Daniel Frey wrote: > On 06/25/2014 10:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Like I said, I'm certainly interested in any actual data that supports >> that drives sold to run 24x7 last any longer than desktop drives when >> run 24x7. >> > Anecdotal, but... > > In 2008 I bought four 24x7 drives (500GB) and eight regular drives to be > used in raid. Out of the eight regular drives, six failed before 4 years > was up. > > All of the 24x7 drives are still in use (although I don't remember which > machine(s) they're in now), six years later. > > All Seagate. > > I initially did do warranty replacement on the failed drives (all drives > had 5 year warranty back then), and out of the six replacements, four > failed a little over three months in. > > At that point I went and bought a real battery backed raid card > (computer still has a UPS) with WD enterprise drives and no hiccups of > any kind in about two years. And disk performance is way, way up. > > Dan > >
Curious. I hope I don't start a flame war here. I have had WD, Seagate and I think there is a Samsung here somewhere, may be the one that is rolling over on its back now. The one drive that failed a few years ago was a WD drive. That said, all the other WD drives I have had just got to small to really use, and slow when SATA came out. I'm partial to WD and Seagate still since I got good long term use out of those. Based on your experience, you tend to be of the same opinion? Allan, your situation should involve a lot of hard drives. Any thoughts? Neil, you have a nice big opinion on this? I realize that any brand of drive will break eventually. That's one reason I don't hold the one failure I have had against WD. I got a lot of use out of that drive and it did let me know it was going to die, like real soon. I'm going to duck now. :/ Dale :-) :-)
