| 1 |
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > <SNIP> |
| 6 |
> >>> My thoughts these days is that nobody really makes a bad drive anymore. |
| 7 |
> >>> Like cars[1], they're all good and do what it says on the box. Same |
| 8 |
> >>> with bikes[2]. |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> A manufacturer may have some bad luck and a product range is less than |
| 11 |
> >>> perfect, but even that is quite rare and most stuff ups can be fixed |
| 12 |
> >>> with new firmware. So it's all good. |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> That's my thoughts too. It doesn't matter what brand you go with, they |
| 16 |
> >> all have some sort of failure at some point. They are not built to last |
| 17 |
> >> forever and there is always the random failure, even when a week old. |
| 18 |
> >> It's usually the loss of important data and not having a backup that |
| 19 |
> >> makes it sooooo bad. I'm not real picky on brand as long as it is a |
| 20 |
> >> company I have heard of. |
| 21 |
> >> |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > One thing to keep in mind is statistics. For a single drive by itself |
| 24 |
> > it hardly matters anymore what you buy. You cannot predict the |
| 25 |
> > failure. However if you buy multiple identical drives at the same time |
| 26 |
> > then most likely you will either get all good drives or (possibly) a |
| 27 |
> > bunch of drives that suffer from similar defects and all start failing |
| 28 |
> > at the same point in their life cycle. For RAID arrays it's |
| 29 |
> > measurably best to buy drives that come from different manufacturing |
| 30 |
> > lots, better from different factories, and maybe even from different |
| 31 |
> > companies. Then, if a drive fails, assuming the failure is really the |
| 32 |
> > fault of the drive and not some local issue like power sources or ESD |
| 33 |
> > events, etc., it's less likely other drives in the box will fail at |
| 34 |
> > the same time. |
| 35 |
> > |
| 36 |
> > Cheers, |
| 37 |
> > Mark |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> You make a good point too. I had a headlight to go out on my car once |
| 44 |
> long ago. I, not thinking, replaced them both since the new ones were |
| 45 |
> brighter. Guess what, when one of the bulbs blew out, the other was out |
| 46 |
> VERY soon after. Now, I replace them but NOT at the same time. Keep in |
| 47 |
> mind, just like a hard drive, when one headlight is on, so is the other |
| 48 |
> one. When we turn our computers on, all the drives spin up together so |
| 49 |
> they are basically all getting the same wear and tear effect. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> I don't use RAID, except to kill bugs, but that is good advice. People |
| 52 |
> who do use RAID would be wise to use it. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Dale |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> :-) :-) |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
hum hum! |
| 60 |
I know that Windows does this by default (it annoys me so I disable it) |
| 61 |
but does linux disable or stop running the disks if they're inactive? |
| 62 |
I'm assuming there's an option somewhere - maybe just `unmount`! |
Archives