Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anyone know a consumer data recovery service please?

Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 12, 2005 1:39:14 PM

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

I have had a hard drive crash and didnt realise that the reason the system
wouldnt (initially) do backups and then get into windows was that the HDD
was crashing (I thought it was something to do with having installed Easy CD
Creator onto a Windows 2000 machine) See postings elsewhere on
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)

I need to get some files off it. Does anyone know of a CONSUMER data
recovery service anywhere I can send the drive to which doesn't assume you
are a huge corporation with unlimited resources please?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 12, 2005 5:47:40 PM

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

If your drive is still under warranty and you want to get it replaced under
warranty, the drive manufacturer may limit your choice of data recovery
services.

Also, remember that you get what you pay for and the commercial data
recovery services, such as www,ontrack.com may have tools and techniques not
available from less expensive services.

I would check with www.ontrack.com.

--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
"Maria Ripanykhazova" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
news:HsKdnY5dZMS-vpPfRVn-jQ@rcn.net...
> I have had a hard drive crash and didnt realise that the reason the system
> wouldnt (initially) do backups and then get into windows was that the HDD
> was crashing (I thought it was something to do with having installed Easy
CD
> Creator onto a Windows 2000 machine) See postings elsewhere on
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
>
> I need to get some files off it. Does anyone know of a CONSUMER data
> recovery service anywhere I can send the drive to which doesn't assume you
> are a huge corporation with unlimited resources please?
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 12, 2005 7:43:37 PM

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

Maria Ripanykhazova wrote:
>
> I have had a hard drive crash and didnt realise that the reason the system
> wouldnt (initially) do backups and then get into windows was that the HDD
> was crashing (I thought it was something to do with having installed Easy CD
> Creator onto a Windows 2000 machine) See postings elsewhere on
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
>
> I need to get some files off it. Does anyone know of a CONSUMER data
> recovery service anywhere I can send the drive to which doesn't assume you
> are a huge corporation with unlimited resources please?

Give us a shout, Maria - we should be able to help.


Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 12, 2005 8:56:32 PM

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

How about the free software Filerecovery. If you have a second drive or if
you are able to boot from a second windows then everything is fine with this
software. It is free.
"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:420E3239.E7C05BEE@hotmail.com...
> Maria Ripanykhazova wrote:
>>
>> I have had a hard drive crash and didnt realise that the reason the
>> system
>> wouldnt (initially) do backups and then get into windows was that the HDD
>> was crashing (I thought it was something to do with having installed Easy
>> CD
>> Creator onto a Windows 2000 machine) See postings elsewhere on
>> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
>>
>> I need to get some files off it. Does anyone know of a CONSUMER data
>> recovery service anywhere I can send the drive to which doesn't assume
>> you
>> are a huge corporation with unlimited resources please?
>
> Give us a shout, Maria - we should be able to help.
>
>
> Odie
> --
>
> RetroData
> Data Recovery Experts
> www.retrodata.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 12, 2005 10:27:53 PM

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

In article <culmg0$lo5$1@pyrite.mv.net>,
Howard Kaikow <kaikow@standards.com> wrote:
>If your drive is still under warranty and you want to get it replaced under
>warranty, the drive manufacturer may limit your choice of data recovery
>services.
>
>Also, remember that you get what you pay for and the commercial data
>recovery services, such as www,ontrack.com may have tools and techniques not
>available from less expensive services.
>
>I would check with www.ontrack.com.
>

Ditto for a recommendation for Ontrack.

>--
>http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
>"Maria Ripanykhazova" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
>news:HsKdnY5dZMS-vpPfRVn-jQ@rcn.net...
>> I have had a hard drive crash and didnt realise that the reason the system
>> wouldnt (initially) do backups and then get into windows was that the HDD
>> was crashing (I thought it was something to do with having installed Easy
>CD
>> Creator onto a Windows 2000 machine) See postings elsewhere on
>> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
>>
>> I need to get some files off it. Does anyone know of a CONSUMER data
>> recovery service anywhere I can send the drive to which doesn't assume you
>> are a huge corporation with unlimited resources please?
>>
>>
>
>


--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
February 12, 2005 11:55:13 PM

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

In comp.sys.laptops Howard Kaikow <kaikow@standards.com> wrote:
: If your drive is still under warranty and you want to get it replaced under
: warranty, the drive manufacturer may limit your choice of data recovery
: services.

For many, the data on the drive is worth more than the drive itself,
so the drive warranty is moot if that drive has the only copy of it.
For example, I bought a new Seagate desktop hard drive, 160GB, for $54
after rebate last week. You can buy a much smaller laptop hard drive
for only about $80. The data on my drive - if by chance I hadn't
backed it up - is worth much more than that.

: Also, remember that you get what you pay for and the commercial data
: recovery services, such as www,ontrack.com may have tools and techniques not
: available from less expensive services.

I think your options are limited if your hard drive crashes. In most
cases, the crashed drive is not accessible at all with any hardware
and your only choice is to send to an expensive recovery service.
Considering how often hard drives crash for no reason, it's incredibly
stupid not to backup your hard drive. I've had at least three hard
drives crash on me and have talked to numerous others who have
experienced such. The odds are against you.

If you have a backup of your drive, you can of course just send your
drive back if it's under warranty and get a replacement, as I did last
year with one of my crashed drives.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
February 13, 2005 12:06:00 AM

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

usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
comp.sys.laptops:


> Considering how often hard drives crash for no
> reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
> I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
> to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
> against you.

To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
it can be a matter of perspective.

But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
complete hard drive.

One consolation, even in the 22dn century we have "non-
backupping" dumbos:

http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/e64.php3

:) 




--
CeeBee


"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 12:06:01 AM

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

CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote:
>usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote: in
>> The odds are against you.

>To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>years ago.

So they were hundreds of percent _less_ reliable a decade ago? 8*)

I don't have that many clients, but I probably see a dozen failed hard
drives in a year, with maybe 3-4 of them non-recoverable without
spending a fortune on data recovery. If you care about your data,
definitely back up! The latest data recovery quote for a
non-functional drive I sent in a week ago was $400 to $2500!

I'd love to know that it's do-able for less than that, but the nature
of the beast is that it's a very {labor,time,equipment,risk}-intensive
process, and isn't ever going to be cheap.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 1:29:16 AM

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

"CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
> comp.sys.laptops:
>
>
> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
> > against you.
>
> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
> it can be a matter of perspective.

Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard drives.
Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical form but
increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half magnitude. I don't
think it's coincidence that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their
drives for three years as was standard a few years ago. Maybe I'm nervous
because I just had a 160 GB drive replaced in under a year due to SMART
errors.
>
> But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
> valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
> complete hard drive.
>
> One consolation, even in the 22dn century we have "non-
> backupping" dumbos:
>
> http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/e64.php3
>
> :) 
>
>
>
>
> --
> CeeBee
>
>
> "I don't know half of you
> half as well as I should like;
> and I like less than half of you
> half as well as you deserve."
February 13, 2005 5:22:58 AM

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

In comp.sys.laptops CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote:
: usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
: comp.sys.laptops:


: > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
: > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
: > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
: > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
: > against you.

: To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
: days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
: years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
: it can be a matter of perspective.

(shrug) I guess after seeing more than one dead hard drive in the
last two years where all data was lost I'll stick with my assumption
that hard drives can and do crash regularly, no matter how much more
reliable people say they are. :-)

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 5:31:19 AM

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

CeeBee wrote:
>
> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
> comp.sys.laptops:
>
> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
> > against you.
>
> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
> it can be a matter of perspective.
>
> But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
> valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
> complete hard drive.
>


A lot of you are harping on about people being stupid for not backing
up.

Sure, it's not the brightest thing to ignore, but bear in mind that a
little over 10 years ago, a new 40MB hard drive cost (in the UK, fitted)
over £400. A tape streamer to back that drive up cost only £80 - £100
or so.

Nowadays, a 200GB drive is well under £100, yet a tape backup solution
for that volume is at least ten times as much. (Please don't mention
backing up to another hard drive.)

Economics play a role as well.


Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 5:31:20 AM

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:420EBBF7.1224C882@hotmail.com...
> CeeBee wrote:
> >
> > usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
> > comp.sys.laptops:
> >
> > > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
> > > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
> > > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
> > > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
> > > against you.
> >
> > To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
> > days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
> > years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
> > it can be a matter of perspective.
> >
> > But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
> > valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
> > complete hard drive.
> >
>
>
> A lot of you are harping on about people being stupid for not backing
> up.
>
> Sure, it's not the brightest thing to ignore, but bear in mind that a
> little over 10 years ago, a new 40MB hard drive cost (in the UK, fitted)
> over £400. A tape streamer to back that drive up cost only £80 - £100
> or so.
>
> Nowadays, a 200GB drive is well under £100, yet a tape backup solution
> for that volume is at least ten times as much. (Please don't mention
> backing up to another hard drive.)

Why not? That can be convenient enough to encourage even the laziest to back
up their data. Of course, for the most important data, one needs also to
frequently back up to off-site storage. That can be accomplished for most
people fairly easily using inexpensive DVD's.
>
> Economics play a role as well.
>
>
> Odie
> --
>
> RetroData
> Data Recovery Experts
> www.retrodata.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 5:31:20 AM

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

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> CeeBee wrote:
>>
>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>> comp.sys.laptops:
>>
>> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>> > against you.
>>
>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>> it can be a matter of perspective.
>>
>> But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
>> valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
>> complete hard drive.
>>
>
>
> A lot of you are harping on about people being stupid for not backing
> up.
>
> Sure, it's not the brightest thing to ignore, but bear in mind that a
> little over 10 years ago, a new 40MB hard drive cost (in the UK, fitted)
> over £400. A tape streamer to back that drive up cost only £80 - £100
> or so.
>
> Nowadays, a 200GB drive is well under £100, yet a tape backup solution
> for that volume is at least ten times as much. (Please don't mention
> backing up to another hard drive.)

Why not mention it? It's cost-effective and works fine as long as you do it
right.

> Economics play a role as well.
>
>
> Odie

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 9:23:34 AM

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

Ian S wrote:

> "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>> comp.sys.laptops:
>>
>>
>> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>> > against you.
>>
>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>> it can be a matter of perspective.
>
> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard
> drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical form
> but increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half magnitude. I
> don't think it's coincidence that the drive manufacturers no longer
> warrant their drives for three years as was standard a few years ago.

No, it's not. One reduced it to a year and cut prices to reflect the
reduced warranty. The others followed suit in an effort to keep their
prices competitive. Now Seagate's giving 5 years and several other vendors
are back to three.

> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive replaced in under a
> year due to SMART errors.

I just lost a 160 too. But not the several other 160s of the same brand and
model that I installed at the same time in different machines.

Regardless, there is one thing one can be certain about with hard disks.
They _will_ fail. In an ideal world you'll have moved your data to newer,
faster, more reliable ones first.

>> But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
>> valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
>> complete hard drive.
>>
>> One consolation, even in the 22dn century we have "non-
>> backupping" dumbos:
>>
>> http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/e64.php3

I think that episode was the one where I finally lost interest.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
February 13, 2005 11:31:42 AM

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

In comp.sys.laptops Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
: CeeBee wrote:
: A lot of you are harping on about people being stupid for not backing
: up.

: Sure, it's not the brightest thing to ignore, but bear in mind that a
: little over 10 years ago, a new 40MB hard drive cost (in the UK, fitted)
: over £400. A tape streamer to back that drive up cost only £80 - £100
: or so.

: Nowadays, a 200GB drive is well under £100, yet a tape backup solution
: for that volume is at least ten times as much. (Please don't mention
: backing up to another hard drive.)

Of course I will - that's the most cost-effective way to do it. As
said in another thread, I recently purchased a 160GB desktop hard
drive for $54 after rebate. Fry's has a 200GB on sale this weekend
for $75 after rebate. I can get a USB 2.0 hard drive enclosure for
$26. For $101, I get a nice backup system.

For redundancy, I'll want at least two copies of my data, because my
backup drives can fail too. So I'll get two of the above and
alternately back up to one drive or the other. The chances of both
drives failing at the same time is small.

On top of that, DVD is a good way to backup important files without
backing up all your software. I.e. if you have a bunch of digital
photos, dump them on to a few DVDs or CDs. Again, have at least two
copies - CDs and DVDs can and do fail also. I've had a couple of
burned CDs go bad on me.

Having invested in a hunk-of-junk tape backup system from HP years
ago, I will never use one again. The system I bought was slow and
unreliable, and the tapes were expensive. To get a professional
system that is more reliable wouldn't be worth the extra cost to me.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 12:28:37 PM

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

Andrew wrote:
>

>
> For redundancy, I'll want at least two copies of my data, because my
> backup drives can fail too. So I'll get two of the above and
> alternately back up to one drive or the other. The chances of both
> drives failing at the same time is small.


I can live with the idea of two backup drives. Somehow, using one
medium prone to failure to backup another medium as prone to failure
doesn't quite compute with me. Especially when using IBM/Hitachi drives
or external Maxtor devices. But two Seagates - great. Trouble is, many
people who use hard drives as their backup targets tend not to accept
that their backups are failsafe.

But don't worry about me - I actually have less than 1GB of data that it
would cause pain to lose - and this gets backed up to various media on a
regular basis. I am probably more paranoid than the lot of you put
together when it comes to losing data. Perhaps because I see so much of
it.

>
> On top of that, DVD is a good way to backup important files without
> backing up all your software. I.e. if you have a bunch of digital
> photos, dump them on to a few DVDs or CDs. Again, have at least two
> copies - CDs and DVDs can and do fail also. I've had a couple of
> burned CDs go bad on me.
>
> Having invested in a hunk-of-junk tape backup system from HP years
> ago, I will never use one again. The system I bought was slow and
> unreliable, and the tapes were expensive. To get a professional
> system that is more reliable wouldn't be worth the extra cost to me.


This does seem to be a major problem with plenty of modern streaming
media - the backup seems to go perfectly, then come to restore, the tape
can't be read for a number of reasons. As you say, you need to spend
plenty of sheckels on a decent system.


Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 1:44:08 PM

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

In article <zcasdddlaufy45163608611@bizaveMYSHOES.com>,
Andrew <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote:
>In comp.sys.laptops CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote:
>: usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>: comp.sys.laptops:
>
>
>: > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>: > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>: > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>: > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>: > against you.
>
>: To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>: days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>: years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>: it can be a matter of perspective.
>
>(shrug) I guess after seeing more than one dead hard drive in the
>last two years where all data was lost I'll stick with my assumption
>that hard drives can and do crash regularly, no matter how much more
>reliable people say they are. :-)
>
>Andrew

Modern hard drives are amazingly reliable but I imagine that my laptop
could be stolen any day, and my deskop system could suffer a hard disk
crash any night and backup my data accordingly.

Whenever someone asks me what the most reliable hard disk is I respond
"what difference does it make ? You still need to do esactly the same
backup proceedure."



--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 3:40:33 PM

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

That would depend on the drives you purchase. I just purchased a WD Raptor,
5 year warranty, and a Maxtor 300GB SATA drive, with a 3 year warranty.

Dan

Ian S wrote:
> "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>> comp.sys.laptops:
>>
>>
>>> Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>>> reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>>> I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>>> to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>>> against you.
>>
>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>> it can be a matter of perspective.
>
> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard
> drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical
> form but increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half
> magnitude. I don't think it's coincidence that the drive
> manufacturers no longer warrant their drives for three years as was
> standard a few years ago. Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160
> GB drive replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>>
>> But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
>> valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
>> complete hard drive.
>>
>> One consolation, even in the 22dn century we have "non-
>> backupping" dumbos:
>>
>> http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/e64.php3
>>
>> :) 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> CeeBee
>>
>>
>> "I don't know half of you
>> half as well as I should like;
>> and I like less than half of you
>> half as well as you deserve."
February 13, 2005 7:26:56 PM

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

In comp.sys.laptops Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
: I can live with the idea of two backup drives. Somehow, using one
: medium prone to failure to backup another medium as prone to failure
: doesn't quite compute with me. Especially when using IBM/Hitachi drives
: or external Maxtor devices. But two Seagates - great.

Having seen two Seagates start to fail in the last few months alone, I
would not put any more faith in them than in any other manufacturer's
drives. To be fair, though, unlike the WD and IBM drives I've had
die, the Seagates (in friends' computers) were at least alive and I
could retrive data from them, even though they were failing
diagnostics and making the classic "dying drive" sounds...

: Trouble is, many
: people who use hard drives as their backup targets tend not to accept
: that their backups are failsafe.

Yeah, true enough.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 7:26:57 PM

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

Andrew wrote:

> In comp.sys.laptops Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : I can live with the idea of two backup drives. Somehow, using one
> : medium prone to failure to backup another medium as prone to failure
> : doesn't quite compute with me. Especially when using IBM/Hitachi drives
> : or external Maxtor devices. But two Seagates - great.
>
> Having seen two Seagates start to fail in the last few months alone, I
> would not put any more faith in them than in any other manufacturer's
> drives. To be fair, though, unlike the WD and IBM drives I've had
> die, the Seagates (in friends' computers) were at least alive and I
> could retrive data from them, even though they were failing
> diagnostics and making the classic "dying drive" sounds...

There's a common misconception that length of warranty is somehow related to
quality of product. If that were the case then a Hyundai would be better
built than a Rolls. The length of the warranty is mostly a marketing
consideration--the cost of warranty repairs is built into the price of the
product--it doesn't come out of the manufacturer's pocket--they charge more
for the same product with a longer warranty unless they're suffering from
an image problem that they're willing to cut margins to overcome.

> : Trouble is, many
> : people who use hard drives as their backup targets tend not to accept
> : that their backups are failsafe.
>
> Yeah, true enough.

?? Perhaps he meant "tend not to accept that their backups are _not_
failsafe"? Although "failsafe" is often misused and one of my pet peeves.
"Failsafe" means that you know the failure modes and when failure occurs
then nothing horrible happens, not that something can't fail.

> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 9:06:45 PM

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

"Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:QzBPd.40327$EG1.20043@lakeread04...
> "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>> comp.sys.laptops:
>>
>>
>> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>> > against you.
>>
>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>> it can be a matter of perspective.

> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard drives.
> Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical form but
> increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half magnitude. I don't
> think it's coincidence that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their
> drives for three years as was standard a few years ago.

Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting some of theirs for 5 years now.

> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.

Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

>> But about backing up you're absolutely right, if it's only your
>> valuable data if you don't have space to make a ghost of your
>> complete hard drive.
>>
>> One consolation, even in the 22dn century we have "non-
>> backupping" dumbos:
>>
>> http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/e64.php3
>>
>> :) 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> CeeBee
>>
>>
>> "I don't know half of you
>> half as well as I should like;
>> and I like less than half of you
>> half as well as you deserve."
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 9:06:46 PM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:378ck7F57tc5vU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:QzBPd.40327$EG1.20043@lakeread04...
> > "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
> >> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
> >> comp.sys.laptops:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
> >> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
> >> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
> >> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
> >> > against you.
> >>
> >> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
> >> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
> >> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
> >> it can be a matter of perspective.
>
> > Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard
drives.
> > Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical form but
> > increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half magnitude. I don't
> > think it's coincidence that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant
their
> > drives for three years as was standard a few years ago.
>
> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting some of theirs for 5 years now.

Of course you have to compare apples to apples. WD used to warrant their
Caviar drives for three years, now it's one. You can buy an extended
warranty for about $20 which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual
cost of the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>
> > Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
> > replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>
> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample. But you might want to
consider reliability results at storagereview.com. A quick
back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar drives introduced in
2000 and 2001 had an average percentile score of about 55. Those Caviars
introduced in 2002 and 2003 have an average percentile score of 36.
Percentile score X here means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all
the drives in the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now there are a lot
of caveats in the interpretation of such data, but I don't see much cause
for optimism that reliability of hard drives like these continues to
improve.

I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that may be coming
into play in electro-mechanical devices, the size of which has not increased
while the capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps twenty or more
all within maybe five years or so.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 13, 2005 9:06:47 PM

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

Ian S wrote:

> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:378ck7F57tc5vU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:QzBPd.40327$EG1.20043@lakeread04...
>> > "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
>> >> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>> >> comp.sys.laptops:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>> >> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>> >> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>> >> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>> >> > against you.
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>> >> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>> >> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>> >> it can be a matter of perspective.
>>
>> > Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard
> drives.
>> > Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical form but
>> > increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half magnitude. I
>> > don't think it's coincidence that the drive manufacturers no longer
>> > warrant
> their
>> > drives for three years as was standard a few years ago.
>>
>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting some of theirs for 5 years now.
>
> Of course you have to compare apples to apples. WD used to warrant their
> Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.

They seem to be going to three. Newegg has 250 gig WDs with 1 year for $142
and with 3 year for $140. The warranty is meaningless as an indicator of
anything but how long a warranty the marketing department decided would
sell the most drives.

> You can buy an extended
> warranty for about $20 which is a pretty significant fraction of the
> actual cost of the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>>
>> > Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>> > replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>>
>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>
> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample. But you might want to
> consider reliability results at storagereview.com. A quick
> back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar drives introduced
> in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile score of about 55. Those
> Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003 have an average percentile score of
> 36. Percentile score X here means that the drive is more reliable than X%
> of all the drives in the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent
> 2000JB families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now there
> are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data, but I don't see
> much cause for optimism that reliability of hard drives like these
> continues to improve.

But how accurate are those surveys? Do they reflect realworld percentages
or percentages of people who had problems who sought out storagereview? If
it is not based on a random and representative sample then it is
meaningless.

> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that may be coming
> into play in electro-mechanical devices, the size of which has not
> increased while the capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.

Uh, why would the size "increase"? Perhaps you meant "decrease"? And why
would this make a difference in reliability?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 9:16:36 AM

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

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cunsk8$7rl$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <zcasdddlaufy45163608611@bizaveMYSHOES.com>,
> Andrew <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.laptops CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote:
>>: usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>>: comp.sys.laptops:
>>
>>
>>: > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>>: > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>>: > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>>: > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>>: > against you.
>>
>>: To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>>: days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>>: years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>>: it can be a matter of perspective.
>>
>>(shrug) I guess after seeing more than one dead hard drive in the
>>last two years where all data was lost I'll stick with my assumption
>>that hard drives can and do crash regularly, no matter how much more
>>reliable people say they are. :-)
>>
>>Andrew
>
> Modern hard drives are amazingly reliable but I imagine that my laptop
> could be stolen any day, and my deskop system could suffer a hard disk
> crash any night and backup my data accordingly.
>
> Whenever someone asks me what the most reliable hard disk is I respond
> "what difference does it make ? You still need to do esactly the same
> backup proceedure."

But avoid having to use it if the drive doesnt die until you dont use it
anymore.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 10:43:03 AM

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

"Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9sOPd.41116$EG1.30578@lakeread04...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:378ck7F57tc5vU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:QzBPd.40327$EG1.20043@lakeread04...
>> > "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
>> >> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
>> >> comp.sys.laptops:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
>> >> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
>> >> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
>> >> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
>> >> > against you.
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>> >> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
>> >> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
>> >> it can be a matter of perspective.
>>
>> > Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard
> drives.
>> > Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical form but
>> > increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half magnitude. I don't
>> > think it's coincidence that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant
> their
>> > drives for three years as was standard a few years ago.
>>
>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting some of theirs for 5 years now.

> Of course you have to compare apples to apples.

We are with that particular question.

> WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.

Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.

And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year warranty.

And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache size.

> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20

No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...

> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.

Not with the 8MB cache version.

>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.

>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.

I never said you did.

> But you might want to consider reliability results at storagereview.com.

Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.

> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,

Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.

> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
> of hard drives like these continues to improve.

I'll take the record on that.

> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,

Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.

> the size of which has not increased while the
> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.

And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.

We dont see much stiction anymore either, where the head
sticks to the platter so the drive wont spin up at boot time.

And drive prices are now so low that RAID is very viable too.
With a decently designed system you just yawn on drive failure.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 10:43:04 AM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:379seqF5a6hboU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:9sOPd.41116$EG1.30578@lakeread04...
> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:378ck7F57tc5vU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:QzBPd.40327$EG1.20043@lakeread04...
> >> > "CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns95FBE0D06C36Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.136...
> >> >> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in
> >> >> comp.sys.laptops:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Considering how often hard drives crash for no
> >> >> > reason, it's incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive.
> >> >> > I've had at least three hard drives crash on me and have talked
> >> >> > to numerous others who have experienced such. The odds are
> >> >> > against you.
> >> >>
> >> >> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
> >> >> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say ten
> >> >> years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days, but
> >> >> it can be a matter of perspective.
> >>
> >> > Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability of hard
> > drives.
> >> > Over the past few years, we've maintained the 3.5" physical form but
> >> > increased the capacity by perhaps an order and a half magnitude. I
don't
> >> > think it's coincidence that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant
> > their
> >> > drives for three years as was standard a few years ago.
> >>
> >> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting some of theirs for 5 years
now.
>
> > Of course you have to compare apples to apples.
>
> We are with that particular question.
>
> > WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.
>
> Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.

Both my desktop Caviars (1200jb and 2000jb) have 8MB cache and 1 year
warranties. Both were purchased as boxed retail versions and I have
confirmed the warranty status of each. The 1600jb that failed also had an
8MB cache and a one year warranty.
>
> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year warranty.
>
> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache size.
>
> > You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
>
> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
>
>
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>
> > which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
> > the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>
> Not with the 8MB cache version.
>
> >>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
> >>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>
> >> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>
> > Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
>
> I never said you did.
>
> > But you might want to consider reliability results at storagereview.com.
>
> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
>
> > A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
> > drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
> > score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
> > have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
> > means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
> > the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
> > families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
> > there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
>
> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.

Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
>
> > but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
> > of hard drives like these continues to improve.
>
> I'll take the record on that.
>
> > I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
> > may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
>
> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.

There are physical limits to electromechanical devices interacting reliably
with high areal density magnetic media.

>
> > the size of which has not increased while the
> > capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
> > twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
>
> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.

Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion since all my
comments have been with respect to the 3.5" size and confined to drives
since the year 2000. I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability
has improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.

>
> We dont see much stiction anymore either, where the head
> sticks to the platter so the drive wont spin up at boot time.
>
> And drive prices are now so low that RAID is very viable too.
> With a decently designed system you just yawn on drive failure.
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 12:08:40 PM

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

Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mWPPd.41456$EG1.28066@lakeread04...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>>> CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote

>>>>>>> Considering how often hard drives crash for no reason, it's
>>>>>>> incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive. I've had at least
>>>>>>> three hard drives crash on me and have talked to numerous
>>>>>>> others who have experienced such. The odds are against you.

>>>>>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>>>>>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say
>>>>>> ten years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days,
>>>>>> but it can be a matter of perspective.

>>>>> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability
>>>>> of hard drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained
>>>>> the 3.5" physical form but increased the capacity by perhaps
>>>>> an order and a half magnitude. I don't think it's coincidence
>>>>> that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their drives
>>>>> for three years as was standard a few years ago.

>>>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting
>>>> some of theirs for 5 years now.

>>> Of course you have to compare apples to apples.

>> We are with that particular question.

>>> WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.

>> Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.

> Both my desktop Caviars (1200jb and 2000jb)
> have 8MB cache and 1 year warranties.

Clearly that isnt true with drives purchased today
and its been like that for a couple of years now.

> Both were purchased as boxed retail versions
> and I have confirmed the warranty status of each.

Likely purchased before that change or you go dudded.

> The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.

You must have got dudded somehow.

And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.

And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.

>> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year warranty.

>> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
>> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache size.

>>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20

>> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
>> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.

>> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...

>>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
>>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.

>> Not with the 8MB cache version.

>>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.

>>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

>>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.

>> I never said you did.

>>> But you might want to consider reliability results at storagereview.com.

>> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
>> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.

>>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
>>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
>>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
>>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
>>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
>>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
>>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
>>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,

>> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
>> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
>> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.

> Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.

Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.

And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.

>>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
>>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.

>> I'll take the record on that.

>>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
>>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,

>> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
>> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
>> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.

> There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
> interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.

And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.

>>> the size of which has not increased while the
>>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
>>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.

>> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
>> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
>> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.

> Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
> since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
> size and confined to drives since the year 2000.

Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
much more complicated than your original allowed for.

> I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
> improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.

Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.

The reliability has improved significantly over the original 3.5" form
factor drives, particularly those with stepper motor head actuators
because you dont get sector jitter with voice coil drives.

>> We dont see much stiction anymore either, where the head
>> sticks to the platter so the drive wont spin up at boot time.

>> And drive prices are now so low that RAID is very viable too.
>> With a decently designed system you just yawn on drive failure.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 12:08:41 PM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37a1fcF57lu7nU1@individual.net...
>
> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:mWPPd.41456$EG1.28066@lakeread04...
> > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
> >>>>> CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote
> >>>>>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote
>
> >>>>>>> Considering how often hard drives crash for no reason, it's
> >>>>>>> incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive. I've had at least
> >>>>>>> three hard drives crash on me and have talked to numerous
> >>>>>>> others who have experienced such. The odds are against you.
>
> >>>>>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
> >>>>>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say
> >>>>>> ten years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days,
> >>>>>> but it can be a matter of perspective.
>
> >>>>> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability
> >>>>> of hard drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained
> >>>>> the 3.5" physical form but increased the capacity by perhaps
> >>>>> an order and a half magnitude. I don't think it's coincidence
> >>>>> that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their drives
> >>>>> for three years as was standard a few years ago.
>
> >>>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting
> >>>> some of theirs for 5 years now.
>
> >>> Of course you have to compare apples to apples.
>
> >> We are with that particular question.
>
> >>> WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.
>
> >> Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.
>
> > Both my desktop Caviars (1200jb and 2000jb)
> > have 8MB cache and 1 year warranties.
>
> Clearly that isnt true with drives purchased today
> and its been like that for a couple of years now.
>
> > Both were purchased as boxed retail versions
> > and I have confirmed the warranty status of each.
>
> Likely purchased before that change or you go dudded.

Nope. Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties on the boxed retail
versions of those drives. Apparently OEM drives are different. You can't
compare apples with oranges. The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in
the 2000 - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties. The one I bought
last month did not.

>
> > The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.
>
> You must have got dudded somehow.
>
> And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
> warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.
>
> And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.
>
> >> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year warranty.
>
> >> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
> >> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache size.
>
> >>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
>
> >> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
> >> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
>
> >>
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
> >>
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>
> >>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
> >>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>
> >> Not with the 8MB cache version.
>
> >>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
> >>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>
> >>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>
> >>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
>
> >> I never said you did.
>
> >>> But you might want to consider reliability results at
storagereview.com.
>
> >> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
> >> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
>
> >>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
> >>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
> >>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
> >>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
> >>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
> >>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
> >>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
> >>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
>
> >> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
> >> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
> >> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.
>
> > Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
>
> Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
> have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.
>
> And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.
>
> >>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
> >>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.
>
> >> I'll take the record on that.
>
> >>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
> >>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
>
> >> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
> >> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
> >> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.
>
> > There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
> > interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.
>
> And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
> ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.
>
> >>> the size of which has not increased while the
> >>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
> >>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
>
> >> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
> >> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
> >> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.
>
> > Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
> > since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
> > size and confined to drives since the year 2000.
>
> Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
> much more complicated than your original allowed for.
>
> > I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
> > improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.
>
> Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.

My original comment only mentioned the last few years and only suggested we
might have reached a peak in reliability. I presented some data to support
that. You have made counterclaims - if you have some reliability numbers to
back them up, please share them with us.
>
> The reliability has improved significantly over the original 3.5" form
> factor drives, particularly those with stepper motor head actuators
> because you dont get sector jitter with voice coil drives.
>
> >> We dont see much stiction anymore either, where the head
> >> sticks to the platter so the drive wont spin up at boot time.
>
> >> And drive prices are now so low that RAID is very viable too.
> >> With a decently designed system you just yawn on drive failure.
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 12:08:42 PM

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

Ian S wrote:

> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37a1fcF57lu7nU1@individual.net...
>>
>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:mWPPd.41456$EG1.28066@lakeread04...
>> > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>> >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>> >>>>> CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote
>> >>>>>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote
>>
>> >>>>>>> Considering how often hard drives crash for no reason, it's
>> >>>>>>> incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive. I've had at
>> >>>>>>> least three hard drives crash on me and have talked to numerous
>> >>>>>>> others who have experienced such. The odds are against you.
>>
>> >>>>>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>> >>>>>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say
>> >>>>>> ten years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days,
>> >>>>>> but it can be a matter of perspective.
>>
>> >>>>> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability
>> >>>>> of hard drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained
>> >>>>> the 3.5" physical form but increased the capacity by perhaps
>> >>>>> an order and a half magnitude. I don't think it's coincidence
>> >>>>> that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their drives
>> >>>>> for three years as was standard a few years ago.
>>
>> >>>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting
>> >>>> some of theirs for 5 years now.
>>
>> >>> Of course you have to compare apples to apples.
>>
>> >> We are with that particular question.
>>
>> >>> WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.
>>
>> >> Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.
>>
>> > Both my desktop Caviars (1200jb and 2000jb)
>> > have 8MB cache and 1 year warranties.
>>
>> Clearly that isnt true with drives purchased today
>> and its been like that for a couple of years now.
>>
>> > Both were purchased as boxed retail versions
>> > and I have confirmed the warranty status of each.
>>
>> Likely purchased before that change or you go dudded.
>
> Nope. Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties on the boxed retail
> versions of those drives. Apparently OEM drives are different. You can't
> compare apples with oranges. The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in
> the 2000 - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties. The one I
> bought last month did not.

And what point do you think you are making by this assertion? OEM drives
are different only in the packaging, bundled software and accessories and
paperwork or lack of same associated with them. You can get an OEM WD,
according to you, for less than the price of a retail boxed WD drive with a
shorter warranty so the only lesson there seems to be to save your money
and get the longer warranty.

Or are you asserting that the less expensive OEM drives are somehow "better"
than the retail-boxed drives?


<snip>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 2:11:12 PM

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

Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:LzRPd.41482$EG1.9692@lakeread04...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>>>>> CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote

>>>>>>>>> Considering how often hard drives crash for no reason, it's
>>>>>>>>> incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive. I've had at least
>>>>>>>>> three hard drives crash on me and have talked to numerous
>>>>>>>>> others who have experienced such. The odds are against you.

>>>>>>>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>>>>>>>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say
>>>>>>>> ten years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days,
>>>>>>>> but it can be a matter of perspective.

>>>>>>> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability
>>>>>>> of hard drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained
>>>>>>> the 3.5" physical form but increased the capacity by perhaps
>>>>>>> an order and a half magnitude. I don't think it's coincidence
>>>>>>> that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their drives
>>>>>>> for three years as was standard a few years ago.

>>>>>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting
>>>>>> some of theirs for 5 years now.

>>>>> Of course you have to compare apples to apples.

>>>> We are with that particular question.

>>>>> WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.

>>>> Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.

>>> Both my desktop Caviars (1200jb and 2000jb)
>>> have 8MB cache and 1 year warranties.

>> Clearly that isnt true with drives purchased today
>> and its been like that for a couple of years now.

>>> Both were purchased as boxed retail versions
>>> and I have confirmed the warranty status of each.

>> Likely purchased before that change or you got dudded.

> Nope.

Yep.

> Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
> on the boxed retail versions of those drives.

Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.

> Apparently OEM drives are different.

Nope.

> You can't compare apples with oranges.

Not doing that. Just comparing WD drives with 2MB and 8MB
caches and the warrantys on those two versions of their drives.

> The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in the 2000
> - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties.

Clearly the WD site says that the 8MB cache drives have a 3 year warranty.

> The one I bought last month did not.

Then you got dudded.

>>> The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.

>> You must have got dudded somehow.

>> And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
>> warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.

>> And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.

>> >> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year warranty.
>>
>> >> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
>> >> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache size.
>>
>> >>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
>>
>> >> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
>> >> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
>>
>> >>
> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>> >>
> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>>
>> >>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
>> >>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>>
>> >> Not with the 8MB cache version.
>>
>> >>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>> >>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>>
>> >>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>>
>> >>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
>>
>> >> I never said you did.
>>
>> >>> But you might want to consider reliability results at
> storagereview.com.
>>
>> >> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
>> >> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
>>
>> >>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
>> >>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
>> >>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
>> >>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
>> >>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
>> >>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
>> >>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
>> >>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
>>
>> >> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
>> >> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
>> >> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.
>>
>> > Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
>>
>> Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
>> have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.
>>
>> And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.
>>
>> >>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
>> >>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.
>>
>> >> I'll take the record on that.
>>
>> >>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
>> >>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
>>
>> >> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
>> >> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
>> >> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.
>>
>> > There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
>> > interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.
>>
>> And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
>> ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.
>>
>> >>> the size of which has not increased while the
>> >>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
>> >>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
>>
>> >> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
>> >> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
>> >> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.
>>
>> > Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
>> > since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
>> > size and confined to drives since the year 2000.
>>
>> Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
>> much more complicated than your original allowed for.
>>
>> > I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
>> > improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.
>>
>> Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.

> My original comment only mentioned the last few years

Irrelevant when its the longer history that shows your claim is wrong.

> and only suggested we might have reached a peak in reliability.

Not a shred of evidence to support that claim.

> I presented some data to support that.

Like hell you did. Your original presented useful 'evidence' what so
ever and the most recent comment about storagereview is useless
on the general question because you only included WD drive data
and hard drive stats are absolutely notorious for seeing particular
drives go thru periods of higher than normal failure rates.

> You have made counterclaims

Nope, just rubbed your nose in the fact that YOUR claims
dont have a shred of evidence to substantiate them on that
claim that drives are getting less reliable now.

> - if you have some reliability numbers to
> back them up, please share them with us.

Dont need any.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to provide evidence that substantiates the claim.

THATS how it works.

>> The reliability has improved significantly over the original 3.5" form
>> factor drives, particularly those with stepper motor head actuators
>> because you dont get sector jitter with voice coil drives.
>>
>> >> We dont see much stiction anymore either, where the head
>> >> sticks to the platter so the drive wont spin up at boot time.
>>
>> >> And drive prices are now so low that RAID is very viable too.
>> >> With a decently designed system you just yawn on drive failure.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 2:11:13 PM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37a8jnF5b75nsU1@individual.net...
>


> > Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
> > on the boxed retail versions of those drives.
>
> Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.

Read what WD actually says http://support.wdc.com/warranty/policy.asp

" All Western Digital-branded retail hard drive kits, with the exception of
WD Raptor drives, carry a Standard Warranty Period of one (1) year unless
indicated otherwise on the package."

Presumably, "all" includes Caviar drives with 8MB cache.

> > Apparently OEM drives are different.
>
> Nope.
>
> > You can't compare apples with oranges.
>
> Not doing that. Just comparing WD drives with 2MB and 8MB
> caches and the warrantys on those two versions of their drives.

See above.
>
> > The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in the 2000
> > - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties.
>
> Clearly the WD site says that the 8MB cache drives have a 3 year warranty.

Link?

>
> > The one I bought last month did not.
>
> Then you got dudded.
>
> >>> The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.
>
> >> You must have got dudded somehow.
>
> >> And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
> >> warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.
>
> >> And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.
>
> >> >> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year
warranty.
> >>
> >> >> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
> >> >> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache
size.
> >>
> >> >>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
> >>
> >> >> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
> >> >> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
> >>
> >> >>
> >
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
> >> >>
> >
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
> >>
> >> >>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
> >> >>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
> >>
> >> >> Not with the 8MB cache version.
> >>
> >> >>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
> >> >>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
> >>
> >> >>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate
sample'
> >>
> >> >>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
> >>
> >> >> I never said you did.
> >>
> >> >>> But you might want to consider reliability results at
> > storagereview.com.
> >>
> >> >> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
> >> >> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
> >>
> >> >>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
> >> >>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
> >> >>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
> >> >>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
> >> >>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
> >> >>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
> >> >>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
> >> >>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
> >>
> >> >> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
> >> >> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
> >> >> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.
> >>
> >> > Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
> >>
> >> Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
> >> have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.
> >>
> >> And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.
> >>
> >> >>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
> >> >>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.
> >>
> >> >> I'll take the record on that.
> >>
> >> >>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
> >> >>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
> >>
> >> >> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
> >> >> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
> >> >> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.
> >>
> >> > There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
> >> > interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.
> >>
> >> And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
> >> ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.
> >>
> >> >>> the size of which has not increased while the
> >> >>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
> >> >>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
> >>
> >> >> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
> >> >> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
> >> >> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.
> >>
> >> > Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
> >> > since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
> >> > size and confined to drives since the year 2000.
> >>
> >> Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
> >> much more complicated than your original allowed for.
> >>
> >> > I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
> >> > improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.
> >>
> >> Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.
>
> > My original comment only mentioned the last few years
>
> Irrelevant when its the longer history that shows your claim is wrong.

You apparently don't understand the concept of "peak" in a curve.

>
> > and only suggested we might have reached a peak in reliability.
>
> Not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
>
> > I presented some data to support that.
>
> Like hell you did. Your original presented useful 'evidence' what so
> ever and the most recent comment about storagereview is useless
> on the general question because you only included WD drive data
> and hard drive stats are absolutely notorious for seeing particular
> drives go thru periods of higher than normal failure rates.
>
> > You have made counterclaims
>
> Nope, just rubbed your nose in the fact that YOUR claims
> dont have a shred of evidence to substantiate them on that
> claim that drives are getting less reliable now.
>
> > - if you have some reliability numbers to
> > back them up, please share them with us.
>
> Dont need any.

Translation: you don't have any.
>
> YOU made the claim.
>
> YOU get to provide evidence that substantiates the claim.

I provided data on drives I have experience with. You just shout and wave
your arms.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 2:11:13 PM

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

Rod Speed wrote:

>
> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:LzRPd.41482$EG1.9692@lakeread04...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> Considering how often hard drives crash for no reason, it's
>>>>>>>>>> incredibly stupid not to backup your hard drive. I've had at
>>>>>>>>>> least three hard drives crash on me and have talked to numerous
>>>>>>>>>> others who have experienced such. The odds are against you.
>
>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I doubt it. Hard drives are pretty reliable these
>>>>>>>>> days, and certainly hundreds of procent more reliable than say
>>>>>>>>> ten years ago. I find it amazing how few they crash theses days,
>>>>>>>>> but it can be a matter of perspective.
>
>>>>>>>> Actually, I think we've passed through a peak in reliability
>>>>>>>> of hard drives. Over the past few years, we've maintained
>>>>>>>> the 3.5" physical form but increased the capacity by perhaps
>>>>>>>> an order and a half magnitude. I don't think it's coincidence
>>>>>>>> that the drive manufacturers no longer warrant their drives
>>>>>>>> for three years as was standard a few years ago.
>
>>>>>>> Plenty still do and Seagate is warranting
>>>>>>> some of theirs for 5 years now.
>
>>>>>> Of course you have to compare apples to apples.
>
>>>>> We are with that particular question.
>
>>>>>> WD used to warrant their Caviar drives for three years, now it's one.
>
>>>>> Nope, the 8MB cache versions still have a 3 year warranty.
>
>>>> Both my desktop Caviars (1200jb and 2000jb)
>>>> have 8MB cache and 1 year warranties.
>
>>> Clearly that isnt true with drives purchased today
>>> and its been like that for a couple of years now.
>
>>>> Both were purchased as boxed retail versions
>>>> and I have confirmed the warranty status of each.
>
>>> Likely purchased before that change or you got dudded.
>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
>> on the boxed retail versions of those drives.
>
> Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.
>
>> Apparently OEM drives are different.
>
> Nope.
>
>> You can't compare apples with oranges.
>
> Not doing that. Just comparing WD drives with 2MB and 8MB
> caches and the warrantys on those two versions of their drives.
>
>> The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in the 2000
>> - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties.
>
> Clearly the WD site says that the 8MB cache drives have a 3 year warranty.

Uh, Rod, you might want to check out the current WD warranty policy at
<http://support.wdc.com/warranty/policy.asp&gt;. Seems that the OEM Caviar
SEs have 3 year warranty but the retail-boxed have only 1. Makes no sense
to me but then little that marketing people do makes sense to anybody else.

<snip>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 4:25:25 PM

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

Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jUSPd.41492$EG1.30421@lakeread04...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
>>> on the boxed retail versions of those drives.

>> Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.

> Read what WD actually says http://support.wdc.com/warranty/policy.asp

No need.

> " All Western Digital-branded retail hard drive kits, with the
> exception of WD Raptor drives, carry a Standard Warranty
> Period of one (1) year unless indicated otherwise on the package."

Pity about what the package says with the 8MB drives.

> Presumably, "all" includes Caviar drives with 8MB cache.

Fraid not, and you can check that on a wide variety of retailler's sites.

And on storagereview too.

>>> Apparently OEM drives are different.

>> Nope.

>>> You can't compare apples with oranges.

>> Not doing that. Just comparing WD drives with 2MB and 8MB
>> caches and the warrantys on those two versions of their drives.

> See above.

See above.

>>> The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in the 2000
>>> - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties.

>> Clearly the WD site says that the 8MB cache drives have a 3 year warranty.

> Link?

You provided it yourself.

You can check it on a wide variety of retailler's sites.

And on storagereview too.

>> > The one I bought last month did not.
>>
>> Then you got dudded.
>>
>> >>> The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.
>>
>> >> You must have got dudded somehow.
>>
>> >> And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
>> >> warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.
>>
>> >> And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.
>>
>> >> >> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year
> warranty.
>> >>
>> >> >> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
>> >> >> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache
> size.
>> >>
>> >> >>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
>> >>
>> >> >> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
>> >> >> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >
> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>> >> >>
>> >
> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>> >>
>> >> >>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
>> >> >>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>> >>
>> >> >> Not with the 8MB cache version.
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>> >> >>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>> >>
>> >> >>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate
> sample'
>> >>
>> >> >>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
>> >>
>> >> >> I never said you did.
>> >>
>> >> >>> But you might want to consider reliability results at
>> > storagereview.com.
>> >>
>> >> >> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
>> >> >> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
>> >>
>> >> >>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
>> >> >>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
>> >> >>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
>> >> >>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
>> >> >>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
>> >> >>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
>> >> >>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
>> >> >>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
>> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
>> >> >> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
>> >> >> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.
>> >>
>> >> > Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
>> >> have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.
>> >>
>> >> And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.
>> >>
>> >> >>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
>> >> >>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.
>> >>
>> >> >> I'll take the record on that.
>> >>
>> >> >>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
>> >> >>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
>> >>
>> >> >> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
>> >> >> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
>> >> >> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.
>> >>
>> >> > There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
>> >> > interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.
>> >>
>> >> And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
>> >> ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.
>> >>
>> >> >>> the size of which has not increased while the
>> >> >>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
>> >> >>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
>> >>
>> >> >> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
>> >> >> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
>> >> >> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.
>> >>
>> >> > Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
>> >> > since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
>> >> > size and confined to drives since the year 2000.
>> >>
>> >> Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
>> >> much more complicated than your original allowed for.
>> >>
>> >> > I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
>> >> > improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.
>> >>
>> >> Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.
>>
>> > My original comment only mentioned the last few years
>>
>> Irrelevant when its the longer history that shows your claim is wrong.

> You apparently don't understand the concept of "peak" in a curve.

You never presented a shred of evidence for any purported peak.

That was just another way of saying there isnt one.

>> > and only suggested we might have reached a peak in reliability.
>>
>> Not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
>>
>> > I presented some data to support that.
>>
>> Like hell you did. Your original presented useful 'evidence' what so
>> ever and the most recent comment about storagereview is useless
>> on the general question because you only included WD drive data
>> and hard drive stats are absolutely notorious for seeing particular
>> drives go thru periods of higher than normal failure rates.
>>
>> > You have made counterclaims
>>
>> Nope, just rubbed your nose in the fact that YOUR claims
>> dont have a shred of evidence to substantiate them on that
>> claim that drives are getting less reliable now.
>>
>> > - if you have some reliability numbers to
>> > back them up, please share them with us.
>>
>> Dont need any.

> Translation: you don't have any.

Translation:

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to provide evidence that substantiates the claim.

THATS how it works.

>> YOU made the claim.

>> YOU get to provide evidence that substantiates the claim.

> I provided data on drives I have experience with.

And as I said, that is a pathetically inadequate sample.

> You just shout and wave your arms.

You desperately attempt to bullshit your way out
of your predicament and fool absolutely no one at all.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 4:25:26 PM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37aggoF5be4tfU1@individual.net...
>
> Ian S <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:jUSPd.41492$EG1.30421@lakeread04...
> > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>> Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
> >>> on the boxed retail versions of those drives.
>
> >> Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.
>
> > Read what WD actually says http://support.wdc.com/warranty/policy.asp
>
> No need.
>
> > " All Western Digital-branded retail hard drive kits, with the
> > exception of WD Raptor drives, carry a Standard Warranty
> > Period of one (1) year unless indicated otherwise on the package."
>
> Pity about what the package says with the 8MB drives.
>
> > Presumably, "all" includes Caviar drives with 8MB cache.
>
> Fraid not, and you can check that on a wide variety of retailler's sites.

Read it and weep, bozo:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 14, 2005 4:46:18 PM

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

"Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jUSPd.41492$EG1.30421@lakeread04...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37a8jnF5b75nsU1@individual.net...
>>
>
>
>> > Even the site you provided has 1 year warranties
>> > on the boxed retail versions of those drives.
>>
>> Irrelevant to what WD says about the warranty with 8MB cache drives.
>
> Read what WD actually says http://support.wdc.com/warranty/policy.asp
>
> " All Western Digital-branded retail hard drive kits, with the exception of
> WD Raptor drives, carry a Standard Warranty Period of one (1) year unless
> indicated otherwise on the package."

Pity about the 3 year warranty for Caviar SE bare drives

> Presumably, "all" includes Caviar drives with 8MB cache.

Nope, not the Caviar SEs which have the 8MB cache.

>> > Apparently OEM drives are different.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> > You can't compare apples with oranges.
>>
>> Not doing that. Just comparing WD drives with 2MB and 8MB
>> caches and the warrantys on those two versions of their drives.
>
> See above.
>>
>> > The boxed retail WD caviar drives I bought in the 2000
>> > - 2001 timeframe came with three year warranties.
>>
>> Clearly the WD site says that the 8MB cache drives have a 3 year warranty.
>
> Link?
>
>>
>> > The one I bought last month did not.
>>
>> Then you got dudded.
>>
>> >>> The 1600jb that failed also had an 8MB cache and a one year warranty.
>>
>> >> You must have got dudded somehow.
>>
>> >> And if you want a longer warranty, Samsung has always had a 3 year
>> >> warranty on all their drives, and I prefer them to the WDs anyway.
>>
>> >> And the Barracudas have a 5 year warranty standard.
>>
>> >> >> And its the equivalent Seagate Barracuda that has the 5 year
> warranty.
>> >>
>> >> >> And Samsung never did drop their warranty period, its always
>> >> >> been 3 years and still is, with equivalent drives, of any cache
> size.
>> >>
>> >> >>> You can buy an extended warranty for about $20
>> >>
>> >> >> No need with the 8MB cache version which doesnt cost much
>> >> >> more than the 2MB cache version from most suppliers.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >
> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>> >> >>
>> >
> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
>> >>
>> >> >>> which is a pretty significant fraction of the actual cost of
>> >> >>> the drive even accounting for the typical warranty markup.
>> >>
>> >> >> Not with the 8MB cache version.
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Maybe I'm nervous because I just had a 160 GB drive
>> >> >>>>> replaced in under a year due to SMART errors.
>> >>
>> >> >>>> Yep, the technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate
> sample'
>> >>
>> >> >>> Well, I never claimed it was an adequate sample.
>> >>
>> >> >> I never said you did.
>> >>
>> >> >>> But you might want to consider reliability results at
>> > storagereview.com.
>> >>
>> >> >> Separate issue entirely. If you had mentioned that
>> >> >> in your previous post, I wouldnt have said that.
>> >>
>> >> >>> A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the Caviar
>> >> >>> drives introduced in 2000 and 2001 had an average percentile
>> >> >>> score of about 55. Those Caviars introduced in 2002 and 2003
>> >> >>> have an average percentile score of 36. Percentile score X here
>> >> >>> means that the drive is more reliable than X% of all the drives in
>> >> >>> the survey. Consider the 1200JB and the more recent 2000JB
>> >> >>> families: percentile scores of 84 and 14 respectively. Now
>> >> >>> there are a lot of caveats in the interpretation of such data,
>> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, its close to useless basically on that claim you made
>> >> >> about the length of the warranty. In spades when the JBs
>> >> >> have a 3 year warranty and only differ in the cache size.
>> >>
>> >> > Sorry, both my 8MB cache caviars have 1 year warranties.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. You can confirm that from the url above, and there
>> >> have been plenty of comments on that in csphs over the years too.
>> >>
>> >> And see above on the samsungs and seagates anyway.
>> >>
>> >> >>> but I don't see much cause for optimism that reliability
>> >> >>> of hard drives like these continues to improve.
>> >>
>> >> >> I'll take the record on that.
>> >>
>> >> >>> I notice you didn't comment on the physical limitations that
>> >> >>> may be coming into play in electro-mechanical devices,
>> >>
>> >> >> Because its a furphy. The reality is that we have also
>> >> >> seen drive designs enhanced to handle that, particularly
>> >> >> with modern auto mapping of new defects seen.
>> >>
>> >> > There are physical limits to electromechanical devices
>> >> > interacting reliably with high areal density magnetic media.
>> >>
>> >> And we aint anywhere near that except in the sense that
>> >> ECCs and retrys are used and have been for years now.
>> >>
>> >> >>> the size of which has not increased while the
>> >> >>> capacity has sky-rocketed by a factor of perhaps
>> >> >>> twenty or more all within maybe five years or so.
>> >>
>> >> >> And reliability has improved out of sight with the demise
>> >> >> of the very physically large dinosaur drives, and the move
>> >> >> from stepper motor head actuators to voicecoil systems.
>> >>
>> >> > Don't bring the physically large old drives into the discussion
>> >> > since all my comments have been with respect to the 3.5"
>> >> > size and confined to drives since the year 2000.
>> >>
>> >> Its the evidence that your claim about capacity is
>> >> much more complicated than your original allowed for.
>> >>
>> >> > I don't think the evidence supports that "reliability has
>> >> > improved out of sight" in this timeframe with this physical size.
>> >>
>> >> Only because that physical size hasnt been around for as long.
>>
>> > My original comment only mentioned the last few years
>>
>> Irrelevant when its the longer history that shows your claim is wrong.
>
> You apparently don't understand the concept of "peak" in a curve.
>
>>
>> > and only suggested we might have reached a peak in reliability.
>>
>> Not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
>>
>> > I presented some data to support that.
>>
>> Like hell you did. Your original presented useful 'evidence' what so
>> ever and the most recent comment about storagereview is useless
>> on the general question because you only included WD drive data
>> and hard drive stats are absolutely notorious for seeing particular
>> drives go thru periods of higher than normal failure rates.
>>
>> > You have made counterclaims
>>
>> Nope, just rubbed your nose in the fact that YOUR claims
>> dont have a shred of evidence to substantiate them on that
>> claim that drives are getting less reliable now.
>>
>> > - if you have some reliability numbers to
>> > back them up, please share them with us.
>>
>> Dont need any.
>
> Translation: you don't have any.
>>
>> YOU made the claim.
>>
>> YOU get to provide evidence that substantiates the claim.
>
> I provided data on drives I have experience with. You just shout and wave
> your arms.
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 19, 2005 7:53:51 PM

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:420F1DC5.753DC405@hotmail.com...
> This does seem to be a major problem with plenty of modern streaming
> media - the backup seems to go perfectly, then come to restore, the tape
> can't be read for a number of reasons. As you say, you need to spend
> plenty of sheckels on a decent system.

Always, always, ALWAYS run a VERIFY option on a backup wether its tape, HD,
DVD, whatever (time permitting of course, but I have never had a case where
we can't verify).

--Dan
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 20, 2005 12:48:04 AM

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage dg <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:420F1DC5.753DC405@hotmail.com...
>> This does seem to be a major problem with plenty of modern streaming
>> media - the backup seems to go perfectly, then come to restore, the tape
>> can't be read for a number of reasons. As you say, you need to spend
>> plenty of sheckels on a decent system.

> Always, always, ALWAYS run a VERIFY option on a backup wether its tape, HD,
> DVD, whatever (time permitting of course, but I have never had a case where
> we can't verify).

I second that. But make sure it is actually a _COMPARE_, not just a
data-integrity check on the backup medium. Some broken software does
that instead of a compare.

I found several defect memory modules and some other problems that
way. Needless to say, the backups would have been unusable.

Arno
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 20, 2005 9:18:54 PM

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

Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> shared:

>I found several defect memory modules and some other problems that
>way.

using what apps?

tnx
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 21, 2005 4:54:50 AM

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

Previously Ann Onimus <Ann@onimus.net> wrote:
> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> shared:

>>I found several defect memory modules and some other problems that
>>way.

> using what apps?

Just tar for file backups and dd_rescue + md5sum for images of
partitions.
I do all my backups with Linux. Far easier, better and
cheaper.

Arno
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 21, 2005 11:31:38 AM

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

u can try ur self by using (easy data recovery) software
i had expanience of using easy data recovery and recover the data of a
formated hard
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 21, 2005 2:05:16 PM

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

Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> shared:

>Just tar for file backups and dd_rescue + md5sum for images of
>partitions.
>I do all my backups with Linux. Far easier, better and
>cheaper.
>
I see.
Tnx Arno.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 21, 2005 2:59:49 PM

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

In article <1109003498.568001.103320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Faiz <fayazch@gmail.com> wrote:
>u can try ur self by using (easy data recovery) software
>i had expanience of using easy data recovery and recover the data of a
>formated hard
>


I think Ontrack.com has DIY recovery software yoiur can d/l and run to
see it anything can be recovered and tell you what it will find. If
you decide to pay you get your data back.

Ontrack is one of the Big Dawgs in the data recovery business.


--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 22, 2005 5:57:42 PM

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

Hi Odie

Any chance of your being back in business again yet" I have been
recommending Retrodata on some journalism newsgroups where some members had
this sort of problem

MR

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:420E3239.E7C05BEE@hotmail.com...
> Maria Ripanykhazova wrote:
> >
> > I have had a hard drive crash and didnt realise that the reason the
system
> > wouldnt (initially) do backups and then get into windows was that the
HDD
> > was crashing (I thought it was something to do with having installed
Easy CD
> > Creator onto a Windows 2000 machine) See postings elsewhere on
> > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
> >
> > I need to get some files off it. Does anyone know of a CONSUMER data
> > recovery service anywhere I can send the drive to which doesn't assume
you
> > are a huge corporation with unlimited resources please?
>
> Give us a shout, Maria - we should be able to help.
>
>
> Odie
> --
>
> RetroData
> Data Recovery Experts
> www.retrodata.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 22, 2005 6:01:24 PM

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

In article <KcOdnR0ql4BF5d3fRVn-2w@rcn.net>, news.rcn.com <news.rnc.com> wrote:
>Hi Odie
>
>Any chance of your being back in business again yet" I have been
>recommending Retrodata on some journalism newsgroups where some members had
>this sort of problem
>
>MR
>
>"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:420E3239.E7C05BEE@hotmail.com...
>> Maria Ripanykhazova wrote:
>> >
>> > I have had a hard drive crash and didnt realise that the reason the
>system
>> > wouldnt (initially) do backups and then get into windows was that the
>HDD
>> > was crashing (I thought it was something to do with having installed
>Easy CD
>> > Creator onto a Windows 2000 machine) See postings elsewhere on
>> > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
>> >
>> > I need to get some files off it. Does anyone know of a CONSUMER data
>> > recovery service anywhere I can send the drive to which doesn't assume
>you
>> > are a huge corporation with unlimited resources please?
>>
>> Give us a shout, Maria - we should be able to help.
>>
>>
>> Odie
>> --
>>
>> RetroData
>> Data Recovery Experts
>> www.retrodata.co.uk
>
>


ontrack.com
--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 23, 2005 3:18:12 AM

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

"news.rcn.com" wrote:
>
> Hi Odie
>
> Any chance of your being back in business again yet" I have been
> recommending Retrodata on some journalism newsgroups where some members had
> this sort of problem
>
> MR


I am back - just went offline for a couple of days during my recent
move.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 23, 2005 1:24:32 PM

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

Well, it may be too late, but I'll put a plug in for my company,
Recovery Force Inc. If you have been quoted more than you can afford,
give us a try. If you choose to go it on your own, please be careful
not to make things worse by following a few steps:

1) Don't boot up or install recovery programs on the defective drive.
2) Make an exact clone of the defective drive (must have an equal or
larger destination drive that has been forensically wiped and be sure
not to clone the wiped drive to the defective drive. The drive must
also be in physically working, as well.)
3) Boot of another working drive, with the clone and a 3rd hard drive
to recover your data to.
4) Use your recovery tools to recovery your files. (No one recovery
program does it all...you may need to try the recovery with 3 or 4
different programs before you are successful...which may cost more than
using a professional data recovery service.)

Note: If there are any physical problems with your drive, each time you
power it on, you decrease the chances of your data being recovered
professionally while potentially increasing the cost for the recovery.

Luke Coughey
Vice President
Recovery Force Inc.
866-750-3169
http://www.recoveryforce.com/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 23, 2005 1:47:52 PM

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

lcoughey@gmail.com writes:
> Note: If there are any physical problems with your drive, each time you
> power it on, you decrease the chances of your data being recovered
> professionally while potentially increasing the cost for the recovery.

What do you think of the trick of chilling the drive in a freezer for
a while and then trying to read it? There's recurring claims that
this has helped get past some physical problems, but it sounds nuts to
me. I have a IBM/Hitachi Travelstar which doesn't spin up properly.
Thanks.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 23, 2005 3:42:02 PM

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

This reminds me of a company I talked to who claimed to do data
recovery. After some inquiry, I was told that their best two tools
were a freezer and a small hammer. I think their logic is that if the
drive motor is overheating, cooling it down and tapping it with a
hammer will help things to move again. I suspect the tapping logic is
similar to those days when the starter on my car has frozen and how a
few heavy taps will help me get it started.

The key is, get a professional quote first...evaluations are usually
free. If the cost is too high, get the drive back and then experiment.
If you try the freezer first and it doesn't work, you migh have made
things worse.

Take note that when your hard drive is cold, condensation may build up
on it and could cause a sort on the PCB.

With respect to your travelstar, give me a call...I may be able to help
you out.

Luke Coughey
Vice President
Recovery Force Inc.
866-750-3169
http://www.recoveryforce.com/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 23, 2005 3:56:22 PM

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

"rollout" <lcoughey@gmail.com> writes:
> This reminds me of a company I talked to who claimed to do data
> recovery. After some inquiry, I was told that their best two tools
> were a freezer and a small hammer. I think their logic is that if the
> drive motor is overheating, cooling it down and tapping it with a
> hammer will help things to move again. I suspect the tapping logic is
> similar to those days when the starter on my car has frozen and how a
> few heavy taps will help me get it started.

Tapping (or even smacking the drive against a table) was a standard
cure for the famous Seagate stiction problems of the 80's. In my
Travelstar's case, the drive motor isn't overheating, but rather
something is wrong with the power-up sequence. I don't remember now
whether the platters spin normally, but what happens immediately on
powerup is "clack, clack, clack" about 2x a second as the positioner
keeps trying to move the heads somewhere and slams into the stops.

> With respect to your travelstar, give me a call...I may be able to help
> you out.

I wonder if you have any thoughts based on the above description.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 23, 2005 4:11:48 PM

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

> but what happens immediately on powerup is "clack, clack, clack"
> about 2x a second as the > positioner keeps trying to move the
> heads somewhere and slams into the stops.

It is possible that the data may be still recoverable, without any
major physical repair. However, it is probable that the read/write
heads may need to be replaced. This is definitely not going to be
resolved by the freezer/hammer team.

Best of luck,

Luke Coughey
Vice President
Recovery Force Inc.
866-750-3169
http://www.recoveryforce.com
!