Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65

Thread: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

  1. #41

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by originalsin View Post
    Back to TS's question.......
    If the objective is to get a reliable storage, then consider this setup:
    1) A NAS (Synology, QNAP and many other brands) or external storage that has
    a) minimum two-bay (meaning it can take two disks) config, for 3.5" disks
    b) built-in RAID-1 (and RAID-5 for 3 or more bays) support.
    2) Decide on disk size. 1 tera-byte is a good start. Decide on a brand.
    3) Go to two different shops to get disks of the same model. Why?
    - Avoid getting disks of the same manufacturing batch.
    - For most of the time when there is a manufacturing problem, it affects all products made in the same batch.
    4) If you are willing to spend more, get a UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply), and have your computer and storage plugged into it.

    Reliable storage is never going to be cheap. But prices have fallen greatly to be quite affordable. For priceless photos, I do not mind spending on it.
    I guess the TS is looking for an easy portable external HDD..I might be wrong..

  2. #42

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by An drew View Post
    you are turning us into geeks too innit?
    Haha, I'm just sharing the knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by pokiemon View Post
    i repeat -
    Thanks

  3. #43

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by geekbrains View Post
    I guess the TS is looking for an easy portable external HDD..I might be wrong..
    Not obvious from TS post. If indeed it is about mobility, then pick a 2.5", 5400rpm. Mobility & Reliability are quite difficult to be achieved together. Perhaps RAIDON's R2 is the solution.

  4. #44

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by mahojazz View Post
    well, get a mirror instead of RAID 5. WD Mirror is one of the choices. when the NAS in RAID 5 failed, it may not be possible to access the data at all.
    The only RAID5 that has given problems to me is the software-based solution for SATA drives in the Windows OS. On NAS and enterprise storage, those brands that I have used are all doing well. The choice of RAID1 or 5 or 6 or 1+0 are all depending on the needs for space or speed.

    So, when picking a NAS, it is important to get some reputable, NAS-focus company and brand. There are so many brands now selling NAS, even those used to be just in the wifi arena.

  5. #45
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,388

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by mahojazz View Post
    well, get a mirror instead of RAID 5. WD Mirror is one of the choices. when the NAS in RAID 5 failed, it may not be possible to access the data at all.
    That heavily contradicts the purpose of RAID5. Every RAID (except RAID0) is built with the intention of creating redundancy for resilience (hence the name) to cover the outage of a single disk by keeping the necessary recovery information on the other disk(s).
    Large industry storage solutions are based on RAID5 and the swapping of single disks is a standard activity, even without taking the storage offline. Best to leave the RAID management to the storage. Plenty of offerings in the market.
    EOS

  6. #46
    Senior Member yyD70S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,454

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Apologies for side-tracking but which portable HD brand is more "reliable" between...

    Western Digital
    Hitachi
    Samsung
    Seagate
    Maxtor

    Or... put it another way, which one "should I avoid"

    Thank you

  7. #47

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by yyD70S View Post
    Apologies for side-tracking but which portable HD brand is more "reliable" between...

    Western Digital
    Hitachi
    Samsung
    Seagate
    Maxtor

    Or... put it another way, which one "should I avoid"

    Thank you
    Though I don't have any branded external HDD's, most of my friends had all these brands that you've mentioned. All of them had at least 1 incident of a failed HDD. The worst being Maxtor / Seagate which my aunt lost the complete data twice and paid 1200+ $ to CBL data recovery once to recover some important data

  8. #48

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by originalsin View Post
    Back to TS's question.......
    If the objective is to get a reliable storage, then consider this setup:
    1) A NAS (Synology, QNAP and many other brands) or external storage that has
    a) minimum two-bay (meaning it can take two disks) config, for 3.5" disks
    b) built-in RAID-1 (and RAID-5 for 3 or more bays) support.
    2) Decide on disk size. 1 tera-byte is a good start. Decide on a brand.
    3) Go to two different shops to get disks of the same model. Why?
    - Avoid getting disks of the same manufacturing batch.
    - For most of the time when there is a manufacturing problem, it affects all products made in the same batch.
    4) If you are willing to spend more, get a UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply), and have your computer and storage plugged into it.

    Reliable storage is never going to be cheap. But prices have fallen greatly to be quite affordable. For priceless photos, I do not mind spending on it.
    which exclosure support two or more bays for 2.5" (not 3.5") harddisks and support mirror? Is there such a thing in the 1st place?

  9. #49

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by gohaj View Post
    which exclosure support two or more bays for 2.5" (not 3.5") harddisks
    QNAP supports both in the same enclosure

  10. #50
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,388

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by geekbrains View Post
    Though I don't have any branded external HDD's, most of my friends had all these brands that you've mentioned. All of them had at least 1 incident of a failed HDD. The worst being Maxtor / Seagate which my aunt lost the complete data twice and paid 1200+ $ to CBL data recovery once to recover some important data
    Agree. I had IBM hard disks .. highly regarded by some people .. 5 failed over 7 years. The Samsung, praised for silent operations - 3 dead. But I noticed during my research for these incidents that cooling is an important factor, especially when no aircon is used and when using HDD with 7200 rpm. How many people really check the airflow? New PC cases now come with better airflow and more fans. But I'm still skeptical about tight enclosures for HDD. Using HDD with 5400rpm now - running much cooler and the loss of performance is not really noticeable for my purposes.
    EOS

  11. #51

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    2.5 and 3.5 are the same. if you dun take care of it, even it is a 4.5, it still fail
    Bokelicious Photography : www.bokelicious.net --- Facebook.com/bokelicious

  12. #52

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Agree. I had IBM hard disks .. highly regarded by some people .. 5 failed over 7 years. The Samsung, praised for silent operations - 3 dead. But I noticed during my research for these incidents that cooling is an important factor, especially when no aircon is used and when using HDD with 7200 rpm. How many people really check the airflow? New PC cases now come with better airflow and more fans. But I'm still skeptical about tight enclosures for HDD. Using HDD with 5400rpm now - running much cooler and the loss of performance is not really noticeable for my purposes.
    LOL, I completely agree with you dude. Most of the failed HDD's that I had were all IBM But dramatically the technology and the manufacturing units of IBM acquired by HDS improved the failure rate significantly.

    Though cooling plays a major part, most of these corruptions I have seen are due to zero parking error, head misalignment, scratched platters due to head crash (Some of these can be attributed due to temperature but majority of them are due to drops and knocks). Ever heard of a weak air filter which let dust particles in and scratched those platters

  13. #53

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Should external harddisk only be used as a backup device i.e. plug in PC and backup your files once in a while?

    If I use one as an active harddisk plug permanently to my PC and access/edit my photos/video through it directly, will it fail even faster?

  14. #54

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by UandMe View Post
    Should external harddisk only be used as a backup device i.e. plug in PC and backup your files once in a while?

    If I use one as an active harddisk plug permanently to my PC and access/edit my photos/video through it directly, will it fail even faster?
    Not really, I've been running my Linux off from my external HDD for years now (40GB Hitachi ATA)

  15. #55

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by geekbrains View Post
    Not really, I've been running my Linux off from my external HDD for years now (40GB Hitachi ATA)
    Thanks

  16. #56

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by UandMe View Post
    Thanks
    You're most welcome dude

  17. #57
    Senior Member yyD70S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,454

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Thank you for your feedback.

    Appreciate.


    Quote Originally Posted by geekbrains View Post
    Though I don't have any branded external HDD's, most of my friends had all these brands that you've mentioned. All of them had at least 1 incident of a failed HDD. The worst being Maxtor / Seagate which my aunt lost the complete data twice and paid 1200+ $ to CBL data recovery once to recover some important data

  18. #58
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,388

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by geekbrains View Post
    LOL, I completely agree with you dude. Most of the failed HDD's that I had were all IBM But dramatically the technology and the manufacturing units of IBM acquired by HDS improved the failure rate significantly.
    Most IBM's died with the same pattern: rhythmic 'click - click' of about 1s. Thermal calibration error. Only two had other issues. The result was always the same: no data access, everything lost. Luckily most of them only carried only the OS partitions.
    What bugged me also were the recommendations about environmental conditions. I try to monitor my disks with smartmontools, the reading shows the temperature of the internal sensor. But in most documentations one can only find the air temperature, mostly without consideration of a cooling fan and the resulting cooling by airflow. Even a question to IBM support was fruitless, I only got standard template answers.
    EOS

  19. #59

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by gohaj View Post
    which exclosure support two or more bays for 2.5" (not 3.5") harddisks and support mirror? Is there such a thing in the 1st place?
    I saw some 2.5" RAID products at MemoryWorld at Funan, when I was buying a NAS there.

  20. #60

    Default Re: 3.5" or 2.5" HD more reliable?

    Backup and Redundancy setup are 2 separate stuff.

    If you want to archive your picture,
    then Backup is the more idea solution.

    Redundancy is more appropriate when Turnaround time is critical.
    No matter how great your setup is,
    if your PC got cart away, everything's gone

    With portable backup, you can have 1 copy at home, in office etc.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •