| 1 |
On 06/25/2014 10:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Like I said, I'm certainly interested in any actual data that supports |
| 4 |
> that drives sold to run 24x7 last any longer than desktop drives when |
| 5 |
> run 24x7. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Anecdotal, but... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In 2008 I bought four 24x7 drives (500GB) and eight regular drives to be |
| 11 |
used in raid. Out of the eight regular drives, six failed before 4 years |
| 12 |
was up. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
All of the 24x7 drives are still in use (although I don't remember which |
| 15 |
machine(s) they're in now), six years later. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
All Seagate. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I initially did do warranty replacement on the failed drives (all drives |
| 20 |
had 5 year warranty back then), and out of the six replacements, four |
| 21 |
failed a little over three months in. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
At that point I went and bought a real battery backed raid card |
| 24 |
(computer still has a UPS) with WD enterprise drives and no hiccups of |
| 25 |
any kind in about two years. And disk performance is way, way up. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Dan |
Archives