Whats the failure rate on Seagate hhds?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by samg, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. samg

    samg Guest

    Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like these
    days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty? Im still debating
    on wether to get a 120GB 2MB cache with a one year warranty or an 8MB cache
    version with a 3 year warranty. Cash is tight so I'd like to go for the
    cheaper one but the longer warranty is tempting. However, in my experience
    if a hdd makes it through the first year itll keep on going. Ive got
    several 5 year old Quantum bigfoots that work %100 with no bad sectors.
     
    samg, Oct 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. samg

    bambam Guest

    samg <> wrote in
    news:Xns941AEEE10819Dsamg@203.97.37.6:

    > Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like
    > these days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty? Im
    > still debating on wether to get a 120GB 2MB cache with a one year
    > warranty or an 8MB cache version with a 3 year warranty. Cash is
    > tight so I'd like to go for the cheaper one but the longer
    > warranty is tempting. However, in my experience if a hdd makes it
    > through the first year itll keep on going. Ive got several 5 year
    > old Quantum bigfoots that work %100 with no bad sectors.


    At Paradigm the difference is $11.
    Simple really. :)

    --
    I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol.
     
    bambam, Oct 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. samg

    Jay Guest

    samg wrote:

    > Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like these
    > days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty? Im still
    > debating on wether to get a 120GB 2MB cache with a one year warranty or an
    > 8MB cache
    > version with a 3 year warranty. Cash is tight so I'd like to go for the
    > cheaper one but the longer warranty is tempting. However, in my
    > experience
    > if a hdd makes it through the first year itll keep on going. Ive got
    > several 5 year old Quantum bigfoots that work %100 with no bad sectors.


    Obviously when a manufacturer reduces the warranty period it means
    they are also altering the expected life of their product.

    When they do their accelerated testing (at higher ambient temperature) they
    will be reducing the minimal survival time. That will mean that they
    will allow production quality to slip because disks that would otherwise
    fail testing will now pass. They only test a random sample, and they might
    also be reducing the percentage that get tested.

    Check their specs and find out what the expected power cycle lifetime is.
    If they don't specify it then either leave you disk running continuously
    or don't buy it.

    BTW power-saving schemes that stop your disk spinning will dramatically
    reduce the disk's life. Keep it running and thereby keep the temperature
    constant and the stresses will be considerably reduced. It is thermal
    cycling that shortens the life of most mechanical devices.
     
    Jay, Oct 20, 2003
    #3
  4. samg

    Paul Mathews Guest

    On 20 Oct 2003 23:28:00 +1300, samg <> wrote:

    >Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like these
    >days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty? Im still debating
    >on wether to get a 120GB 2MB cache with a one year warranty or an 8MB cache
    >version with a 3 year warranty. Cash is tight so I'd like to go for the
    >cheaper one but the longer warranty is tempting. However, in my experience
    >if a hdd makes it through the first year itll keep on going. Ive got
    >several 5 year old Quantum bigfoots that work %100 with no bad sectors.




    There SATA Drives now have a 3 Year Warrantee.
     
    Paul Mathews, Oct 20, 2003
    #4
  5. samg

    Ken C Guest

    Same here. I've used Quantum heavily with no defects either.
    I believe Quantum is now known as Maxtor.

    I've known 2 people who have had failed drives with Seagate.
    Admittedly the sample population is too small but they are the only ones I
    have known who have actually had failed drives/bad sectors.

    Warranties can never compensate you for lost data.


    "samg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns941AEEE10819Dsamg@203.97.37.6...
    > Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like these
    > days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty? Im still

    debating
    > on wether to get a 120GB 2MB cache with a one year warranty or an 8MB

    cache
    > version with a 3 year warranty. Cash is tight so I'd like to go for the
    > cheaper one but the longer warranty is tempting. However, in my

    experience
    > if a hdd makes it through the first year itll keep on going. Ive got
    > several 5 year old Quantum bigfoots that work %100 with no bad sectors.
     
    Ken C, Oct 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Ive had more Seagate drives die than any other brand. (About 10 drives)
    Infact I just sent another 2 60GB drives back, both from the same batch,
    about 6months apart from each other (both bad sectors).
    Quantum Ive only experienced their drives with that philips TDAxxxx chip
    that kills itself during power on. It came out in the 10 - 15-20?GB Fireball
    LE series drives.
    Only had one 3GB Maxtor drive die (before quantum moved in), and one Fijutsu
    drive.
    There were other drives but cant remember what they were.

    Ive probably had around 400 HDD's pass through me in the last 4 years.

    Seagate SCSI drives I havent had a problem with yet.
    But generally, ive kept away from cheaper Seagate drives.

    Wonder if those MFM drives in the corner still fire up ok???

    M

    "samg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns941AEEE10819Dsamg@203.97.37.6...
    > Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like these
    > days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty? Im still

    debating
    > on wether to get a 120GB 2MB cache with a one year warranty or an 8MB

    cache
    > version with a 3 year warranty. Cash is tight so I'd like to go for the
    > cheaper one but the longer warranty is tempting. However, in my

    experience
    > if a hdd makes it through the first year itll keep on going. Ive got
    > several 5 year old Quantum bigfoots that work %100 with no bad sectors.
     
    Matthew Strickland, Oct 20, 2003
    #6
  7. On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:28:00 +1300, samg wrote:

    > Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like these
    > days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty?


    less than 0.5% - if it was any higher they'd go bust.

    If you're concerned, pay the extra money and get something with a 3 year
    warranty.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Oct 21, 2003
    #7
  8. samg

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:22:43 +0000, bambam wrote:

    > At Paradigm the difference is $11.
    > Simple really. :)


    Exactly, Segate seem to be saying with their wallet that there is near to
    none chance of failure ;-)

    --
    Fairy stories exist so children get used to real life
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2003
    #8
  9. samg

    Gordon Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:54:50 +1300, Matthew Strickland wrote:

    > Ive probably had around 400 HDD's pass through me in the last 4 years.


    Was it painful? ;-)

    --
    Fairy stories exist so children get used to real life
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2003
    #9
  10. samg

    Gordon Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:54:55 +1300, Ken C wrote:

    > Warranties can never compensate you for lost data.


    But backups do.


    --
    Fairy stories exist so children get used to real life
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2003
    #10
  11. Jay wrote:
    >
    > BTW power-saving schemes that stop your disk spinning will
    > dramatically reduce the disk's life. Keep it running and thereby keep
    > the temperature constant and the stresses will be considerably
    > reduced. It is thermal cycling that shortens the life of most
    > mechanical devices.


    That's terrible advice.

    The number one cause of death in well looked after hard drives (i.e. well
    ventilated and only operated in low vibration environments) is bearing
    related.

    The bearing wear you get from thermal cycling a hard drive by spinning it down
    when not in use is very likely to be significantly outweighed by the bearing
    wear you get if you simply let the drive spin for longer, in typical
    situations.

    Given this, spinning down your hard drive when it's not in use is *highly*
    recommended.
     
    Stuart Richards, Oct 21, 2003
    #11
  12. samg

    Jay Guest

    Stuart Richards wrote:

    > Jay wrote:
    >>
    >> BTW power-saving schemes that stop your disk spinning will
    >> dramatically reduce the disk's life. Keep it running and thereby keep
    >> the temperature constant and the stresses will be considerably
    >> reduced. It is thermal cycling that shortens the life of most
    >> mechanical devices.

    >
    > That's terrible advice.


    No it isn't. It is good advice.

    >
    > The number one cause of death in well looked after hard drives (i.e. well
    > ventilated and only operated in low vibration environments) is bearing
    > related.


    No it isn't. I have never know a disk to die because of bearing problems.
    Failures are primarily caused by surface defects. The second highest rate
    of failure is from electrical component failures (because there are lots
    of them and because of the higher power ratings of components for
    stepper motors etc).

    Bearing failures are very rare.

    >
    > The bearing wear you get from thermal cycling a hard drive by spinning it
    > down when not in use is very likely to be significantly outweighed by the
    > bearing wear you get if you simply let the drive spin for longer, in
    > typical situations.
    >
    > Given this, spinning down your hard drive when it's not in use is *highly*
    > recommended.


    Anyhow most damage to bearings also occurs when the speed varies.
    This is because as different speeds a bearing will encounter various
    resonances which cause high stress.

    Why do you think a disk drive's life is usually specified in terms
    of power cycles? And nothing else!

    It is a pity you don't know what you are talking about.
     
    Jay, Oct 21, 2003
    #12
  13. Jay wrote:
    >
    > Stuart Richards wrote:
    >
    > > Jay wrote:
    > >>
    > >> BTW power-saving schemes that stop your disk spinning will
    > >> dramatically reduce the disk's life. Keep it running and thereby
    > >> keep the temperature constant and the stresses will be considerably
    > >> reduced. It is thermal cycling that shortens the life of most
    > >> mechanical devices.

    > >
    > > That's terrible advice.

    >
    > No it isn't. It is good advice.


    But every hard drive manufacturer would disagree with you.

    > > The number one cause of death in well looked after hard drives (i.e.
    > > well ventilated and only operated in low vibration environments) is
    > > bearing related.

    >
    > No it isn't. I have never know a disk to die because of bearing
    > problems. Failures are primarily caused by surface defects.


    How do you think surface defects are caused? Head slaps cause surface
    defects. A well looked after drive should rarely experience head slaps.

    There shouldn't be enough surface damage sustained to overwhelm the ECC and
    spare sectors before the bearings die in a well looked after drive. Remember,
    i'm only talking about "well looked after drives" here. A great deal of hard
    drives are not well looked after in my experience.

    > The second highest rate of failure is from electrical component
    > failures (because there are lots of them and because of the higher
    > power ratings of components for stepper motors etc).


    Hmm, what year was it when the last hard drive that used a stepper motor was
    made? Sometime in the 1980s? Not that stepper motors went away because they
    were an especially common cause of hard drive failures, they weren't. They
    were replaced by voice coil actuators because of their superior accuracy and
    stability.

    > Bearing failures are very rare.


    Not in old, but well cared for drives. Bearing failure is unavoidable, since
    the bearings will eventually wear out from normal use, typically before any
    other component in a well cared for hard drive.

    > > The bearing wear you get from thermal cycling a hard drive by
    > > spinning it down when not in use is very likely to be significantly
    > > outweighed by the bearing wear you get if you simply let the drive
    > > spin for longer, in typical situations.
    > >
    > > Given this, spinning down your hard drive when it's not in use is
    > > *highly* recommended.

    >
    > Anyhow most damage to bearings also occurs when the speed varies.
    > This is because as different speeds a bearing will encounter various
    > resonances which cause high stress.
    >
    > Why do you think a disk drive's life is usually specified in terms
    > of power cycles? And nothing else!


    Power cycles usually specified alone? Since when? I usually see POH (Power
    On Hours) used to estimate the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) of a drive
    model. Power cycles or CSS (Contact Start-Stop) aren't always listed.
     
    Stuart Richards, Oct 21, 2003
    #13
  14. samg

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Stuart Richards" wrote
    > Power cycles usually specified alone? Since when? I usually see POH

    (Power
    > On Hours) used to estimate the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) of a

    drive
    > model.


    These I have always seen.

    > Power cycles or CSS (Contact Start-Stop) aren't always listed.


    These I have seen once or twice.
     
    T.N.O., Oct 21, 2003
    #14
  15. samg

    Jay Guest

    Stuart Richards wrote:

    > Jay wrote:
    >>
    >> Stuart Richards wrote:
    >>
    >> > Jay wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> BTW power-saving schemes that stop your disk spinning will
    >> >> dramatically reduce the disk's life. Keep it running and thereby
    >> >> keep the temperature constant and the stresses will be considerably
    >> >> reduced. It is thermal cycling that shortens the life of most
    >> >> mechanical devices.
    >> >
    >> > That's terrible advice.

    >>
    >> No it isn't. It is good advice.

    >
    > But every hard drive manufacturer would disagree with you.


    Do they wouldn't.
    Try this:
    http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/qual/specCycles.html

    >
    >> > The number one cause of death in well looked after hard drives (i.e.
    >> > well ventilated and only operated in low vibration environments) is
    >> > bearing related.

    >>
    >> No it isn't. I have never know a disk to die because of bearing
    >> problems. Failures are primarily caused by surface defects.

    >
    > How do you think surface defects are caused? Head slaps cause surface
    > defects. A well looked after drive should rarely experience head slaps.


    No. Pure chemical failure and thermal cycling.

    >
    > There shouldn't be enough surface damage sustained to overwhelm the ECC
    > and
    > spare sectors before the bearings die in a well looked after drive.


    I have *never* known bearings to fail on a disk drive.
    And I have seen plenty of failures.

    > Remember,
    > i'm only talking about "well looked after drives" here. A great deal of
    > hard drives are not well looked after in my experience.


    Regardless of how well they are looked after.
    I have *never* seen a disk fail because of bearings failure.

    >
    >> The second highest rate of failure is from electrical component
    >> failures (because there are lots of them and because of the higher
    >> power ratings of components for stepper motors etc).

    >
    > Hmm, what year was it when the last hard drive that used a stepper motor
    > was
    > made? Sometime in the 1980s? Not that stepper motors went away because
    > they
    > were an especially common cause of hard drive failures, they weren't.
    > They were replaced by voice coil actuators because of their superior
    > accuracy and stability.


    Sorry, I should have said just motors. The thing that makes the disk
    go round.

    >
    >> Bearing failures are very rare.

    >
    > Not in old, but well cared for drives. Bearing failure is unavoidable,
    > since the bearings will eventually wear out from normal use, typically
    > before any other component in a well cared for hard drive.


    I have never seen bearings fail.
    What happens when they fail?

    >
    >> > The bearing wear you get from thermal cycling a hard drive by
    >> > spinning it down when not in use is very likely to be significantly
    >> > outweighed by the bearing wear you get if you simply let the drive
    >> > spin for longer, in typical situations.
    >> >
    >> > Given this, spinning down your hard drive when it's not in use is
    >> > *highly* recommended.

    >>
    >> Anyhow most damage to bearings also occurs when the speed varies.
    >> This is because as different speeds a bearing will encounter various
    >> resonances which cause high stress.
    >>
    >> Why do you think a disk drive's life is usually specified in terms
    >> of power cycles? And nothing else!

    >
    > Power cycles usually specified alone? Since when? I usually see POH
    > (Power On Hours) used to estimate the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) of
    > a drive
    > model. Power cycles or CSS (Contact Start-Stop) aren't always listed.


    I wonder why?
     
    Jay, Oct 21, 2003
    #15
  16. Jay wrote:
    >
    > Stuart Richards wrote:
    >
    > > Jay wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Stuart Richards wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Jay wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> BTW power-saving schemes that stop your disk spinning will
    > >> >> dramatically reduce the disk's life. Keep it running and
    > >> >> thereby keep the temperature constant and the stresses will be
    > >> >> considerably reduced. It is thermal cycling that shortens the
    > >> >> life of most mechanical devices.
    > >> >
    > >> > That's terrible advice.
    > >>
    > >> No it isn't. It is good advice.

    > >
    > > But every hard drive manufacturer would disagree with you.

    >
    > Do they wouldn't.
    > Try this:
    >
    > http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/qual/specCycles.html


    As quoted from that web page:

    "In the great-and-never-ending debate over whether to leave hard disks running
    or spin them down when idle, some look at the fact that start/stop cycles are
    specified as evidence that stop/start cycles are "bad" and therefore that
    drives should always be left running 24/7. As always, maintain perspective: if
    you start your hard disk in the morning and stop it at night every day for
    three years, that's only about 1,000 cycles. Even if you do it ten times a
    day, every day, you're not going to get close to the minimum specification for
    almost any quality drive, and for notebooks the problem is less significant
    because the drives are generally designed to withstand many more cycles."

    I think this quote actually backs me up, not you.

    > >> No it isn't. I have never know a disk to die because of bearing
    > >> problems. Failures are primarily caused by surface defects.

    > >
    > > How do you think surface defects are caused? Head slaps cause
    > > surface defects. A well looked after drive should rarely experience
    > > head slaps.

    >
    > No. Pure chemical failure and thermal cycling.


    As if.

    > > There shouldn't be enough surface damage sustained to overwhelm the
    > > ECC and spare sectors before the bearings die in a well looked after
    > > drive.

    >
    > I have *never* known bearings to fail on a disk drive.
    > And I have seen plenty of failures.


    I doubt it.

    > > Remember, i'm only talking about "well looked after drives" here. A
    > > great deal of hard drives are not well looked after in my
    > > experience.

    >
    > Regardless of how well they are looked after.
    > I have *never* seen a disk fail because of bearings failure.


    I believe you.

    > >> The second highest rate of failure is from electrical component
    > >> failures (because there are lots of them and because of the higher
    > >> power ratings of components for stepper motors etc).

    > >
    > > Hmm, what year was it when the last hard drive that used a stepper
    > > motor was made? Sometime in the 1980s? Not that stepper motors
    > > went away because they were an especially common cause of hard drive
    > > failures, they weren't. They were replaced by voice coil actuators
    > > because of their superior accuracy and stability.

    >
    > Sorry, I should have said just motors. The thing that makes the disk
    > go round.


    Neither stepper motors or voice coils spin the platters. They are both only
    actuators, i.e. they move the head arms, not spindle motors.

    > >> Bearing failures are very rare.

    > >
    > > Not in old, but well cared for drives. Bearing failure is
    > > unavoidable, since the bearings will eventually wear out from normal
    > > use, typically before any other component in a well cared for hard
    > > drive.

    >
    > I have never seen bearings fail.
    > What happens when they fail?


    The hard drive fails to spin up. Sometimes accompanied by a loud grinding
    noise.

    > > Power cycles usually specified alone? Since when? I usually see
    > > POH (Power On Hours) used to estimate the MTBF (Mean Time Between
    > > Failures) of a drive model. Power cycles or CSS (Contact
    > > Start-Stop) aren't always listed.

    >
    > I wonder why?


    Because they're not nearly as important determining factors as MTBF and POH
    are when predicting the life span of a hard drive.
     
    Stuart Richards, Oct 21, 2003
    #16
  17. samg

    Gavin Tunney Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:21 +1000, Jay <> wrote:
    <snip>
    >>
    >> Not in old, but well cared for drives. Bearing failure is unavoidable,
    >> since the bearings will eventually wear out from normal use, typically
    >> before any other component in a well cared for hard drive.

    >
    >I have never seen bearings fail.
    >What happens when they fail?
    >


    I've failed a lot of drives fail due to worn/tired bearings. They're
    all from servers or PCs that run 24x7. I've biffed out at least 40x
    scsi drives with poked bearings over the last few years....currently
    got a stack of about 10x -3yr old IBMs that are naffed.

    A dead giveaway is the whine they give out when they're starting to
    get tired. Turn the unit off for a day or so & then restart it....
    often at least one or two of the drives won't spin up because the
    bearings have tightened.

    I've always turned my workstation off each night & never had a drive
    failure on my own machines yet. My experience is that most drive
    failures are due to poor handling, either by the person installing the
    drive or the courier(s) bouncing it around. Second highest cause of
    failure would be bad power, third poor cooling on high-rpm drives.

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Tunney, Oct 21, 2003
    #17
  18. samg

    Gavin Tunney Guest

    On 20 Oct 2003 23:28:00 +1300, samg <> wrote:

    >Anyone know what the failure rate on Seagate harddrives are like these
    >days, now that they are only offering a 1 year warranty? Im still debating
    >on wether to get a 120GB 2MB cache with a one year warranty or an 8MB cache
    >version with a 3 year warranty. Cash is tight so I'd like to go for the
    >cheaper one but the longer warranty is tempting. However, in my experience
    >if a hdd makes it through the first year itll keep on going. Ive got
    >several 5 year old Quantum bigfoots that work %100 with no bad sectors.


    You can get a reasonable idea from the MTBF rates of a drive. Best way
    to look at MTBF is......

    For every x accumulated hours use a drive will fail, so using an MTBF
    on a HDD of 400,000 hours as an example you could say that of 400,000
    drives in use one would fail every hour.

    At the 3year stage that would mean 26,280 out of the 400,000 would
    have failed (if they were running 24x7) giving a failure rate of
    6.57%. The higher the MTBF the lower the failure rate.

    Overall Seagate's failure rate would be similar to everyone else's.
    When you make allowances for drives that aren't used 24x7 & then throw
    in all the other types of failures that aren't included in the MTBF it
    would probably be around the 5-7% mark over the 'useful life' period.

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Tunney, Oct 21, 2003
    #18
  19. samg

    ~misfit~ Guest

    "Matthew Strickland" <> wrote in message
    news:pQYkb.185013$...

    <snip>

    > Ive probably had around 400 HDD's pass through me in the last 4 years.


    Sounds painful. Or fun, depending on your bent. ;-)
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 21, 2003
    #19
  20. samg

    Jay Guest

    Stuart Richards wrote:

    > Jay wrote:
    >>
    >> Stuart Richards wrote:
    >>
    >> > Jay wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> Stuart Richards wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > Jay wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> BTW power-saving schemes that stop your disk spinning will
    >> >> >> dramatically reduce the disk's life. Keep it running and
    >> >> >> thereby keep the temperature constant and the stresses will be
    >> >> >> considerably reduced. It is thermal cycling that shortens the
    >> >> >> life of most mechanical devices.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > That's terrible advice.
    >> >>
    >> >> No it isn't. It is good advice.
    >> >
    >> > But every hard drive manufacturer would disagree with you.

    >>
    >> Do they wouldn't.
    >> Try this:
    >>
    >> http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/qual/specCycles.html

    >
    > As quoted from that web page:
    >
    > "In the great-and-never-ending debate over whether to leave hard disks
    > running or spin them down when idle, some look at the fact that start/stop
    > cycles are specified as evidence that stop/start cycles are "bad" and
    > therefore that drives should always be left running 24/7. As always,
    > maintain perspective: if you start your hard disk in the morning and stop
    > it at night every day for three years, that's only about 1,000 cycles.
    > Even if you do it ten times a day, every day, you're not going to get
    > close to the minimum specification for almost any quality drive, and for
    > notebooks the problem is less significant because the drives are generally
    > designed to withstand many more cycles."
    >
    > I think this quote actually backs me up, not you.


    I don't think you understand how APM works.

    >
    >> >> No it isn't. I have never know a disk to die because of bearing
    >> >> problems. Failures are primarily caused by surface defects.
    >> >
    >> > How do you think surface defects are caused? Head slaps cause
    >> > surface defects. A well looked after drive should rarely experience
    >> > head slaps.

    >>
    >> No. Pure chemical failure and thermal cycling.

    >
    > As if.


    Right.

    >
    >> > There shouldn't be enough surface damage sustained to overwhelm the
    >> > ECC and spare sectors before the bearings die in a well looked after
    >> > drive.

    >>
    >> I have *never* known bearings to fail on a disk drive.
    >> And I have seen plenty of failures.

    >
    > I doubt it.


    I don't.

    >
    >> > Remember, i'm only talking about "well looked after drives" here. A
    >> > great deal of hard drives are not well looked after in my
    >> > experience.

    >>
    >> Regardless of how well they are looked after.
    >> I have *never* seen a disk fail because of bearings failure.

    >
    > I believe you.


    Good.

    >
    >> >> The second highest rate of failure is from electrical component
    >> >> failures (because there are lots of them and because of the higher
    >> >> power ratings of components for stepper motors etc).
    >> >
    >> > Hmm, what year was it when the last hard drive that used a stepper
    >> > motor was made? Sometime in the 1980s? Not that stepper motors
    >> > went away because they were an especially common cause of hard drive
    >> > failures, they weren't. They were replaced by voice coil actuators
    >> > because of their superior accuracy and stability.

    >>
    >> Sorry, I should have said just motors. The thing that makes the disk
    >> go round.

    >
    > Neither stepper motors or voice coils spin the platters. They are both
    > only actuators, i.e. they move the head arms, not spindle motors.


    That is why I apologised for mistakenly using the word stepper.
    I wanted to just say "motor".

    >
    >> >> Bearing failures are very rare.
    >> >
    >> > Not in old, but well cared for drives. Bearing failure is
    >> > unavoidable, since the bearings will eventually wear out from normal
    >> > use, typically before any other component in a well cared for hard
    >> > drive.

    >>
    >> I have never seen bearings fail.
    >> What happens when they fail?

    >
    > The hard drive fails to spin up. Sometimes accompanied by a loud grinding
    > noise.


    Never had one.

    >
    >> > Power cycles usually specified alone? Since when? I usually see
    >> > POH (Power On Hours) used to estimate the MTBF (Mean Time Between
    >> > Failures) of a drive model. Power cycles or CSS (Contact
    >> > Start-Stop) aren't always listed.

    >>
    >> I wonder why?

    >
    > Because they're not nearly as important determining factors as MTBF and
    > POH are when predicting the life span of a hard drive.


    But doesn't MTBF include power cycling?
     
    Jay, Oct 21, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. serge
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    401
    Bob B
    Jun 12, 2005
  2. Radium
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,672
    dadiOH
    Jul 18, 2007
  3. Patrick Cervicek
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    816
    Patrick Cervicek
    Aug 7, 2007
  4. altair

    whats the going rate?

    altair, Jan 26, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    290
    altair
    Jan 26, 2008
  5. zillah

    HHDs won't be able to modify partition name

    zillah, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    898
    zillah
    Mar 27, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page