What is the best HDD in terms of Reliability/cost?

CWatters wrote in message
...
Odie Ferrous wrote

Six months ago, the positions of the
first two in the list were reversed.

Perhaps in six months time they will be different again :-)

In spades with the length of time most keep a drive for |-)

The cost can vary a lot with rebates etc, and its impossible to
get a real handle on reliability. No one except the manufacturer
sees enough drives to be able to say much about reliability.

Manufacturers usually publish MTBF or AFR (at certain POH) rate
as a measure of reliability.

Peter wrote in message
.. .

The cost can vary a lot with rebates etc, and its impossible to
get a real handle on reliability. No one except the manufacturer
sees enough drives to be able to say much about reliability.

Manufacturers usually publish MTBF or AFR (at certain POH) rate

Yes, but thats useless as a measure of reliability.

as a measure of reliability.

Fraid not. Most obviously with the IBM 75GXP and Fujitsu
MPGs which did turn out to be much less reliable than other
manufacturer's similar drives with identical MTBFs and AFRs.

Manufacturers usually publish MTBF or AFR (at certain POH) rate

Yes, but thats useless as a measure of reliability.

as a measure of reliability.

Fraid not. Most obviously with the IBM 75GXP and Fujitsu
MPGs which did turn out to be much less reliable than other
manufacturer's similar drives with identical MTBFs and AFRs.

I think you confuse reliability with dishonest marketing practices
of some companies. It is possible that product manufactured at
later date has lower reliability than originally claimed. It is up to
the manufacturer to disclose that information and recall faulty
product, reimburse unfortunate clients or keep quiet.
Manufacturer has an obligation to check product quality on a
regular basis, to make sure it has required properties.

It is like saying that stress analysis is useless because it has
been an accident where a modern bridge collapsed.

Peter wrote in message
.. .

Manufacturers usually publish MTBF or AFR (at certain POH) rate

Yes, but thats useless as a measure of reliability.

as a measure of reliability.

Fraid not. Most obviously with the IBM 75GXP and Fujitsu
MPGs which did turn out to be much less reliable than other
manufacturer's similar drives with identical MTBFs and AFRs.

I think you confuse reliability with dishonest
marketing practices of some companies.

'think' again. I made no comment what so ever about marketing
practices and JUST commented on whether there is any correlation
between MTBFs and AFRs and real experienced poor reliability
of a couple of models compared with their competitor's products
which had the SAME MTBFs and AFRs and MUCH worse reliability.

It is possible that product manufactured at later
date has lower reliability than originally claimed.

And the reality is that MTBFs and AFRs have NOTHING
to do with actual failure rates actually achieved.

It is up to the manufacturer to disclose that information and recall
faulty product, reimburse unfortunate clients or keep quiet.

Separate issue entirely.

Manufacturer has an obligation to check product quality
on a regular basis, to make sure it has required properties.

What they actually do is observer the field failure rate.

It is like saying that stress analysis is useless because
it has been an accident where a modern bridge collapsed.

Nope, nothing like. MTBFs and AFRs with hard
drives arent something that is actually measured.

That should be obvious from the FACT that MTBFs and AFRs
dont change over time as the manufacturer observes the field
failure rate actually seen with that particular model.

In article .com,
"kopn" wrote:

Hello
What is the best HDD in terms of Reliability/cost?

Seagate currently offers 5 year warranties for almost all their drives
(1 year for external USB). Most other manufacturers have shorter
warranties (1-3 years). Since a longer warranty without corresponding
product longevity is likely to cost Seagate serious money, I am inclined
to think they have high confidence in their product. This is good
enough reason for me to buy Seagate exclusively right now. The cost
differential is minor between brands so I opt for Seagate.

Incidentally, I do not believe they are immune to failure & back up
religiously - In most cases returning a drive under warranty would be
small consolation relative to data loss especially with todays very
large drives.

Roland

"Joe Doe" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"kopn" wrote:

Hello
What is the best HDD in terms of Reliability/cost?

Seagate currently offers 5 year warranties for almost all their drives
(1 year for external USB). Most other manufacturers have shorter
warranties (1-3 years). Since a longer warranty without corresponding
product longevity is likely to cost Seagate serious money, I am inclined
to think they have high confidence in their product.

Nope, the fact is that most current HD models will last 5 years. Each year
a drive is in the field does cost the mfg some money and each year is not a
lot more expensive than the previous year until the drive life knee in the
curve is reached. Seagate began the 5 year warranty suddenly by
proclamation and it covered drives already mfged and in distribution. Those
ATA model had 1 or 3 years warranty at the time but all had a design life of
5 years as do most all HDs models from all mfgs then and today. Warranty
length is a marketing and price point decision and has little to do with
reliability.

This is good
enough reason for me to buy Seagate exclusively right now. The cost
differential is minor between brands so I opt for Seagate.

The WDC SATA Raptor has a 5 year warranty.

Do you derive income from Seagate or selling its products?

Thanks for your replies.
What is the cheapest (in terms of 1 mb) way to back up?

Joe Doe wrote:

In article .com,
"kopn" wrote:

Hello
What is the best HDD in terms of Reliability/cost?

Seagate currently offers 5 year warranties for almost all their drives
(1 year for external USB). Most other manufacturers have shorter
warranties (1-3 years). Since a longer warranty without corresponding
product longevity is likely to cost Seagate serious money, I am inclined
to think they have high confidence in their product.

That is exactly the perception that the Seagate marketing department wants
you to have.

Simple fact--failing in less than five years is unusual for disks of any
brand.

This is good
enough reason for me to buy Seagate exclusively right now. The cost
differential is minor between brands so I opt for Seagate.

Incidentally, I do not believe they are immune to failure & back up
religiously - In most cases returning a drive under warranty would be
small consolation relative to data loss especially with todays very
large drives.

Roland

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Thanks for your reply.
If I ASSUMEd that my drive was going to fail tomorrow I would use
mirror drives because I want to retain files which I created today.