Re: Replace Hard Drive After 3.5 Years?
From: Vlad (Bla_at_dot.com)
Date: 03/29/05
- Next message: worley45_at_aol.com: "VCR reel sensors needed"
- Previous message: DaveM: "Re: digital timer question"
- In reply to: Keith Jewell: "Re: Replace Hard Drive After 3.5 Years?"
- Next in thread: Keith Jewell: "Re: Replace Hard Drive After 3.5 Years?"
- Reply: Keith Jewell: "Re: Replace Hard Drive After 3.5 Years?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:16:08 -0500
On 29 Mar 2005 09:41:55 -0800, "Keith Jewell" <implode@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Attach bullseye here wrote:
>> Until recently, I've gotten away with using a Conner Peripherals hard
>drive
>> of ~820 MB and even a 127MB drive from a PC/AT and the current stable
>is 2/3
>> 1998 and before and includes ISA cards in some cases. I believe the
>high
>> RPMs and increased stress brought along by improved storage
>technologies
>> bring on an earlier demise. Few of my devices or cards are newer than
>1999
>> or 2000. I've never had a CD data backup fail. and I believe such
>problems
>> are analogous to the CD rot troubles of the commercial audio
>industry. I am
>> certainly not so cavalier as to leave them out and about like some
>audio CD
>> consumers. I HAVE had CD failure and haven't gotten around to
>investigating
>> it with the mfg. That disc took about 8 years to fail also. Proper
>> maintenance is always a good thing but proper selection of suitable
>> equipment seems more so.
>
>CD-R quality really does matter. I haven't had any problems with the
>gold discs I bought for a dollar a piece 8 years ago, but a few of the
>silver uncoated ones that friends have given me have become completely
>blank. Also, had my first DVD-R fail the other day, a cheap unbranded
>one that someone sent me. Those are supposed to be more durable because
>they're enclosed entirely in acrylic.
>
>However, as to hard disks, I'll take the faster, fails more often
>drives any day. For one, I've got 400 gigs of data online (entire CD
>collection ripped losslessly, digital photos), and that's just not
>possible with the smaller drives. But for two, the new drives are so
>fast and so cheap - most of the new motherboards will do hardware
>mirroring, so for around $100 you can have 40 gigs of totally
>redundant, very fast storage (2x40g 7200rpm drives). They don't even
>use a proprietary format, so if the motherboard dies, you can retrieve
>the data with any machine, since each hard disk is just a duplicate of
>the other. And by fast, I mean transfer rates 10x faster or more than
>those old drives, and seek times almost twice as fast. But they do fail
>more often. Still, using RAID and decent backup strategies, I haven't
>lost a significant amount of data since I was using a 2gig HP SCSI hard
>disk.
>
>-Keith
I just got a Maxtor 120 GB 5200 for about $30.00 from Tiger. Low
speed but probably more reliable then a 7200. Ideal for an image HD
Vlad
- Next message: worley45_at_aol.com: "VCR reel sensors needed"
- Previous message: DaveM: "Re: digital timer question"
- In reply to: Keith Jewell: "Re: Replace Hard Drive After 3.5 Years?"
- Next in thread: Keith Jewell: "Re: Replace Hard Drive After 3.5 Years?"
- Reply: Keith Jewell: "Re: Replace Hard Drive After 3.5 Years?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
