IBM 60GXP disk - failure and how much usage advice please

[John Fryatt]

Hi all,

I have just acquired an old PC that I am setting up as a small Web/SQL
server for development work.

When I got the machine it had an IBM 60GXP 60GB hard disk in it. As an
initial dummy run, I've installed Linux etc. on it and it's all fine. I
have read, however, reports that these Deskstar disks are known a
"Deathstars", i.e. prone to failure. As I have the disk, and it's
working ok this far, I could say "if it fails, it fails" and not worry
about it. I have one other plan though...

I have a USB drive housing that I use for backup purposes (among other
backup approaches as well). In the housing is a Seagate drive.

So, would it make sense to swap the Seagate into the server, and put the
IBM into the USB housing?
My point is that the server disk will see a lot more use. The USB disk
is only run for maybe 30 minutes a month.
Is the failure of the IBM disk exacerbated by prolonged use, e.g. from
overheating maybe? If so, maybe using it in the USB housing only for
short periods might help it not to fail? Does that make sense?

Anyway... all advice (except abuse!) gratefully accepted.

Regards, John



P.s. The USB housing is the type with a fan.

 

[Rod Speed]

I have just acquired an old PC that I am setting up as a small Web/SQL server for
development work.

When I got the machine it had an IBM 60GXP 60GB hard disk in it. As an initial dummy
run, I've installed Linux etc. on it and it's all fine.
I have read, however, reports that these Deskstar disks are known a "Deathstars", i.e.
prone to failure. As I have the disk, and it's
working ok this far, I could say "if it fails, it fails" and not worry
about it. I have one other plan though...

I wouldnt personally use a 60GXP for anything that matters.

I have a USB drive housing that I use for backup purposes (among other backup approaches
as well). In the housing is a Seagate drive.

So, would it make sense to swap the Seagate into the server,
Yes.

and put the IBM into the USB housing?

I'd discard the 60GXP myself.

My point is that the server disk will see a lot more use. The USB disk is only run for
maybe 30 minutes a month.

No evidence that the amount of use makes any difference with 60GXP failures.

What matters is which data is more of a problem if the drive dies.

Is the failure of the IBM disk exacerbated by prolonged use,
Nope.

e.g. from overheating maybe?

To some extent, but they fail when the temps are fine too.

If so, maybe using it in the USB housing only for short periods might help it not to
fail?

No evidence of that with 60GXPs.

Does that make sense?

It makes no sense to use a 60GXP for anything that matters.

Anyway... all advice (except abuse!) gratefully accepted.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

I wouldnt personally use a 60GXP for anything that matters.

Especially since a 80 GB hard disk is dead cheap today
(around 30 EUR/USD).

 

[John Fryatt]

Especially since a 80 GB hard disk is dead cheap today
(around 30 EUR/USD).

A little more than that here, around £28 ($52), but I take your point.

 

[Rod Speed]

Especially since a 80 GB hard disk is dead cheap today
(around 30 EUR/USD).

Yeah, I meant to add that and managed to forget to do that.

 

[John Fryatt]

Thanks all for the replies.
My current plan is to use the 60GXP for my Linux/web server stuff. If it
crashes I can buy a new disk and re-install easily enough, and the data
would be backed-up elsewhere. The server is for my use only, so there
are no hordes of users to worry about. At least I'd get some use out of
the IBM disk.
For the other function of the machine, as a backup server, I'll get
another more reliable disk.

John