all
    >>> costs.
    >>>

    >> Everyone's experience is different. I've had better luck with Maxtor
    >> than with anyone else.

    >
    > I have had good luck with Maxtor as well, especially those liquid bearing
    > drives or whatever they are called.
    > Super quiet and knock wood I have not had a single failure.


    Ditto. Also Maxtor run on average 4-5C cooler. WD and old Quantum had
    multiple failures...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

  16. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:48:45 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dan C wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:46:24 -0500, Nico wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to
    >>>>> use it
    >>>>> for back up/archives etc.
    >>>> I'd say Seagate, but WD is still fine also. I would avoid Maxtor at
    >>>> all
    >>>> costs.
    >>>>
    >>> Everyone's experience is different. I've had better luck with Maxtor
    >>> than with anyone else.

    >>
    >> I have had good luck with Maxtor as well, especially those liquid bearing
    >> drives or whatever they are called.
    >> Super quiet and knock wood I have not had a single failure.

    >
    > Ditto. Also Maxtor run on average 4-5C cooler. WD and old Quantum had
    > multiple failures...
    >


    I would also have to say Maxtor. I've had a 250 GB Western Digital die
    just weeks after purchase and I also had a Seagate die just recently. On
    the other hand the 250GB Western Digital I received through the warranty
    service is still chugging along happily and Seagate sent me a larger
    replacement drive thanks to their 5 year warranty. Seagate warranty
    claims are a bit of a hassle though.

    I would almost say just go Seagate for the 5 year warranty and only
    purchase something you can afford to purchase 2 of. Keep your data
    mirrored to the spare and if it dies warranty the bad drive while
    switching to your backup. Chances are they won't both die at the same
    time but, lightning has struck twice in the past.

  17. Re: OT: Hard Drive Opinions?

    On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:46:24 -0500, Nico wrote:

    > Used to be Western Digital held the top honors, but they don't seem to
    > be as reliable anymore.
    >
    > So what is my best bet for a reliable drive these days. Intend to use it
    > for back up/archives etc.


    Here is a link to everything you need to know about drives,

    http://www.storagereview.com/

  18. Re: Hard Drive Opinions?

    Hactar wrote:

    > In article , NoStop
    > wrote:
    >> Hactar wrote:
    >>
    >> > I run two identical drives, main and backup, with the backup drive spun
    >> > down ~23 hrs a day. Every night, a backup process copies main ->
    >> > backup. When one dies, all I have to do is move a cable and some
    >> > jumpers and I have a hard drive that was identical as of last night.
    >> > This seems to me to be a fair tradeoff between only manual backups and
    >> > the added noise and power consumption/heat of actual RAID. YMMV. And
    >> > I _hope_ that one spin-up/spin-down cycle per day causes less wear than
    >> > does 23 hours of use.
    >> >

    >> So is it dd that you're running to clone the drive over?

    >
    > Yup, bs between 2^4 bytes and 2^19 bytes (I think) to see what works
    > best.
    >
    >> How long does it take each night?

    >
    > Lessee, the transfer runs about 40 MB/s, so that means it'd take about
    > an hour and a half. It's significantly faster if they're on separate IDE
    > cables, but my cables won't reach that way.
    >
    >> What is the size of these drives?

    >
    > 250 vendor gigabytes.
    >
    > Both end up with the same UUIDs and LABELs, which is a problem if you
    > use either one of those. I was forced into using one or the other about
    > when a drive died, so I didn't really get to explore possible solutions.
    >


    I really dislike UUIDs for internal drives. OK, for removables, but I don't
    understand why Ubuntu thinks it's the way to go for permanently fixed
    drives. Hence, I ignore that **** in my fstab and stick with /dev/hdX, etc.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.


  19. Re: Hard Drive Opinions?

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:18:08 -0700, NoStop wrote:

    > I really dislike UUIDs for internal drives. OK, for removables, but I
    > don't understand why Ubuntu thinks it's the way to go for permanently
    > fixed drives. Hence, I ignore that **** in my fstab and stick with
    > /dev/hdX, etc.
    >
    > Cheers.


    UUID can be a pain when transfering your os to a different computer, or
    moving it to a bigger drive. I discovered that when I move to a new
    drive, I can delete my /boot/grub/menu.lst and run "update-grub" to make
    it all work again. Not impossible, but still a pain. The hard part is
    remembering to modify my boot options on the grub menus at the first boot.




  20. Re: Hard Drive Opinions?

    In article , NoStop wrote:
    > Hactar wrote:
    >
    > > Both end up with the same UUIDs and LABELs, which is a problem if you
    > > use either one of those. I was forced into using one or the other about
    > > when a drive died, so I didn't really get to explore possible solutions.

    >
    > I really dislike UUIDs for internal drives. OK, for removables, but I don't
    > understand why Ubuntu thinks it's the way to go for permanently fixed
    > drives. Hence, I ignore that **** in my fstab and stick with /dev/hdX, etc.


    It's lunacy IMO, since you can't tell _anything_ by looking at the
    device name. I stuck with device files for a long time after my distro
    tried to force a change. But, when sda changed to sde, and then changed
    back, all without me asking it to, I went to UUIDs. I'll probably switch
    to LABELs now that I know how. But device files are pretty well useless
    for me if it keeps doing that, as I might have to edit a bunch of files
    (OK, /etc/{fstab,auto.*}) to make things work.

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
    Your pretended fear lest error might step in is like the man who
    would keep all wine out of the country lest men should be drunk.
    -- Oliver Cromwell

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast