From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-130371-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1RJU8R-0006H0-Jg
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:52:59 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7996721C06A;
Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:52:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209AB21C029
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:51:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkbzv3 with SMTP id zv3so2261824bkb.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=x2T1JZORF2+yL4bCltZknVyZ9XldAfyo6BgQnWHQkrU=;
b=OYJ7Qf72SvCVBu40LMmWuVgKGYH9yIHbNATV1jfIkH6UwkLaIWC7rHbxdNw6pKdjve
iQwjozIIlxtSct+/9OMlAXuhW7uvRwuggl8Rko4eW8HCTNJ/KEVbT9AlYF8WbMntmBz5
ny5i2G6Sh+xsH5PRZKOe9kKuKjAosESRjLCgI=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.152.27 with SMTP id e27mr208119bkw.62.1319737907149; Thu,
27 Oct 2011 10:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.37.16 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4EA9952A.4030909@gmail.com>
References: <4EA9130A.6070807@gmail.com>
<j8bake$m62$1@dough.gmane.org>
<2251997.4gxL5gE8u7@localhost>
<4EA9952A.4030909@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:51:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+czFiBhANP5MSEOqe5s7y1Opre6vC9E7oct5iAJwOKUdiFQdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drive RPMs and data speed.
From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: bfa8125a7f9912f6c1d59e1584361a11
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Looks like some good info. =C2=A0I just need a GOOD sale and some extra m=
oney to
> spend. =C2=A0Maybe in a couple weeks or so. =C2=A0Hopefully. ;-)
>
> As for heat in my case, I have a Cooler Master HAF-932 case. =C2=A0It has=
those
> huge 230mm fans. =C2=A0Heat is not a problem.
>
> I just wonder how much data they will be able to pack into a 3.5" drive t=
ho.
> =C2=A0Hmmmmm. =C2=A0Surely they will run out of room at some point. =C2=
=A0I mean, the heads
> have got to have a little room to work with.
Just don't buy a SAMSUNG drive. I know, I know, everyone has their pet
"Don't Buy Hard Drives Made By $x" experience.
Here's mine.
I bought a 1TB SAMSUNG drive for cheap from Newegg at a Black Friday
sale a couple years ago. It failed on me. Around the same time, I
identified some flaws in the firmware which I considered severe[2].
I RMA'd the drive, including a full report on the failure and the bugs
I'd found in the firmware. I received the new drive in the mail. Same
exact model. Same exact firmware revision.[1] It failed on me within
three months. I attempted another RMA, the drive's serial number was
rejected by their system, and I never heard back.
So, I recommend not buying SAMSUNG drives for a combination of:
1) Historical evidence of poor firmware design. (reference smartctl's
man page; SAMSUNG is the only manufacturer I know of to get two
user-selectable workarounds in smartctl.)
2) I received a failed drive, which was RMA'd, the subsequent drive
failed shortly thereafter, and couldn't be RMA'd using normal
channels.
3) No acknowledgement (or even denial) of the firmware issue.
[1] Ok, sure, there's no way they'd be able to whip out a new firmware
revision in time for an RMA. That wouldn't make sense. But they might
have sent me a drive with a different firmware revision. Or a
different model. As it stood, they sent me back a device I'd already
identified as systemically defective.
[2] It claimed to support logging, but any failed test didn't get
appended to the log, but erased and replaced it. I can probably dig up
nearly all the details, but not quickly, since I'm at work. However,
since you're on the cusp of making a purchase, I thought I'd give you
fair warning...
--=20
:wq