Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Western Digital 320Gb hard drives?

Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 23, 2005 4:05:25 PM

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

Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)

Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?

They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 23, 2005 4:18:49 PM

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage A. J. Moss <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)

> Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?

They are a bit too new for that. Ask again in 2 years or so.

> They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
> and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.

My impression is that generally WD is in the lower area of the
reliability scale, so the 20GB might be very expensive. Better get a
300GB Seagate.

Arno
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 23, 2005 5:58:00 PM

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

Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage A. J. Moss <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
>
> > Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
>
> They are a bit too new for that. Ask again in 2 years or so.
>
> > They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
> > and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
>
> My impression is that generally WD is in the lower area of the
> reliability scale, so the 20GB might be very expensive. Better get a
> 300GB Seagate.

Absolutely.

Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 23, 2005 6:39:51 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:58:00 +0100, in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage , Odie Ferrous
<odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> in <430B1D58.F1741E38@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Arno Wagner wrote:
>>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage A. J. Moss <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> > Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
>>
>> > Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
>>
>> They are a bit too new for that. Ask again in 2 years or so.
>>
>> > They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
>> > and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
>>
>> My impression is that generally WD is in the lower area of the
>> reliability scale, so the 20GB might be very expensive. Better get a
>> 300GB Seagate.
>
>Absolutely.

How about this Maxtor DiamondMax 10 300GB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

This is for a user PC, not a server.



--
Matt Silberstein


And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!

Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light

Jim Steinman
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 23, 2005 11:08:04 PM

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

I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
number one.
I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and 250GB
models.
The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters, about
107GB per platter).
The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
superseded to two 100GB platters.
Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
reliability reasons.
Other manufacturers have as many as 5 platters per hard drive.
That is how they can sell HDs with 400GB or 500GB of storage.
My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost
none stop.

"A. J. Moss" <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:p vvlg1h16qbvgu938hfcoj2eu5j46a90g6@4ax.com...
> Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
>
> Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
>
> They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
> and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 23, 2005 11:08:05 PM

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

tod wrote:

> I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
> number one.
> I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and
> 250GB models.
> The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
> about 107GB per platter).
> The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
> The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
> superseded to two 100GB platters.
> Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
> reliability reasons.
> Other manufacturers have as many as 5 platters per hard drive.
> That is how they can sell HDs with 400GB or 500GB of storage.
> My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost
> none stop.

All of my drives have been running continuously for years except the ones in
my laptops. "Days on end" is not any kind of test. I'm not sure that I
have any from Western Digital at the moment.

> "A. J. Moss" <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:p vvlg1h16qbvgu938hfcoj2eu5j46a90g6@4ax.com...
>> Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
>>
>> Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
>>
>> They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
>> and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 23, 2005 11:09:15 PM

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

Seagate's do come with a five year warranty.

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3n0ih9F18vg2mU1@individual.net...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage A. J. Moss
> <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
>
>> Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
>
> They are a bit too new for that. Ask again in 2 years or so.
>
>> They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
>> and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
>
> My impression is that generally WD is in the lower area of the
> reliability scale, so the 20GB might be very expensive. Better get a
> 300GB Seagate.
>
> Arno
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 12:58:10 AM

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

"tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
>number one.
> I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and
> 250GB models.
> The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
> about 107GB per platter).
> The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
> The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
> superseded to two 100GB platters.
> Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
> reliability reasons.

Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158

http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they say at
100% face value.

--
Cheerz - Brownz
http://www.brownz.org/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 3:51:34 AM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:08:04 GMT, "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost
> none stop.

Sorry but I have to giggle about that - despite the reliability
concerns expressed here, I use WD 'JB' drives exclusively and have
never had one fail. My server currently has 2x300, 2x160 and 2x120
'JB' drives in it and it is permanently on. The 120's are the oldest
and have been running non-stop for over 2.5 years without a glitch.
August 24, 2005 4:13:14 AM

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

Simon Patten wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:08:04 GMT, "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost
>>none stop.
>
>
> Sorry but I have to giggle about that - despite the reliability
> concerns expressed here, I use WD 'JB' drives exclusively and have
> never had one fail. My server currently has 2x300, 2x160 and 2x120
> 'JB' drives in it and it is permanently on. The 120's are the oldest
> and have been running non-stop for over 2.5 years without a glitch.

I've got some, too, and never had a problem.

Perhaps it's just the luck of the draw, but I can't help think that
some of the people who complain about drives have abused them (e.g
run them too hot).

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 4:45:12 AM

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

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> How about this Maxtor

Maxtor's current reputation puts it below Seagate and WD for
reliability. Of course, reputations often lag reality. Usenet posts
still dump on Deskstars, but the current Hitachi models are pretty good.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 6:33:23 AM

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

Biffa Bacon wrote:
>
> "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
> >number one.
> > I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and
> > 250GB models.
> > The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
> > about 107GB per platter).
> > The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
> > The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
> > superseded to two 100GB platters.
> > Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
> > reliability reasons.
>
> Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
> http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158
>
> http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
> validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they say at
> 100% face value.
>


Hi Brownz,

Just had a Maxtor OneTouch in for recovery.

The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
MTBF. It failed dismally in this case - overheating. Strange thing
was, it had a lot of hard wiring on the drive - post production.

Makes you wonder about Western Digital's claim about MTBF. In my mind,
MTBF means nothing at all.

Although I still rate Seagate as the best drive around I have had many
problems with their current crop of 250GB drives - both PATA and SATA -
even though the only difference is the logic board.



Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 6:33:24 AM

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

You don't have a clue what MTBF means, do you?

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com...
> Hi Brownz,
>
> Just had a Maxtor OneTouch in for recovery.
>
> The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
> MTBF. It failed dismally in this case - overheating. Strange thing
> was, it had a lot of hard wiring on the drive - post production.
>
> Makes you wonder about Western Digital's claim about MTBF. In my mind,
> MTBF means nothing at all.
>
> Although I still rate Seagate as the best drive around I have had many
> problems with their current crop of 250GB drives - both PATA and SATA -
> even though the only difference is the logic board.
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 7:48:02 AM

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

I would guess that Western Digital is now getting 133GB of storage per
platter
133GB X 3 = 400GB

"Biffa Bacon" <biffa@bacon.net> wrote in message
news:C5MOe.43$Ys5.13@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
>>number one.
>> I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and
>> 250GB models.
>> The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
>> about 107GB per platter).
>> The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
>> The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
>> superseded to two 100GB platters.
>> Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
>> reliability reasons.
>
> Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
> http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158
>
> http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
> validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they say
> at 100% face value.
>
> --
> Cheerz - Brownz
> http://www.brownz.org/
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 7:48:57 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:45:12 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
, neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) in
<1h1rfms.15bszoj1e5qw5yN%neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> How about this Maxtor
>
>Maxtor's current reputation puts it below Seagate and WD for
>reliability. Of course, reputations often lag reality. Usenet posts
>still dump on Deskstars, but the current Hitachi models are pretty good.

Thanks. I'll wait a bit.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do in order to understand.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 10:17:28 AM

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

tod <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote

> I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,

More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.

> Seagate as number one.

Nope.

> I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and 250GB
> models.
> The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters, about
> 107GB per platter).
> The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
> The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be superseded
> to two 100GB platters.

> Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
> reliability reasons.

And are currently getting lousy reliability anyway.

> Other manufacturers have as many as 5 platters per hard drive.
> That is how they can sell HDs with 400GB or 500GB of storage.

> My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end almost none
> stop.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'


> "A. J. Moss" <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:p vvlg1h16qbvgu938hfcoj2eu5j46a90g6@4ax.com...
>> Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
>>
>> Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
>>
>> They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
>> and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 10:17:29 AM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3n1eiuF196ebkU1@individual.net:

> tod <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>> I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,
>
> More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
>
>> Seagate as number one.
>
> Nope.
>

Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you have
quoted?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 1:05:19 PM

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com...
> Biffa Bacon wrote:
>> "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as
>> >number one.
>> > I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and
>> > 250GB models.
>> > The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
>> > about 107GB per platter).
>> > The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
>> > The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
>> > superseded to two 100GB platters.
>> > Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
>> > reliability reasons.
>> Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
>> http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158
>> http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
>> validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they say
>> at
>> 100% face value.
> Hi Brownz,
> Just had a Maxtor OneTouch in for recovery.
> The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
> MTBF. It failed dismally in this case - overheating. Strange thing
> was, it had a lot of hard wiring on the drive - post production.
> Makes you wonder about Western Digital's claim about MTBF. In my mind,
> MTBF means nothing at all.

MTBF is normally a figure devised in someones head using some whizzy
formlula and a little testing in a lab.

The only way to seriously analyse a vendors performance is to collate mfg
and field failure data and plot that against an eAFR based on part weeks.

The statistical relevence of an eAFR only really comes into play when you're
talking large volumes and have over 50,000 part weeks of data though.

--
Cheerz - Brownz
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 1:08:46 PM

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

McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> tod <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote

>>> I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,

>> More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.

>>> Seagate as number one.

>> Nope.

> Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you have quoted?

Watching drives die, stupid.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 1:08:47 PM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3n1ok0F19eb95U1@individual.net:

> McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> tod <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>>> I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,
>
>>> More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
>
>>>> Seagate as number one.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you
>> have quoted?
>
> Watching drives die, stupid.
>
>

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
August 24, 2005 1:08:47 PM

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

Rod Speed wrote:

> McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>tod <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>
>>>>I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,
>
>
>>>More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
>
>
>>>>Seagate as number one.
>
>
>>>Nope.
>
>
>>Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you have quoted?
>
>
> Watching drives die, stupid.
>
>
You've just confirmed what I've long believed.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 1:08:48 PM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3n1srcF1993pjU1
@individual.net:

> ...mindless insults snipped...
>
>
Can't even manage to bullshit consistently so resorts to pointless
playground insults yet again. Pathetic.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 1:08:48 PM

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

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:430BBBE2.7020701@prodigy.net...
> Rod Speed wrote:
> > McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > > tod <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > > > > I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,
> >
> > > > More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
> >
> > > > > Seagate as number one.
> >
> > > > Nope.
> >
> > >Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you have quoted?
> >
> > Watching drives die, stupid.
> >
> You've just confirmed what I've long believed.

Would that concern the reliability of drives or the reliability of Roddles.

>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 2:22:13 PM

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

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Simon Patten wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:08:04 GMT, "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end
>>> almost none stop.
>>
>>
>> Sorry but I have to giggle about that - despite the reliability
>> concerns expressed here, I use WD 'JB' drives exclusively and have
>> never had one fail. My server currently has 2x300, 2x160 and 2x120
>> 'JB' drives in it and it is permanently on. The 120's are the oldest
>> and have been running non-stop for over 2.5 years without a glitch.
>
> I've got some, too, and never had a problem.
>
> Perhaps it's just the luck of the draw, but I can't help think that
> some of the people who complain about drives have abused them (e.g
> run them too hot).

Have fun explaining how come they get a different result with other drives.
August 24, 2005 2:22:14 PM

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

Rod Speed wrote:
> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>Simon Patten wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:08:04 GMT, "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end
>>>>almost none stop.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry but I have to giggle about that - despite the reliability
>>>concerns expressed here, I use WD 'JB' drives exclusively and have
>>>never had one fail. My server currently has 2x300, 2x160 and 2x120
>>>'JB' drives in it and it is permanently on. The 120's are the oldest
>>>and have been running non-stop for over 2.5 years without a glitch.
>>
>>I've got some, too, and never had a problem.
>>
>>Perhaps it's just the luck of the draw, but I can't help think that
>>some of the people who complain about drives have abused them (e.g
>>run them too hot).
>
>
> Have fun explaining how come they get a different result with other drives.
>
>
Rarely will the same person have multiple varieties of drive in
identical environments.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 24, 2005 2:22:15 PM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:28:11 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Rarely will the same person have multiple varieties of drive in
>identical environments.

A person, sometimes.
But for a company it's most of the time wrong.

I feel you are really lucky with your WD having no problem at all.

Nick
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 5:53:21 PM

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

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Patten wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:08:04 GMT, "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My current Western Digital WD200JB has be running for days on end
>>>>> almost none stop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but I have to giggle about that - despite the reliability
>>>> concerns expressed here, I use WD 'JB' drives exclusively and have
>>>> never had one fail. My server currently has 2x300, 2x160 and 2x120
>>>> 'JB' drives in it and it is permanently on. The 120's are the
>>>> oldest and have been running non-stop for over 2.5 years without a
>>>> glitch.
>>>
>>> I've got some, too, and never had a problem.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's just the luck of the draw, but I can't help think that
>>> some of the people who complain about drives have abused them (e.g
>>> run them too hot).
>>
>>
>> Have fun explaining how come they get a different result with other
>> drives.
> Rarely will the same person have multiple varieties of drive in
> identical environments.

Pathetic, really.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 24, 2005 8:58:52 PM

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

Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> You don't have a clue what MTBF means, do you?
>
> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com...
> > Hi Brownz,
> >
> > Just had a Maxtor OneTouch in for recovery.
> >
> > The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
> > MTBF. It failed dismally in this case - overheating. Strange thing
> > was, it had a lot of hard wiring on the drive - post production.
> >
> > Makes you wonder about Western Digital's claim about MTBF. In my mind,
> > MTBF means nothing at all.
> >
> > Although I still rate Seagate as the best drive around I have had many
> > problems with their current crop of 250GB drives - both PATA and SATA -
> > even though the only difference is the logic board.
> >
> >

MTBF = mindless and useless prediction of longevity / reliability of
something, Eric.

How are you, by the way? Haven't seen you around for a while. Well,
couple of hours, anyway.

A manufacturer advertising a MTBF of a million hours is trying to
convince you that his product will last better than one being advertised
as having 50,000 hour MTBF.

There. Was that easy enough, or shall I spell it out for you?


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 1:26:50 AM

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

"tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:S5SOe.338$Wd7.231@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
> I would guess that Western Digital is now getting 133GB of storage per platter
> 133GB X 3 = 400GB

Obviously you consulted the WDC link provided below. *NOT*.

>
> "Biffa Bacon" <biffa@bacon.net> wrote in message news:C5MOe.43$Ys5.13@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> > "tod" no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as number one.
> > > I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and 250GB models.
> > > The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters, about 107GB per platter).
> > > The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
> > > The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be superseded to two 100GB platters.
> > > Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for reliability reasons.
> >
> > Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
> > http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158
> >
> > http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
> > validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they say
> > at 100% face value.
> >
> > --
> > Cheerz - Brownz
> > http://www.brownz.org/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 4:09:23 AM

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

WOW, so Western Digital is now using four platters.
First time I've seen it.

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:430cfe20$0$34319$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:S5SOe.338$Wd7.231@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
>> I would guess that Western Digital is now getting 133GB of storage per
>> platter
>> 133GB X 3 = 400GB
>
> Obviously you consulted the WDC link provided below. *NOT*.
>
>>
>> "Biffa Bacon" <biffa@bacon.net> wrote in message
>> news:C5MOe.43$Ys5.13@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>> > "tod" no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > > I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate
>> > > as number one.
>> > > I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB
>> > > and 250GB models.
>> > > The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters,
>> > > about 107GB per platter).
>> > > The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
>> > > The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
>> > > superseded to two 100GB platters.
>> > > Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
>> > > reliability reasons.
>> >
>> > Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
>> > http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158
>> >
>> > http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
>> > validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they
>> > say
>> > at 100% face value.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheerz - Brownz
>> > http://www.brownz.org/
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 4:09:24 AM

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

tod wrote:

> WOW, so Western Digital is now using four platters.
> First time I've seen it.

Take a look at the documentation on legacy drives on the WD site. We have
for example their WDE4360 enterprise SCSI drive from 1997, with four
platters. If WD can't get reliability out of drives with more than three
platters that alone is reason to avoid them.

> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
> news:430cfe20$0$34319$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>> "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:S5SOe.338$Wd7.231@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
>>> I would guess that Western Digital is now getting 133GB of storage per
>>> platter
>>> 133GB X 3 = 400GB
>>
>> Obviously you consulted the WDC link provided below. *NOT*.
>>
>>>
>>> "Biffa Bacon" <biffa@bacon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C5MOe.43$Ys5.13@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>> > "tod" no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> > news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> > > I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability,
>>> > > Seagate as number one.
>>> > > I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB
>>> > > and 250GB models.
>>> > > The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3
>>> > > platters, about 107GB per platter).
>>> > > The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
>>> > > The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be
>>> > > superseded to two 100GB platters.
>>> > > Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for
>>> > > reliability reasons.
>>> >
>>> > Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
>>> > http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158
>>> >
>>> > http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
>>> > validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they
>>> > say
>>> > at 100% face value.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Cheerz - Brownz
>>> > http://www.brownz.org/

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 5:02:26 AM

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com
> Biffa Bacon wrote:
> > "tod" no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o uKOe.122$Wd7.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > I would rate the Western Digitals as 2nd best in reliability, Seagate as number one.
> > > I would assume that the 320GB is the exact same as the older 200GB and 250GB models.
> > > The 320 is just using newer platters that hold more data (3 platters, about 107GB per platter).
> > > The 250GB would be storing about 84GB per platter.
> > > The 200 would be storing about 67GB per platter, but is or will be superseded to two 100GB platters.
> > > Western Digital never uses more then 3 platters in a hard drive for reliability reasons.
> >
> > Ahem .... methinks you sprout unjustified rubbish sir.
> > http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=158
> >
> > http://www.storagereview.com/ is always a good site to consult when
> > validating and evaluating a new drive, but don't take everything they say at
> > 100% face value.
> >
>
>
> Hi Brownz,
>
> Just had a Maxtor OneTouch in for recovery.
>
> The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
> MTBF. It failed dismally in this case - overheating. Strange thing
> was, it had a lot of hard wiring on the drive - post production.
>
> Makes you wonder about Western Digital's claim about MTBF. In my mind,
> MTBF means nothing at all.
>
> Although I still rate Seagate as the best drive around I have had many
> problems with their current crop of 250GB drives

> - both PATA and SATA - even though the only difference is the logic board.

To some that would provide a clue.

>
>
>
> Odie
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 5:02:50 AM

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:430C993C.EAD31106@hotmail.com
> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>
>> You don't have a clue what MTBF means, do you?
>>
>> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com...
>>> Hi Brownz,
>>>
>>> Just had a Maxtor OneTouch in for recovery.
>>>
>>> The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
>>> MTBF. It failed dismally in this case - overheating. Strange thing
>>> was, it had a lot of hard wiring on the drive - post production.
>>>
>>> Makes you wonder about Western Digital's claim about MTBF. In my mind,
>>> MTBF means nothing at all.
>>>
>>> Although I still rate Seagate as the best drive around I have had many
>>> problems with their current crop of 250GB drives - both PATA and SATA -
>>> even though the only difference is the logic board.
>>>
>>>
>
> MTBF = mindless and useless prediction of longevity / reliability of
> something, Eric.

Is that a 'Yes' then, Duncan?

>
> How are you, by the way? Haven't seen you around for a while. Well,
> couple of hours, anyway.
>
> A manufacturer advertising a MTBF of a million hours is trying to
> convince you that his product will last better than one being advertised
> as having 50,000 hour MTBF.
>
> There. Was that easy enough, or shall I spell it out for you?
>
>
> Odie
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 1:07:22 PM

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

McSpreader wrote:

>Ron Speed wrote:
>>
>> McSpreader wrote:
>>>
>>> Ron Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
>>>
>>> Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you
>>> have quoted?
>>
>> Watching drives die, stupid.
>
>The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

Oh, Ronnie won't like you pointing-out his hypocrisy....
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 25, 2005 1:48:38 PM

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

Not enough numbers to database to guess at the reliability factor. And even
then, a one-sided database can deceive the conclusion. Every HD mfr makes
some "uh-ohs" once in awhile. The fact of the matter is the consumer is the
guinea pig. Best you can do is get the most extensive warranty coverage as
part of the purchase.

"A. J. Moss" <ajmoss@macpaint.fsworld.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:p vvlg1h16qbvgu938hfcoj2eu5j46a90g6@4ax.com...
> Western Digital WD3200JB (8M cache, but not the fancy RAID edition.)
>
> Has anyone tried these? Can anyone comment on their reliability?
>
> They cost about the same as a 300Gb drive (from any manufacturer),
> and, all other things being equal, the extra 20Gb is worth having.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 26, 2005 1:53:49 AM

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:41krg19hgnfo609sho0a5b3bl591brk8jh@4ax.com...
> McSpreader wrote:
>
> >Ron Speed wrote:
> >>
> >> McSpreader wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ron Speed wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
> >>>
> >>> Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you
> >>> have quoted?
> >>
> >> Watching drives die, stupid.
> >
> >The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>
> Oh, Ronnie won't like you pointing-out his hypocrisy....

Isn't that spelled hypochrisv....?

>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 26, 2005 12:12:43 PM

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

Folkert Rienstra wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:41krg19hgnfo609sho0a5b3bl591brk8jh@4ax.com...
>> McSpreader wrote:
>>
>> >Ron Speed wrote:
>> >>
>> >> McSpreader wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Ron Speed wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you
>> >>> have quoted?
>> >>
>> >> Watching drives die, stupid.
>> >
>> >The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>>
>> Oh, Ronnie won't like you pointing-out his hypocrisy....
>
>Isn't that spelled hypochrisv....?

No.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 27, 2005 2:47:53 AM

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:j95ug158eup332s9t679pq89fj8b6a1qtr@4ax.com
> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> > "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:41krg19hgnfo609sho0a5b3bl591brk8jh@4ax.com...
> > > McSpreader wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ron Speed wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > McSpreader wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Speed wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you
> > > > > > have quoted?
> > > > >
> > > > > Watching drives die, stupid.
> > > >
> > > > The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> > >
> > > Oh, Ronnie won't like you pointing-out his hypocrisy....
> >
> > Isn't that spelled hypochrisv....?
>
> No.

OK.
Are we then now going to see an apology from you
concerning that stupid little outburst over OE?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 28, 2005 11:30:01 PM

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

Folkert Rienstra wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:j95ug158eup332s9t679pq89fj8b6a1qtr@4ax.com
>> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>>
>> > "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:41krg19hgnfo609sho0a5b3bl591brk8jh@4ax.com...
>> > > McSpreader wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Ron Speed wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > McSpreader wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Ron Speed wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you
>> > > > > > have quoted?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Watching drives die, stupid.
>> > > >
>> > > > The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>> > >
>> > > Oh, Ronnie won't like you pointing-out his hypocrisy....
>> >
>> > Isn't that spelled hypochrisv....?
>>
>> No.
>
>OK.
>Are we then now going to see an apology from you
>concerning that stupid little outburst over OE?

Can't you think of a better troll than that, F'nut?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
August 29, 2005 2:31:20 AM

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:kml4h1pq5fj875po706164r8mbjeeltgst@4ax.com...
> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> >"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:j95ug158eup332s9t679pq89fj8b6a1qtr@4ax.com
> >> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
> >>
> >> > "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:41krg19hgnfo609sho0a5b3bl591brk8jh@4ax.com...
> >> > > McSpreader wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Ron Speed wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > McSpreader wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Ron Speed wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > More fool you. They're actually 4th or 5th.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you
> >> > > > > > have quoted?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Watching drives die, stupid.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> >> > >
> >> > > Oh, Ronnie won't like you pointing-out his hypocrisy....
> >> >
> >> > Isn't that spelled hypochrisv....?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >OK.
> >Are we then now going to see an apology from you
> >concerning that stupid little outburst over OE?
>
> Can't you think of a better troll than that, F'nut?

Your response is actually the best testament to it's effectivess, Crysi.
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 7:15:09 PM

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

In article <Xns96BBE379EDD55McP@62.253.170.163>, McSpreader
<invalid@hotmail.com> writes

>Please would you post the source of the reliability ratings you have
>quoted?

Woddle's been reading "The Ladybird Book of Hard Disks" again.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 9:56:23 AM

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

In article <430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com>, Odie Ferrous
<odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> writes

>The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
>MTBF.

Just had two MaxLine II 250GB (7Y250P0) drives fail in an HP NAS
appliance. Because of the simultaneous failures, everything on the
NAS's RAID was lost. Maxtor strikes again.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 11:18:20 AM

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

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>
> In article <430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com>, Odie Ferrous
> <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
> >MTBF.
>
> Just had two MaxLine II 250GB (7Y250P0) drives fail in an HP NAS
> appliance. Because of the simultaneous failures, everything on the
> NAS's RAID was lost. Maxtor strikes again.

Just had a OneTouch in for recovery - it was a MaxLine II. There was
quite a bit of post-production hardwiring on the circuit board.

Maxtor replaced it with a DiamondMax Plus drive. Runs about 65 deg C
bare drive on a desktop - what temp it's going to achieve inside the
OneTouch casing is anyone's bet.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
September 4, 2005 11:18:21 AM

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

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>
>>In article <430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com>, Odie Ferrous
>><odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>
>>>The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
>>>MTBF.
>>
>>Just had two MaxLine II 250GB (7Y250P0) drives fail in an HP NAS
>>appliance. Because of the simultaneous failures, everything on the
>>NAS's RAID was lost. Maxtor strikes again.
>
>
> Just had a OneTouch in for recovery - it was a MaxLine II. There was
> quite a bit of post-production hardwiring on the circuit board.
>
> Maxtor replaced it with a DiamondMax Plus drive. Runs about 65 deg C
> bare drive on a desktop - what temp it's going to achieve inside the
> OneTouch casing is anyone's bet.
>
>
> Odie

If you let it get up to 65C, I hope you didn't then deliver it to a
client.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 12:38:26 PM

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

CJT wrote:
>
> Odie Ferrous wrote:
>
> > Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> >>In article <430BCE63.B953F2C1@hotmail.com>, Odie Ferrous
> >><odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> writes
> >>
> >>
> >>>The drive was a Maxline II - which Maxtor rate as having 1 million hours
> >>>MTBF.
> >>
> >>Just had two MaxLine II 250GB (7Y250P0) drives fail in an HP NAS
> >>appliance. Because of the simultaneous failures, everything on the
> >>NAS's RAID was lost. Maxtor strikes again.
> >
> >
> > Just had a OneTouch in for recovery - it was a MaxLine II. There was
> > quite a bit of post-production hardwiring on the circuit board.
> >
> > Maxtor replaced it with a DiamondMax Plus drive. Runs about 65 deg C
> > bare drive on a desktop - what temp it's going to achieve inside the
> > OneTouch casing is anyone's bet.
> >
> >
> > Odie
>
> If you let it get up to 65C, I hope you didn't then deliver it to a
> client.


The client is fully aware of this and will be taking it up with Maxtor
directly.

I am holding onto a complete backup of the drive; I suspect he will need
it.

The whole idea that Maxtor is pushing their OneTouch drives as a
suitable means of backup is frightening.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
!