Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Warranty Length Not Related To Drive Life?

Tags:
Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 27, 2004 11:11:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 27, 2004 11:11:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
> remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> unsuccessfully to shoot him down?

Well, AFAIK nothing physical changed in ATA drives when manufacturers a
while ago decided to drop the warranty period from 3 years to 1. And I just
read that Seagate is now going to *raise* that period to *5* years as an
inducement to prospective buyers (something I'd certainly take into
consideration: I deliberately chose a 3-year-warrantied drive last time I
bought one).

Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
for the resulting bad publicity. So I'd guess that drives should be in the
bottom of their 'bathtub' curve for several years regardless of what the
nominal warranty period is: unless they fail (even during that nominal
period) at a fairly significant rate the savings that the manufacturer can
realize by shortening it would seem unlikely to be large (though in such a
cut-throat pricing environment the resulting price difference might
noticeably affect sales, so if one does it, the rest may have to follow, and
the same may be true for lengthening the period as Seagate is doing, since
it would otherwise give them a unique selling point for very little price
difference).

Whether similar considerations apply to the terms of service (e.g., duty
cycle) specified for the drive is less clear: there may be fairly
noticeable savings in manufacturing a drive for light-desktop rather than
server-style use, even leaving aside more obscure characteristics such as
resistance to the need for re-seeking in environments subject to vibration.

- bill
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 27, 2004 11:11:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:11:02 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
>simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
>length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
>remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
>unsuccessfully to shoot him down?

What I do understand are that hard drive warranties are often at the
time they are manufactured and not the date of purchase so if you
bought a new hard drive today, has a manufactor date of July 20, 2003
and it breaks down, the manufactor may not take it even though you
just bought it.

Most current warranties are for one year and in my experience,
properly manufactured hard drive should last at least a few years.
Unfortunately they tended to build them as cheaply as possible so it's
not unusual for hard drive to die horribly in just months or even
weeks.

I still have an old Seagate 20MB drive somewhere that is almost 20
years old and still works but Maxtor 120GB hard drive that I got new
last year went south after only 3 months. A 200 GB Western Digital
hard drive that refused to work properly even though I have 2 more of
the same models working just fine in the same PC.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 28, 2004 12:29:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty
was
> > simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> > length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
> > remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> > unsuccessfully to shoot him down?

As usual your pompous jibber below says little.

The deal is that HD warranties were ALWAYS a marketing and price point
decision and had little to do with expected HD life. Since the 1 year and 3
year warranty HDs ALREADY had an expected life of over 5 years. So in a pen
stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even retroactively
without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going to last for 5
years anyway as I've always said.

Seagate simply announced a modest cost change internally and externally
effectively a modest price decrease, nothing more.

> Well, AFAIK nothing physical changed in ATA drives when manufacturers a
> while ago decided to drop the warranty period from 3 years to 1. And I
just
> read that Seagate is now going to *raise* that period to *5* years as an
> inducement to prospective buyers (something I'd certainly take into
> consideration: I deliberately chose a 3-year-warrantied drive last time I
> bought one).
>
> Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
> drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
> first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
> for the resulting bad publicity. So I'd guess that drives should be in
the
> bottom of their 'bathtub' curve for several years regardless of what the
> nominal warranty period is: unless they fail (even during that nominal
> period) at a fairly significant rate the savings that the manufacturer can
> realize by shortening it would seem unlikely to be large (though in such a
> cut-throat pricing environment the resulting price difference might
> noticeably affect sales, so if one does it, the rest may have to follow,
and
> the same may be true for lengthening the period as Seagate is doing, since
> it would otherwise give them a unique selling point for very little price
> difference).
>
> Whether similar considerations apply to the terms of service (e.g., duty
> cycle) specified for the drive is less clear: there may be fairly
> noticeable savings in manufacturing a drive for light-desktop rather than
> server-style use, even leaving aside more obscure characteristics such as
> resistance to the need for re-seeking in environments subject to
vibration.
>
> - bill
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 28, 2004 3:07:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:11:02 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
>simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
>length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
>remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
>unsuccessfully to shoot him down?

I also think this has always been a marketing exercise. Manufacturers
offset the cost of warranty claims against the increased sales that a
long warranty generates.

You also have to consider how many purchasers actually bother to claim
under warranty when a drive is 2 or 3 years old. By then, larger,
cheaper, smaller, cooler drives will be available, and most people
just buy a replacement. The vast majority of drives will last for more
than 5 years whatever the warranty arrangements.

Here in the UK, many stores offer extended warranties on consumer
electronics items for a one off payment. Some offer to refund your
payment if you don't make a claim. Of course, you have to actually
*ask* for the refund after 3 or 5 years. Last time I heard, the
proportion of purchasers that remembered / could be bothered to do
this was under 10%.

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 28, 2004 4:51:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Heheh, the wacko troll has stepped up a tree on the psychopathic ladder.
Now he is Super Wacko.

"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> > simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> > length has nothing to do with expected drive life?

> > Somewhere I think I remember someone making such a claim

And now you know who that someone was.
When it looks like a trap and sounds like a trap and smells like a trap,
THEN IT USUALLY IS A TRAP.

> > and a bunch of trolls tried unsuccessfully to shoot him down?

And now you are part of that select group.

>
> Well, AFAIK nothing physical changed in ATA drives when manufacturers a
> while ago decided to drop the warranty period from 3 years to 1. And I just
> read that Seagate is now going to *raise* that period to *5* years as an
> inducement to prospective buyers (something I'd certainly take into
> consideration: I deliberately chose a 3-year-warrantied drive last time I
> bought one).
>
> Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
> drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
> first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
> for the resulting bad publicity. So I'd guess that drives should be in the
> bottom of their 'bathtub' curve for several years regardless of what the
> nominal warranty period is: unless they fail (even during that nominal
> period) at a fairly significant rate the savings that the manufacturer can
> realize by shortening it would seem unlikely to be large (though in such a
> cut-throat pricing environment the resulting price difference might
> noticeably affect sales, so if one does it, the rest may have to follow, and
> the same may be true for lengthening the period as Seagate is doing, since
> it would otherwise give them a unique selling point for very little price
> difference).
>
> Whether similar considerations apply to the terms of service (e.g., duty
> cycle) specified for the drive is less clear: there may be fairly
> noticeable savings in manufacturing a drive for light-desktop rather than
> server-style use, even leaving aside more obscure characteristics such as
> resistance to the need for re-seeking in environments subject to vibration.
>
> - bill
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 28, 2004 1:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Rod Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message
>news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>>
>> "RodReaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
>> > simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
>> > length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
>> > remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
>> > unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
>
>As usual your pompous jibber below says little.
>
>The deal is that HD warranties were ALWAYS a marketing and price point
>decision and had little to do with expected HD life. Since the 1 year and 3
>year warranty HDs ALREADY had an expected life of over 5 years.

Which is what he said, idiot.

Classic RonnieRetard - attack someone even when they are in agreement!

Wacko jibber snipped.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 28, 2004 6:52:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:60dfg01tj2euj0aonr8a9ifdejacrpbt49@4ax.com:

> Wacko jibber snipped.

Shouldn't the post be empty, then? There's nothing but wacko ranting coming
from the ronnie-beast.

--
/Jesper Monsted
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 29, 2004 11:57:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
>news:60dfg01tj2euj0aonr8a9ifdejacrpbt49@4ax.com:
>
>> Wacko jibber snipped.
>
>Shouldn't the post be empty, then? There's nothing but wacko ranting coming
>from the ronnie-beast.

True, I didn't snip all of Rod^Hn's jibber. Maybe I should have. 8)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 29, 2004 2:32:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:54:00 +0100, "PM" <none@invalid.address> wrote:

> Are there problems with the current 15K offerings?

A frying pan would help as those high speed drives can get really hot.
Nothing like fresh eggs and bacon while reading emails in the morning.

Do make sure your PC case have excellent cooling system before
considering 10K+ drives.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 30, 2004 2:16:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:o g2ig01sftlnu4s9gc0l5fvv92gigcnp4l@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:54:00 +0100, "PM" <none@invalid.address> wrote:
>
> > Are there problems with the current 15K offerings?
>
> A frying pan would help as those high speed drives can get really hot.

No, users let them get hot. It's the users responsibility to keep the HDs
cool.

> Nothing like fresh eggs and bacon while reading emails in the morning.
>
> Do make sure your PC case have excellent cooling system before
> considering 10K+ drives.

Or use drive coolers.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 30, 2004 2:32:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:ivshg0tnsinblpmfeq3aqgoussb36e50hu@4ax.com:

> True, I didn't snip all of Rod^Hn's jibber. Maybe I should have. 8)

Or just snip Ron entirely - let the jihad guys in Iraq have him.


--
/Jesper Monsted
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 30, 2004 12:14:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> True, I didn't snip all of Rod^Hn's jibber. Maybe I should have. 8)
>
>Or just snip Ron entirely - let the jihad guys in Iraq have him.

He'd fit right in with those wackos. Pretty soon we'd have terrorist
attacks on SCSI controller makers, not to mention the heretics at
storagereview.com... 8)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 30, 2004 9:14:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> length has nothing to do with expected drive life?

It cannot be *totally* unrelated. A manufacturer doesn't want a whole
lot of returns. You can expect that *most* drives will *at least*
make it through the warranty period.

A hard drive is free to continue operation well past the warranty
expiration time. As far as I can tell, the 3 to 1 year standard ATA
warrenty shorting has had no impact on actual drive lifetimes.

> Somewhere I think I
> remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
>
>

--
Johan KULLSTAM
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 31, 2004 1:14:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:09ikg0husvp0ts3p0tr9jlkti7f8b3rjda@4ax.com:

> He'd fit right in with those wackos. Pretty soon we'd have terrorist
> attacks on SCSI controller makers, not to mention the heretics at
> storagereview.com... 8)

Actually, i'd prefer if they'd just implant a large storage system in his
rectal passage, but seeing him get blown up by a tomahawk missile could be
fun, too :) 

--
/Jesper Monsted
July 31, 2004 2:18:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:o g2ig01sftlnu4s9gc0l5fvv92gigcnp4l@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:54:00 +0100, "PM" <none@invalid.address> wrote:
>
> > Are there problems with the current 15K offerings?
>
> A frying pan would help as those high speed drives can get really hot.
> Nothing like fresh eggs and bacon while reading emails in the morning.
>
> Do make sure your PC case have excellent cooling system before
> considering 10K+ drives.
> --
> To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net

Indeed they can - I have a Lian Li case which, so far, appears upto the job.
I was looking at getting CD bay drive coolers for any 15k drives I get..

Thanks for your advice

PM
July 31, 2004 2:20:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

> Ah, the SCSI drives are Quantum - they've always been good, in my
> experience :) 

Same here, but now they are a part of Maxtor and, consequently, I wasn't
sure if you meant they had deteriorated.

Thank you.

PM
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 31, 2004 4:25:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

"Johan Kullstam" <kullstj-nn@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87zn5hh0xu.fsf@sophia.axel.nom...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty
was
> > simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> > length has nothing to do with expected drive life?
>
> It cannot be *totally* unrelated. A manufacturer doesn't want a whole
> lot of returns. You can expect that *most* drives will *at least*
> make it through the warranty period.

Do ya think!

> A hard drive is free to continue operation well past the warranty
> expiration time. As far as I can tell, the 3 to 1 year standard ATA
> warrenty shorting has had no impact on actual drive lifetimes.

Do ya think!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 31, 2004 9:54:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

In article <BWyNc.142036$OB3.105819@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes

>So in a pen
>stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even retroactively
>without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going to last for 5
>years anyway as I've always said.

Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the Deskstar
75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 31, 2004 9:54:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

> In article <BWyNc.142036$OB3.105819@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>>So in a pen
>>stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even
>>retroactively without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going
>>to last for 5 years anyway as I've always said.
>
> Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the Deskstar
> 75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

What's this "we", White Man? You have a mouse in your pocket?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 31, 2004 2:51:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <cefchi04r0@news1.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> writes

>What's this "we", White Man?

It's the royal 'we', old chap.

> You have a mouse in your pocket?

It's neither a mouse nor a gun. It means I'm pleased to see you.

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 31, 2004 2:51:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

> In article <cefchi04r0@news1.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> writes
>
>>What's this "we", White Man?
>
> It's the royal 'we', old chap.

So of what are you the king?

>> You have a mouse in your pocket?
>
> It's neither a mouse nor a gun. It means I'm pleased to see you.

If you knew why you were being asked if there was a mouse in your pocket you
would be a good deal less pleased, Round Eyes.
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 1, 2004 12:47:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in
news:uki49LDpXyCBFwos@jasper.org.uk:

> Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the
> Deskstar 75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

Oooh, those were almost as nice as the 36LZX 18gig ultrastars. I had 50
servers delivered, each with one of those drives. I had about 60 exchanges
on them before my vendor started giving me seagates :) 


--
/Jesper Monsted
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 3, 2004 5:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

In article <Xns9537E7E95F00Fnewsspamrootweilerdk@62.243.74.163>,
Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote:
> Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in
> news:uki49LDpXyCBFwos@jasper.org.uk:
> > Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the
> > Deskstar 75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

> Oooh, those were almost as nice as the 36LZX 18gig ultrastars. I had 50
> servers delivered, each with one of those drives. I had about 60 exchanges
> on them before my vendor started giving me seagates :) 

HP Surestore 2000. Six drives, ten failures, we finally gave up when we
called HP for a replacement and got routed to some noname 'support'
organization. Apperently they'd sold the whole drive business, lock, stock,
and warranty.

--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 4, 2004 10:23:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Ron Reaugh:
> Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
> remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> unsuccessfully to shoot him down?

Such claim would be wrong...

As with any product the percentage of failures will
increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
ring second and 2 % during third year of life.

Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
money...

Manufactures will work hard to get the failure rate
as much down as possible (less cost, competitive
advantage).

--
Michael Giegerich
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 4, 2004 10:23:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first year,
under 1% in next two.

"Michael Giegerich" <migieger@web.de> wrote in message
news:5i2rec.gc22.ln@luva.home...
>
> As with any product the percentage of failures will
> increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
> ring second and 2 % during third year of life.
>
> Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
> money...
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 5, 2004 1:20:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Eric Gisin:
> Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first year,
> under 1% in next two.

Assuming you're right, after how many years the failure
rate would have come down to 0 % then?

Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
take a few years, but it will go there :-)

> "Michael Giegerich" <migieger@web.de> wrote in message
> news:5i2rec.gc22.ln@luva.home...
> >
> > As with any product the percentage of failures will
> > increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
> > ring second and 2 % during third year of life.
> >
> > Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
> > money...

--
Michael Giegerich
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 5, 2004 1:20:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Michael Giegerich wrote:

> Eric Gisin:
>> Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first
>> year, under 1% in next two.
>
> Assuming you're right, after how many years the failure
> rate would have come down to 0 % then?
>
> Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
> work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
> take a few years, but it will go there :-)

Common phenomenon with electronics of any kind--a high rate of "infant
mortality" in the first few months of operation, then a relatively low
failure rate until pieces start dying of old age.

>> "Michael Giegerich" <migieger@web.de> wrote in message
>> news:5i2rec.gc22.ln@luva.home...
>> >
>> > As with any product the percentage of failures will
>> > increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
>> > ring second and 2 % during third year of life.
>> >
>> > Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
>> > money...
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 5, 2004 2:03:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

In article <fucrec.5r22.ln@luva.home>, Michael Giegerich
<migieger@web.de> writes

>Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
>work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
>take a few years, but it will go there :-)

It's usually taken for granted that the failure rate is plotted as a
"bathtub" curve. Here's an attempt at ASCII - view with a monospaced
font:


r |
e |
l |
i | ___________________________________________
a | / \
b | / \
i | / \
l | / \
i | / \
t | / \
y | / \
+--------------------------------------------------------------
time
^ ^ ^ ^
1 2 3 4


The x-axis is time, the y-axis is failure rate.

What this says is that drive failure is high in their infancy (between
points 1 and 2). If they see out infancy, they tend to continue working
(between points 2 and 3) until they reach some point at which they wear
out, then failure rates increase (between points 3 and 4.)

Traditionally, the gap between points 2 and 3 has been three years for
consumer-level (=IDE) drives, and five years for high-end (=SCSI)
drives, coinciding with the typical warranty period offered on these
devices. Of course, this is generalising wildly and depends very much
on how the drive is treated prior to installation, its operating
conditions, etc. etc.

--
..sigmonster on vacation
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 5, 2004 2:03:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in
news:aSjVg3C08UEBFwdH@jasper.org.uk:

> the y-axis is failure rate

....which means the 'curve' is upside down, but I can guess what you
intended: reliability = 1/failure rate ???
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 6, 2004 2:51:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:ces2j01ae7
@news3.newsguy.com:
> Common phenomenon with electronics of any kind--a high rate of "infant
> mortality" in the first few months of operation, then a relatively low
> failure rate until pieces start dying of old age.

Same thing i've seen in most drives. Once you weed out the badly
manufactured ones, you'll see little or no failures. After several years of
non-stop operation, turning them off will make a buttload of them die at
once, though.

--
/Jesper Monsted
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 6, 2004 4:53:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <ces2j01ae7@news3.newsguy.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Michael Giegerich wrote:
>
>> Eric Gisin:
>>> Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first
>>> year, under 1% in next two.
>>
>> Assuming you're right, after how many years the failure
>> rate would have come down to 0 % then?
>>
>> Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
>> work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
>> take a few years, but it will go there :-)
>
>Common phenomenon with electronics of any kind--a high rate of "infant
>mortality" in the first few months of operation, then a relatively low
>failure rate until pieces start dying of old age.

Nice theory, but, hard drives have a mechanical component, too. Anybody
got numbers on what dies first/most often?

>>> "Michael Giegerich" <migieger@web.de> wrote in message
>>> news:5i2rec.gc22.ln@luva.home...
>>> >
>>> > As with any product the percentage of failures will
>>> > increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
>>> > ring second and 2 % during third year of life.
>>> >
>>> > Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
>>> > money...

--
Tom Wilson | Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to
SAS Institute Inc. | reinvent it, poorly.
sasctw@unx.sas.com | -- Henry Spencer
Opinions are mine, not of SAS Institute Inc.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 6, 2004 4:53:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Tom Wilson wrote:

> In article <ces2j01ae7@news3.newsguy.com>,
> J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>Michael Giegerich wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Gisin:
>>>> Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first
>>>> year, under 1% in next two.
>>>
>>> Assuming you're right, after how many years the failure
>>> rate would have come down to 0 % then?
>>>
>>> Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
>>> work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
>>> take a few years, but it will go there :-)
>>
>>Common phenomenon with electronics of any kind--a high rate of "infant
>>mortality" in the first few months of operation, then a relatively low
>>failure rate until pieces start dying of old age.
>
> Nice theory, but, hard drives have a mechanical component, too. Anybody
> got numbers on what dies first/most often?

It's not "theory", it's practical experience. What difference does it make
whether the failure is in a mechanical component or a part of a circuit?

>>>> "Michael Giegerich" <migieger@web.de> wrote in message
>>>> news:5i2rec.gc22.ln@luva.home...
>>>> >
>>>> > As with any product the percentage of failures will
>>>> > increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
>>>> > ring second and 2 % during third year of life.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
>>>> > money...
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
August 17, 2004 10:15:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

>Not really. Spun up a pair of 380MB ESDI drives last night. Anyone
>remember them? Seem fine, once the grease warmed up a bit and got
>spread around a little :) 
>
>--
>Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
>+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.

Still using a pair of 330MB's - 1 FH and 1 HH - in a DOS/WFWG311 system.
Used once per week only though. Manufacturing date was either 1989 or 1991

Kev
August 17, 2004 3:44:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.arch.storage (More info?)

Remember ESDI, blimey, yup.. used to use 150MB ESDI drives many years ago.
And going back further... 20MB MFM and RLL drives.

Anyone remember the old AT&T 3B15 150MB drives... you know the ones that
were 3ft long and had disc brakes in them?

Mark


<KevH@yorkie.dabsolLL.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4121a284$0$37064$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> >Not really. Spun up a pair of 380MB ESDI drives last night. Anyone
> >remember them? Seem fine, once the grease warmed up a bit and got
> >spread around a little :) 
> >
> Still using a pair of 330MB's - 1 FH and 1 HH - in a DOS/WFWG311 system.
> Used once per week only though. Manufacturing date was either 1989 or
1991
>
!