| 1 |
On 19 December 2015 04:05:25 CET, wabenbau@×××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
>Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I think I'm leery of all drives now. I've had WDs fail, Seagate and |
| 5 |
>> some other brand. I just keep buying bad stuff. :-( I'm glad I |
| 6 |
>> don't have to buy pacemakers. :/ |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>It seems that many many years ago HDs were more reliable then today. |
| 9 |
>I have five 4GB IBM SCSI HDs and one 40GB Seagate IDE HD in my cupboard |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>that I've used 24/7 for about 8 years. They were still intact when I |
| 12 |
>replaced them. |
| 13 |
>But its hardly surprising that a drive with a capacity of some TB has |
| 14 |
>a higher risk of failure than a drive with a capacity of 4GB or 40GB. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>Since about three years I'm using four 3TB WD red HDs as storage drives |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>and I bought two more some months ago. No failures with all of these |
| 19 |
>drives so far. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>-- |
| 22 |
>Regards |
| 23 |
>wabe |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I've got 16 3TB WD Reds running 24/7 for a little over 3 years. |
| 26 |
Only had 1 failure (Smart complaining) in that time. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I find that decent odds. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Joost |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives