| Author |
Message |
Top Spin
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:25 am Post subject:
Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
I see various upgrade dealers offering 300gb hard disks. Does anyone
know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At 300gb, is this
pushing the technology to less reliability?
Thanks
--
Using a TiVo Series 2 (TCD24008A)
Connected to Comcast Digital Cable (basic)
OS: Win 2K SP-4 (5.00.2195)
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack Zwick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
In article <llpto0hcgo4qkbfjl1lpd8528elard46gf@4ax.com>,
Top Spin <ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I see various upgrade dealers offering 300gb hard disks. Does anyone
know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At 300gb, is this
pushing the technology to less reliability?
Thanks
|
Technology marches on. I remember in 1987 when 80 Megabyte HDs first
came out, and the same question was asked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Top Spin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:43 am Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:15:00 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | In article <llpto0hcgo4qkbfjl1lpd8528elard46gf@4ax.com>,
Top Spin <ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote:
I see various upgrade dealers offering 300gb hard disks. Does anyone
know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At 300gb, is this
pushing the technology to less reliability?
Thanks
Technology marches on. I remember in 1987 when 80 Megabyte HDs first
came out, and the same question was asked.
|
OK. And I remember in ~1982 when the first 5MB hard disk came out for
the IBM PC. I also remember back in 196x when rooms full of disk
drives did not add up to what I have on my laptop -- maybe on my
digital camera. So what?
--
Using a TiVo Series 2 (TCD24008A)
Connected to Comcast Digital Cable (basic)
OS: Win 2K SP-4 (5.00.2195)
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenny
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
"Top Spin" <ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j85uo01g888ofdjfeoimuhrhpi6ajf29ad@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:15:00 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com
wrote:
In article <llpto0hcgo4qkbfjl1lpd8528elard46gf@4ax.com>,
Top Spin <ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote:
I see various upgrade dealers offering 300gb hard disks. Does anyone
know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At 300gb, is this
pushing the technology to less reliability?
Thanks
Technology marches on. I remember in 1987 when 80 Megabyte HDs first
came out, and the same question was asked.
OK. And I remember in ~1982 when the first 5MB hard disk came out for
the IBM PC. I also remember back in 196x when rooms full of disk
drives did not add up to what I have on my laptop -- maybe on my
digital camera. So what?
|
1987
Jack Zwick "Does anyone know if these [80 megabyte HD's] are as reliable as
the smaller drives? Is this pushing the technology to less reliability?
2004
Top Spin (as he removes his finger from his nose and swirls it around in his
mouth) "Does anyone know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At
300gb, is this pushing the technology to less reliability?"
2021
Bobby MaCallister "Do any of you know if these are as reliable as the
smaller drives? At 100,0000,000 goooglebytes, is this pushing the technology
to less reliability?"
See the pattern? Today's "Can they really do that?" is tomorrow's "Of
course they can do that."
Do you need further handfeeding? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
| Quote: | I see various upgrade dealers offering 300gb hard disks. Does anyone
know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At 300gb, is this
pushing the technology to less reliability?
Thanks
Technology marches on. I remember in 1987 when 80 Megabyte HDs first
came out, and the same question was asked.
OK. And I remember in ~1982 when the first 5MB hard disk came out for
the IBM PC. I also remember back in 196x when rooms full of disk
drives did not add up to what I have on my laptop -- maybe on my
digital camera. So what?
|
<snip>
| Quote: | See the pattern? Today's "Can they really do that?" is tomorrow's "Of
course they can do that."
Do you need further handfeeding?
|
Don't bother, it's not worth encouraging someone who asks a question and
then belittles the person who tries to answer. I think the better response
is to ask the OP whether he's got any basis for asking the question? Is
there some specific technological limit that hard drive technology is
reaching? As far as I know there are none right now at least until
capacities scale up another order of magnitude or so. But maybe he knows
more, is there some sort of molecular or mechanical limit that hard drive
manufacturers and researchers are approaching? If not, you might as well ask
this question of any technology, i.e. "are 4 GHz processors less reliable
than slower ones?" or "are 533 MHz RAM modules being pushed past their
limit?".
Randy S.
" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Hoffman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
I have been running two 120gb drives for about 2 years now without any
difficulty with the drives themselves. I am running a series one and once
the drives had filled up on basic quality, the tivo menu speeds became
really slow. I changed the default to record as medium, deleted lots of
programs and it cleared up the issue. I assume this is because there were a
lot less programs in the program list. I am now running the cachecard with
512mb (series one only) and have changed the recording quality back to basic
again. I have not filled it back up yet. I would like to know how the
series 2 performs when two 300gb drives are filled with programs.
Todd
"Top Spin" <ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:llpto0hcgo4qkbfjl1lpd8528elard46gf@4ax.com...
| Quote: | I see various upgrade dealers offering 300gb hard disks. Does anyone
know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At 300gb, is this
pushing the technology to less reliability?
Thanks
--
Using a TiVo Series 2 (TCD24008A)
Connected to Comcast Digital Cable (basic)
OS: Win 2K SP-4 (5.00.2195)
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Blais
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
The theoretical bit error rate is the same and any similar vintage
drive. Newer drives are more reliable than older drives. Drive size
alone would not be a serious factor. That said any drive can fail.
Drive failure rates are only computed for large volumes of drives.
MTBF of a disk drive is the time required for half of the drives of a
large population to fail. Some drive has to be first<g>. There is no
failure statistic for just one disk drive.
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:43:27 -0800, Top Spin <ToppSpin@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>So what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Top Spin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:58:57 -0500, "Randy S." <rswitt@ATgmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I see various upgrade dealers offering 300gb hard disks. Does anyone
know if these are as reliable as the smaller drives? At 300gb, is this
pushing the technology to less reliability?
Thanks
Technology marches on. I remember in 1987 when 80 Megabyte HDs first
came out, and the same question was asked.
OK. And I remember in ~1982 when the first 5MB hard disk came out for
the IBM PC. I also remember back in 196x when rooms full of disk
drives did not add up to what I have on my laptop -- maybe on my
digital camera. So what?
snip
See the pattern? Today's "Can they really do that?" is tomorrow's "Of
course they can do that."
Do you need further handfeeding?
Don't bother, it's not worth encouraging someone who asks a question and
then belittles the person who tries to answer. I think the better response
is to ask the OP whether he's got any basis for asking the question? Is
there some specific technological limit that hard drive technology is
reaching? As far as I know there are none right now at least until
capacities scale up another order of magnitude or so. But maybe he knows
more, is there some sort of molecular or mechanical limit that hard drive
manufacturers and researchers are approaching? If not, you might as well ask
this question of any technology, i.e. "are 4 GHz processors less reliable
than slower ones?" or "are 533 MHz RAM modules being pushed past their
limit?".
Randy S.
|
Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dweeb
--
Using a TiVo Series 2 (TCD24008A)
Connected to Comcast Digital Cable (basic)
OS: Win 2K SP-4 (5.00.2195)
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Top Spin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:39:04 GMT, "Todd Hoffman"
<trhoffman@cinci.rr.com.nospam> wrote:
| Quote: | I have been running two 120gb drives for about 2 years now without any
difficulty with the drives themselves. I am running a series one and once
the drives had filled up on basic quality, the tivo menu speeds became
really slow. I changed the default to record as medium, deleted lots of
programs and it cleared up the issue. I assume this is because there were a
lot less programs in the program list. I am now running the cachecard with
512mb (series one only) and have changed the recording quality back to basic
again. I have not filled it back up yet. I would like to know how the
series 2 performs when two 300gb drives are filled with programs.
Todd
|
That's a good question. My 80gb Series 2 can be slow but only for some
operations. I think it's more because of the fairly complicated
wishlist entries I have programmed. If I get a 600gb unit, I'll let
you know if the speed degrades unacceptably.
Do you really record everything at basic quality? I tried that and the
picture quality was poor. Maybe it's my older TV. I record everything
at Best or High quality. It cuts down on the capacity dramatically,
but much better viewing.
Thanks
--
Using a TiVo Series 2 (TCD24008A)
Connected to Comcast Digital Cable (basic)
OS: Win 2K SP-4 (5.00.2195)
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Hoffman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
I used to record at a higher quality but the kids have been recording a lot
of programs which fill it up. So the default is basic unless I change it
otherwise. Movies are definitely better at medium and high. I just get
more programs on basic and do not have to worry about shows being deleted.
I never thought two 120gb drives would not be enough.
Todd
"Top Spin" <ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c12vo09bbkagdjr6914mjv6b286eh45f8u@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:39:04 GMT, "Todd Hoffman"
trhoffman@cinci.rr.com.nospam> wrote:
I have been running two 120gb drives for about 2 years now without any
difficulty with the drives themselves. I am running a series one and once
the drives had filled up on basic quality, the tivo menu speeds became
really slow. I changed the default to record as medium, deleted lots of
programs and it cleared up the issue. I assume this is because there were
a
lot less programs in the program list. I am now running the cachecard
with
512mb (series one only) and have changed the recording quality back to
basic
again. I have not filled it back up yet. I would like to know how the
series 2 performs when two 300gb drives are filled with programs.
Todd
That's a good question. My 80gb Series 2 can be slow but only for some
operations. I think it's more because of the fairly complicated
wishlist entries I have programmed. If I get a 600gb unit, I'll let
you know if the speed degrades unacceptably.
Do you really record everything at basic quality? I tried that and the
picture quality was poor. Maybe it's my older TV. I record everything
at Best or High quality. It cuts down on the capacity dramatically,
but much better viewing.
Thanks
--
Using a TiVo Series 2 (TCD24008A)
Connected to Comcast Digital Cable (basic)
OS: Win 2K SP-4 (5.00.2195)
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ted Zlatanov
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, rswitt@atgmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | Is there some specific technological limit that hard drive
technology is reaching? As far as I know there are none right now at
least until capacities scale up another order of magnitude or
so. But maybe he knows more, is there some sort of molecular or
mechanical limit that hard drive manufacturers and researchers are
approaching?
|
The theoretical limit with the "Pixie Dust" technology IBM patented
in 2001 is 100 GBits per square inch:
http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/news/20010518_pixie_dust.shtml
so even if nothing else changes until that limit was reached, we'll
easily have an order of magnitude more than today's drives. I think
we're very far from the molecular limits on storage density.
This doesn't answer reliability, sorry.
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
Kenny <ohmygodtheykilledme@southpark.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 2021
Bobby MaCallister "Do any of you know if these are as reliable as the
smaller drives? At 100,0000,000 goooglebytes, is this pushing the technology
to less reliability?"
|
That would be a Googolbyte. Not a Google(tm) byte.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenny
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:27 am Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
"Top Spin" <ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eu1vo0tcid9fk8ucsudlabdj4e36pjpait@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dweeb
|
Dense Ass Fuckhead
See? we can all call each other names, but it just looks silly.
Perhaps you'd like to be specific about what parts of my response you think
are not valid, vague, unnecessary, irrelevant, or just plain and simply
don't answer your questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack Zwick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:53 am Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
In article <4nactscjfe.fsf@lifelogs.com>,
Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, rswitt@atgmail.com wrote:
Is there some specific technological limit that hard drive
technology is reaching? As far as I know there are none right now at
least until capacities scale up another order of magnitude or
so. But maybe he knows more, is there some sort of molecular or
mechanical limit that hard drive manufacturers and researchers are
approaching?
The theoretical limit with the "Pixie Dust" technology IBM patented
in 2001 is 100 GBits per square inch:
http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/news/20010518_pixie_dust.shtml
so even if nothing else changes until that limit was reached, we'll
easily have an order of magnitude more than today's drives. I think
we're very far from the molecular limits on storage density.
This doesn't answer reliability, sorry.
|
IBM so ruined their reputation with their "Deskstar" 3 1/2" Hard Drives
that:
1. They became known as Deathstar drives.
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=DeathStar
2. IBM got out of the business, and sold it all to Hitachi.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002may/gee20020605012041.htm
============
Personally I like Maxtor drives, because with their "Acoustic
Management" software they can be made to run quieter than other brands
of drives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:10 am Post subject:
Re: Reliability of large (300gb) hard disks |
|
|
| Quote: |
Don't bother, it's not worth encouraging someone who asks a question and
then belittles the person who tries to answer. I think the better
response
is to ask the OP whether he's got any basis for asking the question? Is
there some specific technological limit that hard drive technology is
reaching? As far as I know there are none right now at least until
capacities scale up another order of magnitude or so. But maybe he knows
more, is there some sort of molecular or mechanical limit that hard drive
manufacturers and researchers are approaching? If not, you might as well
ask
this question of any technology, i.e. "are 4 GHz processors less reliable
than slower ones?" or "are 533 MHz RAM modules being pushed past their
limit?".
Randy S.
Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dweeb
|
So basically, you can't make any reasonable response, so you ridicule the
questioner? Let me try again, please answer the question . . .
Is there any particular reason that you know of that a 300 Gb drive would be
any less reliable than a smaller one, other than it's larger? Basing the
decision on size alone would be like saying that a sportscar is less
reliable than an economy car solely because it has more horsepower.
Randy S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in