Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WD Caviar RE "high reliability" drives

Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 13, 2005 5:56:46 PM

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

What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.
September 13, 2005 9:59:37 PM

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

chrisv wrote:
> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.

I don't remember a claim of high reliability, but that can be just
semantics. Those drives should work better with a RAID controller.

Seagate came up with a similar line of drives and both vendors agree
that there are benefits only in RAID configurations
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 13, 2005 10:38:14 PM

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

chrisv wrote:

> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.

I'd like to know why MTBF ratings keep going up, now over a million
hours for some drives, but the expected lifespan remains at five years
(and that may be for only eight hours of use per day). Because if
drives really are better now, shouldn't their expected lifespans also
be higher?

I thought that all new WD drives now use fluid bearings. I know that
the 120GB one I bought this Labor Day does.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 13, 2005 11:42:13 PM

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

I would have no problem buying Western Digitals,
but would rather have Seagate.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:D 48ei11049tecluf26hfgcj0voe4u6vf93@4ax.com...
>
> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 9:40:08 AM

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

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote

> What's the scoop on these?

Just PR bullshit.

> They cost a bit more than regular WD drives,

That's really just the cost of the longer warranty.

> but have the fluid bearings

They all do now.

> and claims of higher reliability.

That is a lie, maybe higher than the worst of the WD drives tho.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 9:40:09 AM

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

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ooo8rF6ki0mU1
@individual.net:

>> and claims of higher reliability.
>
> That is a lie, maybe higher than the worst of the WD drives tho.
>

Please would you post references to justify you assertion?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 9:40:10 AM

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

"McSpreader" <invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns96D0D3568F23EMcP@80.5.182.99
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ooo8rF6ki0mU1@individual.net:
>
> > > and claims of higher reliability.
> >
> > That is a lie, maybe higher than the worst of the WD drives tho.
> >
>
> Please would you post references to justify you assertion?

Corse he will, doesn't he always?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 4:12:06 PM

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

larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> chrisv wrote

>> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
>> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.

> I'd like to know why MTBF ratings keep going up, now over a million
> hours for some drives, but the expected lifespan remains at five years

That isnt the expected lifespan, that's the design life, a different animal
entirely.

> (and that may be for only eight hours of use per day).
> Because if drives really are better now, shouldn't their
> expected lifespans also be higher?

That 5 years aint the expected lifespan.

> I thought that all new WD drives now use fluid bearings.
> I know that the 120GB one I bought this Labor Day does.

Yep.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 4:42:49 PM

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

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:43277a80$0$91265$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "McSpreader" <invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D0D3568F23EMcP@80.5.182.99
> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3ooo8rF6ki0mU1@individual.net:
> >
> > > > and claims of higher reliability.
> > >
> > > That is a lie, maybe higher than the worst of the WD drives tho.
> > >
> >
> > Please would you post references to justify you assertion?
>
> Corse he will, doesn't he always?

I was a WD fan, but I've just had my third WD Caviar drive (out of a sample
of 4) fail. The failed drives lasted about 12-18 months. The survivor is
just under three years old. They weren't overheated - Two were used in a PC
fitted with tripple drive fans and one in a big all metal fan equipped 5.25"
external enclosure that was never transported/moved. All three made strange
mechanical noises - typically at startup - anything from a quiet ticking to
a screech. I've decided to replace the latest failure with a Samsung
Spinpoint drive. I've no idea if they are any better - will let you know how
they do in three years time.
September 14, 2005 4:42:50 PM

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

> I was a WD fan, but I've just had my third WD Caviar drive (out of a
sample
> of 4) fail. The failed drives lasted about 12-18 months. The survivor is
> just under three years old. They weren't overheated - Two were used in a
PC
> fitted with tripple drive fans and one in a big all metal fan equipped
5.25"
> external enclosure that was never transported/moved. All three made
strange
> mechanical noises - typically at startup - anything from a quiet ticking
to
> a screech. I've decided to replace the latest failure with a Samsung
> Spinpoint drive. I've no idea if they are any better - will let you know
how
> they do in three years time.

That is why you should have a reliable backup. Any brand hard disk can fail.
Any time.
With reliable backup it is just a nuisance to restore systems after
replacing failed hard disks. You have a bit less of that hassle if your
disks are better quality, thats all. You pay for it.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 6:59:52 PM

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

Iago wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
>> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.
>
>I don't remember a claim of high reliability, but that can be just
>semantics. Those drives should work better with a RAID controller.

See here for their "regular" drives:

http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/index.asp?Cat...

Here, for their "enterprise" drives:

http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/index.asp?Cat...

They don't explain what would make them more reliable, however...
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 7:15:01 PM

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

Rod Speed wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>
>> What's the scoop on these?
>
>Just PR bullshit.
>
>> They cost a bit more than regular WD drives,
>
>That's really just the cost of the longer warranty.

Hmm... It takes the warrantee from 3 years to 5... I wouldn't want
to pay anything for that.

>> but have the fluid bearings
>
>They all do now.

Odd. They do say that their cheap "mainstream" line uses the fluid
bearings

http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...

But there's no mention of it on the "high performance" EIDE line

http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...
September 14, 2005 8:09:35 PM

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

chrisv wrote:
> Iago wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:
> >> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
> >> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.
> >
> >I don't remember a claim of high reliability, but that can be just
> >semantics. Those drives should work better with a RAID controller.
>
> See here for their "regular" drives:
>
> http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/index.asp?Cat...
>
> Here, for their "enterprise" drives:
>
> http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/index.asp?Cat...
>
> They don't explain what would make them more reliable, however...

Actually they do, one click deeper:
http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 14, 2005 8:57:59 PM

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

Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> Complex epelctronics usuelly have 5 years lifetime, mostly because of
> electrolyte capacitors that do not live too long but are far cheaper
> than, e.g., long-loved ceramics. Semicondictors run cold (e.g. 40C)
> have something like 30 years lifetime. It halves every 10C or so,
> regardless of whether the device is operating or not.

30 years for a semiconductor at 40C is unbelievably low and is closer
to the expected lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor. Any semi that
cool should last more like 100-300 years, but motor and head positioner
chips often run at 70-90C.
September 14, 2005 11:17:11 PM

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

> > >> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
> > >> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.
> > >
> > >I don't remember a claim of high reliability, but that can be just
> > >semantics. Those drives should work better with a RAID controller.
> >
> > See here for their "regular" drives:
> >
> > http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/index.asp?Cat...
> >
> > Here, for their "enterprise" drives:
> >
> > http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/index.asp?Cat...
> >
> > They don't explain what would make them more reliable, however...
>
> Actually they do, one click deeper:
>
http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...
>

IMPORTANT: Because of the time-limited error recovery feature, this product
is intended for server applications and is not recommended for use in
desktop systems.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 15, 2005 12:12:08 AM

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

Previously Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> I was a WD fan, but I've just had my third WD Caviar drive (out of a
> sample
>> of 4) fail. The failed drives lasted about 12-18 months. The survivor is
>> just under three years old. They weren't overheated - Two were used in a
> PC
>> fitted with tripple drive fans and one in a big all metal fan equipped
> 5.25"
>> external enclosure that was never transported/moved. All three made
> strange
>> mechanical noises - typically at startup - anything from a quiet ticking
> to
>> a screech. I've decided to replace the latest failure with a Samsung
>> Spinpoint drive. I've no idea if they are any better - will let you know
> how
>> they do in three years time.

> That is why you should have a reliable backup. Any brand hard disk
> can fail. Any time. With reliable backup it is just a nuisance to
> restore systems after replacing failed hard disks. You have a bit
> less of that hassle if your disks are better quality, thats all. You
> pay for it.

Actually for disk failures RAID1 or RAID5 (with not too many disks)
is fine. Backup is more needed for other sources of destruction like
system failure (think fire, theft, flooding,...) or user and
software error. Repairing a disk in a RAID array (other than RAID0
obviously) is usually quite painless and takes little time.

Arno
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 15, 2005 12:22:42 AM

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

Previously larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:

> chrisv wrote:

>> What's the scoop on these? They cost a bit more than regular WD
>> drives, but have the fluid bearings and claims of higher reliability.

> I'd like to know why MTBF ratings keep going up, now over a million
> hours for some drives, but the expected lifespan remains at five years
> (and that may be for only eight hours of use per day). Because if
> drives really are better now, shouldn't their expected lifespans also
> be higher?

No. The "component life" is the time the MTBF is valid. The MTBF
is not a lifetime bat a failure probability:

1 / <MTBF> = <propapility of failure per hour of operation>

It is valid as long as the device is younger than the "lifetime".
After that the device enters a "wear out" period where the
failure rate per hour increases. Actually a new device also
has higher failure rate, ofteh called "infant mortality", but
this is usually not shown today. It can usually be avoided by
doing a "burn in", e.g. a week of running hot (accelerates ageing)
under full load.

Since the components of the drive age, the MTBF eventually rises.
Complex epelctronics usuelly have 5 years lifetime, mostly because of
electrolyte capacitors that do not live too long but are far cheaper
than, e.g., long-loved ceramics. Semicondictors run cold (e.g. 40C)
have something like 30 years lifetime. It halves every 10C or so,
regardless of whether the device is operating or not. The base
temperature may be significantly different for power semiconductors
(also current PC CPUs). For mechanics it depends. They are usually
manufactured just well enough that they do not bring the system
lifetime down.

> I thought that all new WD drives now use fluid bearings. I know that
> the 120GB one I bought this Labor Day does.

The bearings are not the only thing that fails.

Arno
September 15, 2005 12:22:43 AM

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

On 14 Sep 2005 20:22:42 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>1 / <MTBF> = <propapility of failure per hour of operation>

Wouldn't that be <PFHO>? <g>

MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures, I believe.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 15, 2005 4:43:58 AM

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:D t0hi15huhakq0bg7e8603espm0topfgam@4ax.com
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> >
> > > What's the scoop on these?
> >
> > Just PR bullshit.
> >
> > > They cost a bit more than regular WD drives,
> >
> > That's really just the cost of the longer warranty.
>
> Hmm... It takes the warrantee from 3 years to 5... I wouldn't want
> to pay anything for that.
>
> > > but have the fluid bearings
> >
> > They all do now.
>
> Odd. They do say that their cheap "mainstream" line uses the fluid bearings
>
> http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...
>
> But there's no mention of it on the "high performance" EIDE line

And that's why they are enterprise, obviously.

>
> http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 15, 2005 11:58:50 AM

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

Peter wrote:

>http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...
>>
>
>IMPORTANT: Because of the time-limited error recovery feature, this product
>is intended for server applications and is not recommended for use in
>desktop systems.

Yeah, it gives up after 7 seconds? In all likelyhood, if it hasn't
been able to read the data in that amount of time, it never will be
able to...
September 15, 2005 1:12:27 PM

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

> >IMPORTANT: Because of the time-limited error recovery feature, this
product
> >is intended for server applications and is not recommended for use in
> >desktop systems.
>
> Yeah, it gives up after 7 seconds? In all likelyhood, if it hasn't
> been able to read the data in that amount of time, it never will be
> able to...

So why they (WD) waste time trying to read data longer, on desktop class
disks?
Plus, that 7 seconds disqualifies enterprise drives to work in desktop
systems? Thats hard to believe.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 15, 2005 7:53:34 PM

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

Folkert Rienstra wrote:

>> But there's no mention of it on the "high performance" EIDE line
>
>And that's why they are enterprise, obviously.

Enterprise drives don't use fluid bearings?


>> http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?...
!