Welcome!
Important information
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities
-- Change in MX sources

News
-- MX Linux on social media: here
-- Mepis support still here

Current releases
-- MX-17.1 Final release info here
-- antiX-17 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

Looks like another hard drive failure.

For help or questions about 64-bit version of MEPIS, this is the forum to use.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dieselrider
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:57 am

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#11 Post by Dieselrider » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:51 pm

This will be the third HD to fail in this box. Have everything backed up to the other HD. What brand HD would you recommend? Thanks

User avatar
Adrian
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 8458
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:42 am

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#12 Post by Adrian » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:27 pm

Dieselrider wrote:This will be the third HD to fail in this box. Have everything backed up to the other HD. What brand HD would you recommend? Thanks
Not Seagate. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089464/ ... akers.html

User avatar
jdmeaux1952
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#13 Post by jdmeaux1952 » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:30 pm

Dieselrider wrote:This will be the third HD to fail in this box. Have everything backed up to the other HD. What brand HD would you recommend? Thanks
Seagate and Western Digital are the ones I usually stick with. Toshiba and Maxtor would be my seconds.

Are you using new drives or recycled ones? I remake boxes from old computers and use lots of old hard drives. always test and reformat (low level) the hard drives before giving them out. Unless the HD took a hard drop, they have usually been working for at least a year after I get them before going to the junk heap. And this is with Win95/98 boxes.

If you are using a new drive and it goes out within the warranty period, the manufacturer will make it good, although you will loose all your data. I have seen a bad power supply causing erratic voltage levels kill a drive and motherboard. But it will also cause all kinds of other problems first, like random shutdown, harder restarts, general lock-ups.
MSI S6000 i5-460M 4Gb mem
I am not CrAzY. And I have a paper from the doctors to prove it!
LRU# 563815
Phear the Penguin

User avatar
jdmeaux1952
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#14 Post by jdmeaux1952 » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:39 pm

The Seagates were warranty replacements (remanufactured with a limited warranty). And they were running the drives continually, probably as part of a RAID. And these drives were used and abused more than the average consumer would. These are consumer-level hard drives being used in an industrial situation. Man, that is some abuse.
MSI S6000 i5-460M 4Gb mem
I am not CrAzY. And I have a paper from the doctors to prove it!
LRU# 563815
Phear the Penguin

User avatar
Adrian
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 8458
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:42 am

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#15 Post by Adrian » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:56 pm

Yes, but it does agree with my experience, the only drives I saw failing were Seagate. Maybe anecdotal evidence, but I would not buy another Seagate drive (although I currently have two in my desktop)

User avatar
namida12
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:54 pm

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#16 Post by namida12 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:55 am

Dieselrider wrote:This will be the third HD to fail in this box. Have everything backed up to the other HD. What brand HD would you recommend? Thanks
How long are hard drives lasting in your tower? Might cooling be the problem inside this particular case, or is it the same power supply not delivering the correct voltage for your drives?

I have had hard drive failures on most brands over the years. Seagate and Western Digital have always lasted longer than other brands. But I have had very bad luck with 1.5 tb Seagate drives, and lost several Western Digital 3 TB drives.

My luck with the smaller Hitachi drives has been OK recently. I also have three 128 Gig Corsair Solid state drives that have run for a year without any problems. <--The drives are fine for experimental but please do not run you business on them, without proper backups. They are fast but not the the tried and true, only a feeling, I still do not trust them 100%.

But I would recommend purchasing Western Digital Red drives @ the moment if you need a large drive, they cost a bit more but are manufactured to a higher level.

JR

User avatar
m_pav
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:02 pm

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#17 Post by m_pav » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:08 am

WD Red drives are about the same cost as black drives and have the same warranty, with one crucial point of difference in the circuitry. Black drives have dual controllers, kind of like a dual core processor. The red drives are best suited to NAS and storage devices, taking the only good thing from the old Green drives, which had great power savings, but terrible reliability and the platter quality from the more industrial black drives to give a compromise between speed, long life and great power management.

If you're not concerned with power management, go with black, they have lower latency times and can handle more traffic, or better still, get a small 64GB SSD for / and swap and a red for the storage at /home
Mike P

Regd Linux User #472293
(Mine)Lenovo T560, i7-6600U, 16GB, 2.0TB SSHD, MX17 64-bit
(Wifes) Asus M4A88TD-M, AMD Phenom II x4 955 CPU, nVidia GF610, 6Gb, 500GB+320GB, MX17 + KDE
(Kids) Intel NUC, J1900, 4GB, 64GB SSD, MX17

User avatar
lucky9
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 11380
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:54 am

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#18 Post by lucky9 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:12 pm

No experience here with SSDs, but I've standardized on WD Black drives for a regular disk. Currently my 500 GB drive has 39,000+ hours on it. The 80 GB drive has 50,000 hours of 'on time'.

(I think I'll start looking at drives.)
Yes, even I am dishonest. Not in many ways, but in some. Forty-one, I think it is.
--Mark Twain

antiX-Dave
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#19 Post by antiX-Dave » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:10 pm

For my everyday use I really love the speed benefits of a ssd, as well as the ability to mildly through it around and the longer battery life. That being said, I have had corsair ssds and Intel. With my heavy disk usage I average about 6 months on the corsairs, and though they are a touch slower (not noticeable) the intels are knocking on 2 years and going strong which is about As long as a wd black lasts for me. I recently purchased a Kingston ssd to see how that will go... so far it has only been a month. At the moment, I would stick with an Intel ssd if my main machine will need a new drive. I don't think I will ever go back to a conventional drive unless it is for data storage like in my servers.

User avatar
JimC
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:47 pm

Re: Looks like another hard drive failure.

#20 Post by JimC » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:31 pm

antiX-Dave wrote:I recently purchased a Kingston ssd to see how that will go...
Let me guess... one of the Kingston V300 models on sale frequently, right?

That's a drive model you'll find loads of complaints about, depending on the revision of it you got.

Basically, it looks like they switched from better synchronous memory to cheaper asynchronous memory with some revisions, resulting in dramatically slower speeds when working with incompressible data.

If you read through comments about it, you'll find Kingston reps giving a "canned" response to the complaints about it's performance, indicating that it should meet the specs using a specific benchmark ( ATTO Benchmark 4.21)

According to user complaints, that benchmark appears to use only compressible data, even though other common benchmarks show it to be horribly slow if you get one using the cheaper memory type.

It looks like one way to tell is buy looking at the barcode on the packaging from what I see in the user feedback about it. If it starts 505, 507, and 520 you should be OK (uses the better memory type), according to one review I see. But, if it says 506 or 521, you're better off returning it for a refund from what users indicate about them; as you'll see dramatically slower speeds (under 200MB/Second commonly reported in the complaints unless using the specific benchmark Kingston is using) with some users indicating that their 7200rpm physical drives test faster.

Read though the user feedback at sites like newegg.com and you'll see what I mean. You'll find *many* users complaining about the performance if they got one of the revisions using the cheaper async memory type, even though the earlier revisions of this model using better memory were fine. Just click on the reviews tab and read through a few pages of them and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820721107

The sale prices you'll see frequently for the V300 look attractive. But, when I read through user reviews of it, I put it on my avoid list.

Personally, I'm using a Samsung 830 Series SSD for my boot drive (Operating Systems and Programs), and they have a super reputation for reliability.

With the older 830 series models (what I'm using), you would typically be able to get over 800TB of writes before the Wear Leaving Count went to zero according to some of the endurance tests I've seen of them; but they would go *MUCH* longer before actually failing.

There are some interesting threads about drives being continuously written to in order to see how reliable they are, and one Samsung 830 series drive made to over 6000 Terabytes of writes before it failed (even though the WLC count was at zero after 828TB of writes).

I bought a couple of Samsung 830 drives on sale a while back, mostly because they have a good reputation for reliability.

With newer drives, it's harder to say what would be more reliable. The cheaper Samsung 840 models (standard 840, 840 EVO) are using TLC (versus MLC) memory cells that supposedly support a far lower P/E count (program erase count, or how many times a cell can be erased and written to again) compared to a drive like the older Samsung 830 models. So, I'd probably lean towards something like an 840 Pro (versus the standard 840 or 840 EVO) instead, as the 840 Pro still uses MLC memory cells; if buying another one right now.

Post Reply

Return to “64-bit Newbies”