| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:54:35 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Curious. I hope I don't start a flame war here. I have had WD, Seagate |
| 4 |
> and I think there is a Samsung here somewhere, may be the one that is |
| 5 |
> rolling over on its back now. The one drive that failed a few years ago |
| 6 |
> was a WD drive. That said, all the other WD drives I have had just got |
| 7 |
> to small to really use, and slow when SATA came out. I'm partial to WD |
| 8 |
> and Seagate still since I got good long term use out of those. Based on |
| 9 |
> your experience, you tend to be of the same opinion? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Allan, your situation should involve a lot of hard drives. Any |
| 12 |
> thoughts? Neil, you have a nice big opinion on this? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, mix drives from different manufacturers. Or buy them at different |
| 15 |
times. All manufacturers can have bad batches (remember the IBM |
| 16 |
Deathstar?). I bought two Seagate drives a couple of years ago, for use |
| 17 |
in a RAID. The only time I have ignored my own advice on this matter |
| 18 |
(other matters are way off topic!). After a year they both started |
| 19 |
showing SMART errors and one of them failed soon after, the other was |
| 20 |
replaced before it had a chance to fail. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Yes, it's anecdotal, but it makes sense - true redundancy means using |
| 23 |
different sources. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it. |
Archives