| 1 |
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:12:22 AM Thomas Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I've got 16 3TB WD Reds running 24/7 for a little over 3 years. |
| 3 |
> > Only had 1 failure (Smart complaining) in that time. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I find that decent odds. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Joost |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I bought a WD Green 3 TB hard drive in May 2011, warranty was then 3 years. |
| 10 |
> It went bad with errors after 34 months. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
My experience with the WD Greens is similar. I don't trust them for important |
| 13 |
stuff. |
| 14 |
They don't seem to manage 24/7 usage. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I was able to get a warranty replacement after much hassle, with the |
| 17 |
> warranty on such drives down to 2 years. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That replacement hard drive went bad in about seven months, strange sounds |
| 20 |
> reminiscent of a dialup modem, drive was no longer recognized by the |
| 21 |
> computer. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> At nearly the same time as the WD Green failure, a 3 TB My Book Essential 3 |
| 24 |
> TB USB 3.0 hard drive, ordered at the same time as the WD Green drive, went |
| 25 |
> somewhat bad with errors, but the warranty on that was 2 years. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I use the small 2.5" usb-drives from WD succesfully. |
| 28 |
Only had 1 out of 8 die in the past 5 years. (Didn't bother with usb |
| 29 |
harddrives before then) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Needing a hard drive for another computer (May 2013), and not trusting WD or |
| 32 |
> "Green", I ordered a Seagate NAS 4 TB hard drive, figuring increased |
| 33 |
> reliability compared to Barracuda or Desktop was worth the modest |
| 34 |
> additional cost. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> That drive is still good as far as I can tell. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Most manufacturers have good and bad drives. |
| 39 |
Just make sure you pick the ones designed for your usage. |
| 40 |
RAID setups don't like the aggressive powersaving implemented in "green" |
| 41 |
drives of any brand. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Now I am considering an external hard drive with eSATA, more suitable for OS |
| 44 |
> installation (Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Haiku?) than USB 3.0. Only brand I |
| 45 |
> find is Micronet Fantom (GForce), or use Seagate NAS hard drive in an |
| 46 |
> enclosure with eSATA. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> I really can't see why USB 3.0 is so more widely available than eSATA when |
| 49 |
> eSATA seems superior as far as I can tell. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I think USB 3.0 is cheaper and more common. |
| 52 |
Only seen the occasional eSATA port on laptops and afaik, eSATA requires a |
| 53 |
seperate powersupply. USB can supply the power for the drive as well. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Joost |
Archives