[sf-lug] Specific Hardware advice - Fwd: Disk Thrashing [SOLVED]

Brian Morris cymraegish at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 18:35:46 PDT 2011

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Bobbie Sellers <
bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com> wrote:

> It seems these drives are just not fit for the purpose for which they were
> sold. as they were purchased in December 2009, the Lord only knows what my
> legal rights are.
> Most drives have a direct manufacturer's guarantee, the decent ones have 5
but the cheap ones usually at least 2. They know the age from the serial
numbers. Try and get a replacement.

I have heard before that 20% of drives fail annually no matter what the age.

SMART may be smart and tell you something, although it can be un-smart

This is why I like SCSI -- have never had a SCSI drive fail, in the last
five years at least 5 ATA drives failed. And people tell me that most SATA
drives are copied from ATA designs, although perhaps a few of the best
quality more like converted SCSI. U320 SCSI is similar speed to SATA, and
iSCSI is faster. They cost more but ...

Another thing I think is that the bigger capacity the more likely to have
problems. For a particular era, the highest capacity drives are always much
more fragile ( the majority of those failures).

It is true that there are different design for different purposes.  Server
drives may read much faster than they write. Also some will be more
sensitive to say high demand on the video card  - when I upgraded my card
the drive slowed down but switching to another brand of the same quality
supposedly, cured the problem. Some brands of drives (IBM and Seagate )
refuse to work in my external boxes but work fine internally -- in the
situation just mentioned IBM was the solution to problem swapped the Western
Digital into the external box and all was fine.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20110430/0ac73874/attachment.html>

More information about the sf-lug mailing list