HD capacity vs. reliability

"Little Sir Echo" <just wondering@all this.com> wrote:
> nospamatall <nospamat... DeleteThis @iol.ie> wrote:
>
> Clipped (references to hard drive problems)
>
> > Maybe I just won't buy one at all!
>
> > Andy
>
> That, my friend, is the only way to guarantee that you will never have
> problems with a hard drive.

Problem is that zero purchases equals zero capabilities.

FWIW, I've been doing some reading at www.smallnetbuilder.com

There's some NAS basics info here:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/29897/230/


FWIW, one of the things that I've noticed on the above website are the
performance benchmarks: it seems that some products are dog-slow.

In general, the question that I've been pondering is that for a Mac-
centric home network, is one of these dedicated NAS boxes worthwhile,
or should I just go get a mini and stick a big external firewire drive
on it? Any particular insight on the relative throughput performance
on a 1GB network?


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: HD capacity vs. reliability 

In article
<a1a050ea-011b-4451-a6e3-0e8065696d42.TakeThisOut@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google.TakeThisOut@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> In general, the question that I've been pondering is that for a Mac-
> centric home network, is one of these dedicated NAS boxes worthwhile,
> or should I just go get a mini and stick a big external firewire drive
> on it? Any particular insight on the relative throughput performance
> on a 1GB network?

I don't have experience with any of these stand-alone NAS solutions, but
I can tell you I get excellent throughput (~8.4 MBps) with transfers
between my Mac mini with Firewire-connected storage and other computers
on my network (via Apple File Protocol sharing).

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: HD capacity vs. reliability 

-hh wrote:

> http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/29897/230/

Useful site, thanks
Andy
 >> Stay informed about: HD capacity vs. reliability 

In article <fpqhv5$kd3$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall.RemoveThis@iol.ie>
wrote:

> > I have never seen any direct correlation between hard drive capacity and
> > reliability. *All* hard drives are unreliable. :) That's why you keep at
> > least two, and preferably more, copies of data you care about.
> >
>
> I haven't seen anthing about it, it just seems to me that if you cram
> more into the same space, tolerances would become more critical. But I
> don't know that, it just seems to make sense.

It's not really a question of "tolerances;" modern hard drives work on
principles (such as giant magneto resistance) entirely distinct from the
principles behind older hard drives. By way of analogy, a digital chip
has much tighter tolerances than a vacuum tube, yet is also far more
reliable!

Of course, hard drives in general are *never* reliable, and I for one
can't wait til we're rid of them. They're embarrassing, really--open a
modern computer, made up of millions of transistors each only a few
*atoms* thick, and what do you find? An archaic whirling piece of
Victorian clockwork. It's horrible.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
 >> Stay informed about: HD capacity vs. reliability 

tacit wrote:
> In article <fpqhv5$kd3$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall.TakeThisOut@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>>> I have never seen any direct correlation between hard drive capacity and
>>> reliability. *All* hard drives are unreliable. :) That's why you keep at
>>> least two, and preferably more, copies of data you care about.
>>>
>> I haven't seen anthing about it, it just seems to me that if you cram
>> more into the same space, tolerances would become more critical. But I
>> don't know that, it just seems to make sense.
>
> It's not really a question of "tolerances;" modern hard drives work on
> principles (such as giant magneto resistance) entirely distinct from the
> principles behind older hard drives. By way of analogy, a digital chip
> has much tighter tolerances than a vacuum tube, yet is also far more
> reliable!
>
> Of course, hard drives in general are *never* reliable, and I for one
> can't wait til we're rid of them. They're embarrassing, really--open a
> modern computer, made up of millions of transistors each only a few
> *atoms* thick, and what do you find? An archaic whirling piece of
> Victorian clockwork. It's horrible.
>
Yeah that puts it into perspective allright! Maybe tolerances is the
wrong word. I was thinking that if you cram more data onto a disc that
is the same size, then there has to be a downside, because scratches,
dust, neutrinos, whatever don't get smaller at the same time. I wonder
about Blu-ray in this too. Just anything that can damage data will
damage more data if it is more tightly packed, it seems to me.

Of course if you improve the medium itself concurrently that can be
balanced out. But if all they do is get more sophisticated techniques to
cram more onto the same material there must be some drop in reliability,
no matter how much better the technology is at reading and writing, to
some extent. I mean, they can improve reliability over previous tech,
but the same physical disc holding more data...

I'm thinking specifically of the choice between a 500GB drive and a 1TB.
Info from the manufacturers of consumer drives is completely lacking
mostly, about such things as exactly WTF are they putting in those
cases. Does the 1TB drive have more disks in it, and if so then why is
the case the same size..., and if it is the same physical size then
surely it's not as reliable, things like that.

At least the apple 'server grade' HD thing is clear now, they are using
the same drives as in the x-serve. I might get one of those, even though
I won't be using the wi-fi. I don't fancy building my own for something
as critical as backup. I'm not very practical and such projects usually
don't work well! The lacie NAS one looks interesting but really, if they
don't want to tell me what drive they are using in it that doesn't seem
a good basis for a business relationship.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: HD capacity vs. reliability 

On 29-Feb-2008, nospamatall <nospamatall DeleteThis @iol.ie> wrote:

> Does the 1TB drive have more disks in it, and if so then why is
> the case the same size..., and if it is the same physical size then
> surely it's not as reliable....

Someone more familiar than I am with hard drives may provide a more
comprehensive answer to your questions, but I believe the fact that two 3.5"
drives are in a similar case does not tell you anything about how many disk
platters are inside.

So, for example, in principle a 1 TB drive might have two platters while a
500 GB only has one. IIRC, several years ago I had a 3.5 drive that had four
platters.

Also, recording technologies change. Seagate is touting 'perpendicular
recording' by which they mean they record data vertically into the media
rather than horizontally on the surface, again IIRC, It allows for more data
in a given space.

The concern you have will probably lessen as you learn more about how drives
work.

Drive failures are real and do happen but my guess is that the data loss
from that is a very tiny fraction of the losses due to failure to have and
use an effective backup strategy.
 >> Stay informed about: HD capacity vs. reliability 

In article <fqald8$l66$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall RemoveThis @iol.ie>
wrote:

> tacit wrote:
> > In article <fpqhv5$kd3$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall RemoveThis @iol.ie>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> I have never seen any direct correlation between hard drive capacity and
> >>> reliability. *All* hard drives are unreliable. :) That's why you keep at
> >>> least two, and preferably more, copies of data you care about.
> >>>
> >> I haven't seen anthing about it, it just seems to me that if you cram
> >> more into the same space, tolerances would become more critical. But I
> >> don't know that, it just seems to make sense.
> >
> > It's not really a question of "tolerances;" modern hard drives work on
> > principles (such as giant magneto resistance) entirely distinct from the
> > principles behind older hard drives. By way of analogy, a digital chip
> > has much tighter tolerances than a vacuum tube, yet is also far more
> > reliable!
> >
> > Of course, hard drives in general are *never* reliable, and I for one
> > can't wait til we're rid of them. They're embarrassing, really--open a
> > modern computer, made up of millions of transistors each only a few
> > *atoms* thick, and what do you find? An archaic whirling piece of
> > Victorian clockwork. It's horrible.
> >
> Yeah that puts it into perspective allright! Maybe tolerances is the
> wrong word. I was thinking that if you cram more data onto a disc that
> is the same size, then there has to be a downside, because scratches,
> dust, neutrinos, whatever don't get smaller at the same time. I wonder
> about Blu-ray in this too. Just anything that can damage data will
> damage more data if it is more tightly packed, it seems to me.

Molecule-sized bits of hard drive media not working is OK. There's a
lot of error correction data and spare space on a disk. When the number
of errors grows too high, that data is moved to a spare space before
it's lost.

Hard drive scratches are always fatal. Eventually you'll hear a buzz -
the sound of the head chattering against the platter and smashing up the
media.



> Of course if you improve the medium itself concurrently that can be
> balanced out. But if all they do is get more sophisticated techniques to
> cram more onto the same material there must be some drop in reliability,
> no matter how much better the technology is at reading and writing, to
> some extent. I mean, they can improve reliability over previous tech,
> but the same physical disc holding more data...
>
> I'm thinking specifically of the choice between a 500GB drive and a 1TB.
> Info from the manufacturers of consumer drives is completely lacking
> mostly, about such things as exactly WTF are they putting in those
> cases. Does the 1TB drive have more disks in it, and if so then why is
> the case the same size..., and if it is the same physical size then
> surely it's not as reliable, things like that.
>
> At least the apple 'server grade' HD thing is clear now, they are using
> the same drives as in the x-serve. I might get one of those, even though
> I won't be using the wi-fi. I don't fancy building my own for something
> as critical as backup. I'm not very practical and such projects usually
> don't work well! The lacie NAS one looks interesting but really, if they
> don't want to tell me what drive they are using in it that doesn't seem
> a good basis for a business relationship.
>
> Andy

--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
 >> Stay informed about: HD capacity vs. reliability