If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
Paul nospam needed.com wrote:
John Doe wrote: Anything can just go without warning. An experienced computer user always has backups of important data. Some of us use very efficient methods for backing up and restoring stuff. Hardware is rarely an issue. Any reasonable hardware should not be an issue. What, exactly, makes an SSD any more prone to quitting without warning than any other device that includes electronic circuitry like a conventional hard drive? Any credible citations showing that sort of failure on high quality SSDs? Both SSDs and hard drives, have firmware. Without any cites at all, that represents an "exposure" in terms of product quality. What is your point? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
John Doe wrote
Ed Light nobody nobody.there wrote: Except that SSD's sometimes quit without warning. Unlike hard drives that you can monitor, such as with HD Sentinel with sensitivity set to server, and know if the disk is deteriorating. An SSD may abruptly just go. Anything can just go without warning. An experienced computer user always has backups of important data. Some of us use very efficient methods for backing up and restoring stuff. Hardware is rarely an issue. Any reasonable hardware should not be an issue. What, exactly, makes an SSD any more prone to quitting without warning than any other device that includes electronic circuitry like a conventional hard drive? The technology is completely different. Any credible citations showing that sort of failure on high quality SSDs? Yep. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
John Doe wrote:
Paul nospam needed.com wrote: John Doe wrote: Anything can just go without warning. An experienced computer user always has backups of important data. Some of us use very efficient methods for backing up and restoring stuff. Hardware is rarely an issue. Any reasonable hardware should not be an issue. What, exactly, makes an SSD any more prone to quitting without warning than any other device that includes electronic circuitry like a conventional hard drive? Any credible citations showing that sort of failure on high quality SSDs? Both SSDs and hard drives, have firmware. Without any cites at all, that represents an "exposure" in terms of product quality. What is your point? Since both SSD and Hard Drives are firmware/CPU based, they are both untrustworthy. And you cannot really estimate when they'll fall over or why. For example, some bugs are related to how many times the device has been power cycled. Some users will see an early failure (because they power cycle the PC a lot). Others will see the device last a long time (since they don't power off). Companies will not always admit why their product failed. In the case of Seagate, occasionally a company engineer will make an unofficial statement about why some failures are occurring. Due to the prototype nature of the SSD market, the early SSD failures involved a lot of ass covering, as no maker attempting to capture mindshare, would want to admit why their product is failing. So you can't always get a nice neatly laid out report as to what to expect from SSDs. So my point is, no matter what the track record is to date, the same fault modes can exist on SSDs, as on hard drives. Both have rudimentary firmware, with no attempt to automatically recover from bad situations. Firmware flaws would have no representation in SMART. So it's not like you can be warned there is a bug in the firmware. And the device is most likely to "disappear", when you first turn it on in the morning. When the SSD "internally boots". If a brand new SSD comes out today, I could pick one up assuming the SSD market is mature and every SSD maker knows what they're doing. Only to lose all my data a month later. And then reports come out that it is a firmware issue. Whether it happens regularly, is not the issue. It's the possibility that it can happen that counts. And the track record of firmware issues on hard drives, should attest to how often these mistakes make it into the field. (Repairing a bricked Seagate ST3500320AS using a TTL serial cable... An example of a model with a firmware problem.) http://www.overclock.net/t/457286/se...-fix-with-pics (Firmware update if you catch it before it bricks) http://knowledge.seagate.com/article...S/FAQ/207951en Paul |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
On 15:38 14 Sep 2014, Rodney Pont wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:58:30 +0200, David Brown wrote: I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough. The new drive will replace the old one. I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format. Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same? Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive? Thank you for any advice. A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5" drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you would notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but you are talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this will not make much difference either. So it is not going to make a huge difference either way. (I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be hard to find outside of a museum.) Firstly are we talking SATA or PATA drives? SATA have a flat data cable about a centimetre wide whereas PATA are 5 to 6 centimetres wide. In my experience 2.5inch drives are noticeably slower than 3.5 inch drives when I've run them on the same motherboard. If you are SATA have you thought about an SSD? They can be much faster. The drive woul dneed to be SATA. Sorry, I forgot to mention it. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
On 13:40 16 Sep 2014, kathy wrote:
On 15:38 14 Sep 2014, Rodney Pont wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:58:30 +0200, David Brown wrote: I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough. The new drive will replace the old one. I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format. Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same? Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive? Thank you for any advice. A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5" drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you would notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but you are talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this will not make much difference either. So it is not going to make a huge difference either way. (I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be hard to find outside of a museum.) Firstly are we talking SATA or PATA drives? SATA have a flat data cable about a centimetre wide whereas PATA are 5 to 6 centimetres wide. In my experience 2.5inch drives are noticeably slower than 3.5 inch drives when I've run them on the same motherboard. If you are SATA have you thought about an SSD? They can be much faster. The drive woul dneed to be SATA. Sorry, I forgot to mention it. No!!!! My mistake. I mean PATA. The old one with the 40 or 80 way connector. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
On 19:55 14 Sep 2014, Paul wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:16:57 +0100, kathy wrote: Can I pick your brains about a hard drive upgrade. I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough. The new drive will replace the old one. I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format. Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same? Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive? Thank you for any advice. 2.5" drives are slower than 3.5" drives. I would only use a 2.5" drive if I had to (laptop, USB power only) or if it was a SSD. (There's no speed penalty with SSDs.) I would concentrate most of my energy, in finding a drive brand that was reliable. Reading the reviews, find out how long they last and so on. The Velociraptor is a 2.5" drive which comes with its own heatsink and 3.5" carrier. It is 10000 RPM, and spins faster than many other desktop drives. The 600GB one, reads out at 180MB/sec. But these boutique drives aren't for everyone. These ones could be refurbs rather than new (the low price is a hint). http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822236244 There are even some out there, that come without the cooler, and the available information suggests to take special care cooling them. I think rather than fall in all those sort of traps, a plain ordinary 3.5" drive for $60 is a better deal. After looking through the reviews to find which ones are dropping dead too fast. In terms of reliability, the 2.5" 5400 RPM ones look good, but those would be slow (seek speed). The 2.5" 7200 RPM look like they're a less good deal, as the reviews for those are no longer 5 out of 5. The 3.5" drives are pretty well uniformly bad, and finding a winner there involves a lot of luck. Each generation can be better or worse than the previous. For example, I had to stop buying my favorite drive (again), after the new model showed itself to be a dog (the price drop was a hint something changed). The hard drive manufacturers know *exactly* what they're doing. Just like in the car industry, they have tables for bearing designs, which trade lifetime versus cost. When a bearing fails on your car, some engineer just nods his head and checks the tick mark on the chart. "As designed". At one time, designs used over-engineering because we didn't know any better. And as the tools improve, every aspect of quality versus price is known. So whatever comes from Seagate or WD, they know what the tradeoffs were. There are no "surprises". If they want to make drives that last like toilet paper, they can. Paul Thank you for the info. (Including the scepticism about manufacturers) I appreciate it. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
Paul nospam needed.com wrote:
John Doe wrote: Paul nospam needed.com wrote: John Doe wrote: Anything can just go without warning. An experienced computer user always has backups of important data. Some of us use very efficient methods for backing up and restoring stuff. Hardware is rarely an issue. Any reasonable hardware should not be an issue. What, exactly, makes an SSD any more prone to quitting without warning than any other device that includes electronic circuitry like a conventional hard drive? Any credible citations showing that sort of failure on high quality SSDs? Both SSDs and hard drives, have firmware. Without any cites at all, that represents an "exposure" in terms of product quality. What is your point? So my point is, no matter what the track record is to date, the same fault modes can exist on SSDs, as on hard drives. Both have rudimentary firmware, with no attempt to automatically recover from bad situations. The argument was that SSD is more prone to failure than HDD. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:47:20 -0700, Ed Light
wrote: On 9/14/2014 7:21 PM, John Doe wrote: Of course how much an SSD increases performance depends on what exactly the "old SATA interface" is. Most likely it will provide a very nice boost in speed because it affects so much of the system. For anybody that wants to keep such a system, it's the only way to go. Especially since the conventional hard drive is sitting there ready to be bumped into its useful secondary position. Except that SSD's sometimes quit without warning. As does my heart (one attack so far) and yet I continue to rely on it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
kathy wrote:
On 13:40 16 Sep 2014, kathy wrote: On 15:38 14 Sep 2014, Rodney Pont wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:58:30 +0200, David Brown wrote: I have an old desktop PC with a 250 MB hard drive. I would like to increase the storage capacity and think 500 MB may be enough. The new drive will replace the old one. I notice that 500 MB is a size which I can now buy in 2.5 inch format. Is a 2.5 inch drive likely to be better (faster, lower power consumption, etc) than a 3.5 inch drive? Are the connectors the same? Or would it be better to install another 3.5 inch drive? Thank you for any advice. A 2.5" drive will be marginally lower power than a corresponding 3.5" drive. It is also likely to be lower speed, but not so that you would notice much. It will cost more per MB than a 3.5" drive - but you are talking about such low capacity (for modern drives) that this will not make much difference either. So it is not going to make a huge difference either way. (I assume you mean GB, not MB, in your sizes. A 500 MB disk would be hard to find outside of a museum.) Firstly are we talking SATA or PATA drives? SATA have a flat data cable about a centimetre wide whereas PATA are 5 to 6 centimetres wide. In my experience 2.5inch drives are noticeably slower than 3.5 inch drives when I've run them on the same motherboard. If you are SATA have you thought about an SSD? They can be much faster. The drive woul dneed to be SATA. Sorry, I forgot to mention it. No!!!! My mistake. I mean PATA. The old one with the 40 or 80 way connector. Based on the prices and capacities on Newegg (320GB 2.5" PATA for $399), I would say forget about this (PATA laptop drive) approach. There is another way. ******* I use one of these to connect SATA hard drives to an IDE cable on the computer. The jumper on the adapter, indicates whether the drive is master or slave. I jumper to Master and stick it on the end of my IDE cable, as usually I'm only working on a single SATA drive this way at one time. (My IDE cable happens to support HPA.) The worst part of this adapter, is you have to be very careful installing or removing the IDE side, as the pins can get bent in the process. This has power connectors, to connect your existing supply, to the SATA drive. Inspect the pictures of the product, to see how it would connect to your system. The easy part, is how smoothly this plugs into the back of a SATA drive. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812200156 That would increase the number of drive models you could connect. $80 gets you a 1TB 7200RPM 2.5" SATA. Then you use the StarTech adapter, so it'll connect to your IDE cable. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA54G1R09153 It's a 512e drive, so you can use it with WinXP without a problem. http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/FF05B02FBBBF9E8288257AAF00686AD6/$file/TS7K1000_ds.pdf I would put a lot more care into selecting a drive, than just picking the first one I could see. When securing it mechanically, you need to make sure there is room for the StarTech adapter. In an Antec Sonata, with outward facing drive bays in the bottom, the adapter would hit the computer side cover. Only mounting the drives in the regular orientation would work. I've even used that StarTech adapter, while a SATA drive sat open in a USB to IDE enclosure. My StarTech adapter has been through hell and it still works :-) Paul |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Is 2.5 inch disk drive suitable for desktop?
"Paul" wrote in message ... John Doe wrote: Paul nospam needed.com wrote: John Doe wrote: Anything can just go without warning. An experienced computer user always has backups of important data. Some of us use very efficient methods for backing up and restoring stuff. Hardware is rarely an issue. Any reasonable hardware should not be an issue. What, exactly, makes an SSD any more prone to quitting without warning than any other device that includes electronic circuitry like a conventional hard drive? Any credible citations showing that sort of failure on high quality SSDs? Both SSDs and hard drives, have firmware. Without any cites at all, that represents an "exposure" in terms of product quality. What is your point? Since both SSD and Hard Drives are firmware/CPU based, they are both untrustworthy. And you cannot really estimate when they'll fall over or why. You can actually with some faults that show evidence of a problem in the SMART stats. For example, some bugs are related to how many times the device has been power cycled. Those arent bugs. Some users will see an early failure (because they power cycle the PC a lot). Others will see the device last a long time (since they don't power off). Those arent bugs. Companies will not always admit why their product failed. Doesn't matter what they admit, with plenty of failures the reason for them is obvious. In the case of Seagate, occasionally a company engineer will make an unofficial statement about why some failures are occurring. Due to the prototype nature of the SSD market, the early SSD failures involved a lot of ass covering, as no maker attempting to capture mindshare, would want to admit why their product is failing. So you can't always get a nice neatly laid out report as to what to expect from SSDs. So my point is, no matter what the track record is to date, the same fault modes can exist on SSDs, as on hard drives. But the technology is so different that you don't often see the same fault modes. Both have rudimentary firmware, It's a hell of a lot better than rudimentary. with no attempt to automatically recover from bad situations. The whole point of remapped sectors with hard drives and spare cells with SSDs is to recover automatically from bad situations. Firmware flaws would have no representation in SMART. So it's not like you can be warned there is a bug in the firmware. Sure, but that is only a minor cause of HDD and SSD failure now. And the device is most likely to "disappear", when you first turn it on in the morning. When the SSD "internally boots". If a brand new SSD comes out today, I could pick one up assuming the SSD market is mature and every SSD maker knows what they're doing. Only to lose all my data a month later. And then reports come out that it is a firmware issue. Whether it happens regularly, is not the issue. It's the possibility that it can happen that counts. And the track record of firmware issues on hard drives, should attest to how often these mistakes make it into the field. (Repairing a bricked Seagate ST3500320AS using a TTL serial cable... An example of a model with a firmware problem.) http://www.overclock.net/t/457286/se...-fix-with-pics (Firmware update if you catch it before it bricks) http://knowledge.seagate.com/article...S/FAQ/207951en |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Housing two 2.5-inch hard disks in one 3.5-inch drive bay? | Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) | Storage (alternative) | 11 | March 29th 10 07:42 PM |
Solid State disk for a desktop system C drive? | Al Dykes | Storage (alternative) | 10 | January 19th 09 11:20 PM |
Desperately needing 3.5 inch DD disk drive (1Mb/720K) | Daniel Vonboles | General Hardware | 1 | May 3rd 04 04:56 PM |
Which Intel P4 motherboards have 66mhz PCI slots? Suitable for desktop use? | dg | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | April 4th 04 03:05 AM |