Typical lifetime of 100GB+ drives

[PsychicStickleBrick]

I am a home pc user. In the last two years, EVERY single hard drive I've had
that's above 100GB has failed within 14 months!!!
(3 Western Digital 120GB Caviar drives, and one external 160GB Maxtor Drive -
in three different machines).

In contrast, in the last 8 years I have never had a drive that's less than
100GB fail, ever. In fact I have a number of 10,20 & 40GB drives upto 8 years
old that are still in use and running fine!

It would seem from my experience that modern larger drives are becoming less
reliable. Does anyone else get the same feeling?

As I said, I am a home user (PC enthusiast) - I only use my PCs for the usual
kind of stuff: games, storing my MP3 and photo collections, and the occasional
editing of home videos. I leave my machines on 24/7 but in terms of disk
access they're not getting thrashed, a weekly virus scan of the whole system
is usually the most action my hard disks will see.

So why am I going through so many disks? Is one year now a typical lifespan
for a consumer hard drive? The only reason I can think of is that newer disks
are being manufactured to poorer and less tollerant standards as manufacturers
focus more on price vs. key specifications such as capacity and speed.

?

PSB

 

[Rod Speed]

I am a home pc user. In the last two years, EVERY single hard
drive I've had that's above 100GB has failed within 14 months!!!

Then you must be doing something wrong like running them stinking
hot or belting the cases around while they are running etc.

(3 Western Digital 120GB Caviar drives, and one external
160GB Maxtor Drive - in three different machines).

In contrast, in the last 8 years I have never
had a drive that's less than 100GB fail, ever.

And thats what most see with drives over 100GB too.

In fact I have a number of 10,20 & 40GB drives upto
8 years old that are still in use and running fine!

It would seem from my experience that modern
larger drives are becoming less reliable.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

Does anyone else get the same feeling?

Yes, a few do, but not just with drives over 100GB.

Most dont have a clue about basic statistics.

As I said, I am a home user (PC enthusiast) - I only use my PCs for the
usual kind of stuff: games, storing my MP3 and photo collections, and
the occasional editing of home videos. I leave my machines on 24/7 but
in terms of disk access they're not getting thrashed, a weekly virus scan
of the whole system is usually the most action my hard disks will see.

There isnt a shred of evidence that head movements
have any effect on life with modern commodity drives.

Some 7200 rpm drives can get stinking hot tho, particularly if they
are mounted adjacent to another drive. That can certainly kill drives.

So why am I going through so many disks?

Hard to say without more data. Monitor the drive
temperatures with something like SpeedFan.

Is one year now a typical lifespan for a consumer hard drive?

Nope. Most still get discarded because the owner needs more space.

The only reason I can think of is that newer disks are being
manufactured to poorer and less tollerant standards as manufacturers
focus more on price vs. key specifications such as capacity and speed.

Pity you have no basis what so ever for your
claim that drives over 100GB die that quickly.

 

[PsychicStickleBrick]

Then you must be doing something wrong like running them stinking
hot or belting the cases around while they are running etc.



And thats what most see with drives over 100GB too.



The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'


Yes, a few do, but not just with drives over 100GB.

Most dont have a clue about basic statistics.


There isnt a shred of evidence that head movements
have any effect on life with modern commodity drives.

Some 7200 rpm drives can get stinking hot tho, particularly if they
are mounted adjacent to another drive. That can certainly kill drives.


Hard to say without more data. Monitor the drive
temperatures with something like SpeedFan.


Nope. Most still get discarded because the owner needs more space.


Pity you have no basis what so ever for your
claim that drives over 100GB die that quickly.

Thanks for your response Ron.

I take your point regarding temperatures and have already installed a
monitoring program. My Seagate drive is currently running at 37 C which I
would hazard isn't cause for concern. Since two of my drives have failed while
performing a full virus scan previously I will endeavour to monitor the
temperature during such a scan. Damage caused by physical mishandling is not
an issue, I have mini-towers that don't ever get touched.

My experience is as you term a 'pathetically inadequate sample' but that's
precisely why I fielded the question in the first place. I would be very
interested to know what other people have actually experienced and whether
anyone in the industry can comment on any trends in hard drive reliability
(for better or for worse).

PS You seem very sure of yourself and overly-defensive; do you work for a hard
drive manufacturer?

 

[J. Clarke]

I am a home pc user. In the last two years, EVERY single hard drive I've
had that's above 100GB has failed within 14 months!!!
(3 Western Digital 120GB Caviar drives, and one external 160GB Maxtor
Drive - in three different machines).

In contrast, in the last 8 years I have never had a drive that's less than
100GB fail, ever. In fact I have a number of 10,20 & 40GB drives upto 8
years old that are still in use and running fine!

It would seem from my experience that modern larger drives are becoming
less reliable. Does anyone else get the same feeling?

As I said, I am a home user (PC enthusiast) - I only use my PCs for the
usual kind of stuff: games, storing my MP3 and photo collections, and the
occasional editing of home videos. I leave my machines on 24/7 but in
terms of disk access they're not getting thrashed, a weekly virus scan of
the whole system is usually the most action my hard disks will see.

So why am I going through so many disks? Is one year now a typical
lifespan for a consumer hard drive? The only reason I can think of is that
newer disks are being manufactured to poorer and less tollerant standards
as manufacturers focus more on price vs. key specifications such as
capacity and speed.

Are you sure they're getting adequate power? How about adequate cooling?

 

[Rod Speed]

Thanks for your response Ron.

I take your point regarding temperatures and have already
installed a monitoring program. My Seagate drive is currently
running at 37 C which I would hazard isn't cause for concern.

Sure, thats fine. BUT thats presumably in winter.
What matters is what it gets to in the hottest of summer.

Since two of my drives have failed while performing
a full virus scan previously I will endeavour to
monitor the temperature during such a scan.

Its not normally a problem in winter. The problem is in summer.

Damage caused by physical mishandling is not an
issue, I have mini-towers that don't ever get touched.

Thats arguable given that someone obviously installed the drives.

My experience is as you term a 'pathetically inadequate sample'
but that's precisely why I fielded the question in the first place.

You dont see too many reporting failures of drives
over 100GB in here. Its mostly smaller drives than that.

I would be very interested to know what
other people have actually experienced

Thats still a pathetically inadequate sample given that
so few owners of PC ever bother with newsgroups at
all and that those that do show up in here are likely to
be biased towards those who have had a drive failure.

and whether anyone in the industry can comment on any
trends in hard drive reliability (for better or for worse).

None of the manufacturer's employees ever
comment on that sort of thing in public forums.

You do sometimes see someone working for an
operation that flogs lots of drives or for an operation
that uses lots of drives comment on failure rates seen.

PS You seem very sure of yourself

On those basics I commented on, anyone with a clue is.

and overly-defensive;

Bullshit. Just rubbing your nose in the facts.

do you work for a hard drive manufacturer?

Dont need to on the stuff I commented on.

 

[PsychicStickleBrick]

Bullshit...

<snip>

Thanks Ron, shame you didn't get to your punchline before I kill-filed you.

 

[Eric Gisin]

No, Rodney went to Ron's Troll School. (newsgroup joke)

 

[Fred Martin]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind

Thanks Ron, shame you didn't get to your punchline before I kill-filed you.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, ****wit.

The more gutless ****wits like you that killfile me the better.

 

[CJT]

No, Rodney went to Ron's Troll School. (newsgroup joke)

Are we sure they're not the same person?

 

[Rod Speed]

No, Rodney went to Ron's Troll School.

Mindless stuff. I was around long before that fool
ever was and long since he curled up and died too.

(newsgroup joke)

Just another Gisin wank, actually.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eric Gisin wrote:

Are we sure they're not the same person?

Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?

Anyone with a clue, which obviously counts you out,
should be able to use the headers to see we happen to
be on other sides of the world when he posted much.

 

[J. Clarke]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind


Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, ****wit.

The more gutless ****wits like you that killfile me the better.

It's a shame that parents don't wash their kids' mouths out with soap
anymore.

 

[larrymoencurly]

I am a home pc user. In the last two years, EVERY single hard
drive I've had that's above 100GB has failed within 14 months!!!

In contrast, in the last 8 years I have never had a drive that's
less than 100GB fail, ever.

I leave my machines on 24/7

Most likely your 100GB drives were still experimental back in 1998,
the last time that the term "24/7" was valid (but already tiresome).
However large drives manufacturered more recently have been completely
reliable, except when used to store pornography.

I'm only trying to help.

 

[Fred Martin]

It's a shame that parents don't wash their
kids' mouths out with soap anymore.

Its a shame that summary execution
of ****wits like you isnt done anymore.

Retrospective abortion too.

 

[J. Clarke]

Its a shame that summary execution
of ****wits like you isnt done anymore.

Retrospective abortion too.

<plonk>

 

[Sam Williams]

<plonk>

No one actually gives a flying red **** what you do or do not read, ****wit.

 

[J. Clarke]

No one actually gives a flying red **** what you do or do not read,
****wit.

Oh, how cute, a little boy and his sock puppet practicing saying dirty words
in the hope that someone will believe him to be all grown up.

<more generalized plonk>

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

It's a shame that parents don't wash their kids' mouths out with soap
anymore.

I think Rodney is actually of that era that they did that and look what an
upstanding citizen he has become.

 

[Rod Speed]

I think Rodney is actually of that era that they did that

I am indeed. And have enough viable between
my ears to have noticed that its only the mindless
prats that care about the use of words like that.

and look what an upstanding citizen he has become.

Yep, his shit has always been mindlessly superficial.

 

[chrisv]

I am indeed. And have enough viable between
my ears to have noticed that its only the mindless
prats that care about the use of words like that.

If the words in question have no special effect or impact, why use
them?