[Ham-Computers] Looking for a Reliable 500 GB Hard Drive

[Jim Hill]

Ron:

I probably don't need 500GB, but large drives are relatively cheap 
these days.  At one time,  smaller drives were more reliable than the 
large drives, but a quick check indicates this is no longer true.  I 
think that in the past manufacturers were selling the remainder of 
their stock of reliable smaller drives, leaving  the unreliable newer 
drives (from China instead of Japan and Taiwan?).

I used CD-RW's in the past for email archives (Boatanchors, Glowbugs, 
etc.), and they were a real chore to use.  I switched over to two USB 
flash drives, alternating between them.  What a relief!  You start 
the copy process and leave the room.
As far as comparing bit to bit, I don't do so.  I guess I might lose 
something now and then, but so far maybe I've been lucky.  The 
redundancy of an extra drive probably is an easier 
solution.  Programs like Norton Ghost are a different story.  Losing 
something in an image is far more serious than a glitch in a Word 
document on an email message.  It's all or nothing.

You could argue why do I need to keep this stuff.  The same 
argument  could be applied to my SX-28, -28A, SP-600, etc.  As I get 
older, they are harder and harder to move, and I need to recap them 
which is plenty of work.  I could sell them, buy a rice box and spend 
the saved time watching TV.  It's a hobby, not an essential activity.


Regarding MTBF, I can't generate it with the data I have at hand so I 
use a rating system similar to the Consumers Union car quality data. 
A number of users said manufacturer's MTBF is meaningless when two or 
three drives fail in a row.

As far as getting a used server, this is an area I know nothing about.

Jim




At 10:22 AM 8/15/2008, you wrote:
> >  As the subject says, I'm looking for a reliable hard drive.
>
>>I currently use external hard drives, one for each computer, to 
>>back up data.  A pair of USB flash drives is used for sensitive personal data.
>
>>I have read many comments about not relying on one external hard 
>>drive for backups; back up the first with a second drive.  Although 
>>I have not had any hard drive failures using about 10 drives, these 
>>comments made sense.  I decided to purchase a single 500 GB 
>>external hard drive for a master backup of all important files.
>
>>After looking for a reliable drive, I can see the reason for these 
>>suggestions.  I can't find a reliable drive, at least when using my 
>>criteria. I looked for a reliable 500 GB SATA hard drive by 
>>checking ratings at Newegg and Amazon.com.  First, I thought I 
>>would select hard drives with many purchasers for better 
>>statistical data, count the number of one and two ball ratings, 
>>divide by total number who supplied ratings, and multiply by 100 
>>and get an approximate failure rate.
>
>   Why so big, are you backing up encyclopedias?  Why not use CD-Rs and or
>DVDrs? (in addition to the one or two HDs you have now)   (you MUST compare
>bit for bit before storing them.)
>
>   Drives are rated (by the MFG) in MTBF, usually SCSI are built better.
>   I would get a used server that use 6 SCSI hard drives (9.7 gig) in a
>raid (5) array, because if one drive fails you replace it and in a few
>hours it will rebuild that drive and will be ready for another drive
>failure.   (keeping it turned off, they won't likely fail)
>--
>    Ron  KA4INM - NEVER carry a knife to a gun fight.
>______________________________________________________________
>Ham-Computers mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ham-computers
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>Post: mailto:Ham-Computers at mailman.qth.net