From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B941381F3 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:40:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30543E092C; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:40:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01854E08E0 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id fb1so11356953pad.37 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:39:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=lX8dwhajDH3W630nKpAervUL5Er5qxqymbpfcvvjVFM=; b=YdHBmRU8hn8Z7n4brekM45e97dGlIq1D0akPWAX4XrS6K74pgqgRrPqYd34N1Nkvil pmPM6ViGCTQd6ASu0XsvopvYG0op1lfvXULOHHAWJCrzdVDtmQ5MlUwAjzpCg6u+dW16 85KIOjKef1HDmvmbq5EbNPWifjLrPJmUDXS3MndfK9uTlxsKLR6BMxbkcY/kRofaliDP G62IeetJcWhwMWZYGgdtP6osIikmKz79oSrM51qkTZ8VnDKwfhLbofi6kbly+z02FzgS AmDwOkDsoP8B8y6KcfBl50Z+gMXZmlIHXGWqD3BYNzKuKqyY9D2I2A4RNedTJWosv1El yCMA== X-Received: by 10.66.219.103 with SMTP id pn7mr55934443pac.123.1373902797833; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: paul.hartman@gmail.com Received: by 10.70.62.105 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:39:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201307150839.34368.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> References: <51D33059.5070508@xunil.at> <51DAE18C.2010804@gmail.com> <201307150839.34368.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> From: Paul Hartman Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:39:37 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SmoOMN5HqKU79J883aBECHPICIU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] hp H222 SAS controller To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 83ceba59-367c-4945-917e-92e8b5c66370 X-Archives-Hash: 70e6df343e900d79a824f4958b974e2a On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Mick wrote: > I've been watching this thread with interest, because I've been trying to find > out which HDD I should be buying for a new PC. For every person reporting > problematic Seagates there's another person complaining about Western Digital > being too noisy, failing, or in the case of the black versions, far too > expensive. > > Amidst all the anecdotal aphorisms against one or the other manufacturer, I > saw mentioned that the likelihood of failure doubles up when you go from 1TB > to 2 TB. If true, I guess that the 3TB would have fewer failures than 4TB > drive. > > For what it's worth I have had a number of Seagates failing on me, but since > this was in the 90's. On my laptop a Seagate Momentus 7200.4 (ST9500420ASG) > is running fine for the last 3.5 years so, I was thinking of taking a punt on > a 'Seagate Barracuda 3.5 inch 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB 6GB/S Internal SATA'. But > what you're mentioning here gives me cause to pause. One important thing to know is that there are only 3 HDD manufacturers remaining: Seagate, WD and Toshiba. Any other brand names you see are just relabeled versions of those. Maxtor/IBM/Hitachi/Fujitsu/Samsung and all those who came before them are gone. My personal preference the last several years was always Samsung, I never had a single problem with one of those. Unfortunately they are no longer in the HDD business... In general, for 3.5" drives, I think "NAS" or "RAID" or "Enterprise" branded drives tend to be more expensive, but of a higher quality and rated to run in 24/7 environments. Even if you're not using it that way, it suggests that it's a more rugged drive. The "Personal", "Desktop", "Budget" etc. and drives that come in external enclosures tend to be a roll of the dice. Some have speculated that the HDDs which score lower on quality assurance tests get stuck into these lower-priced lines (kind of like CPU binning). The Seagate "Desktop 4TB" drives I got for $140 have extremely aggressive power-saving and spin-down (sometimes it takes 10 seconds just to access the drive after it spins down!). They are 5400rpm, but that is unadvertised and some people claim to have received 7200rpm. The specs on lifetime are pretty poor. I read that they are only rated for something like 200 days of cumulative use. But I expected it to at least work for a week! I keep running passes of badblocks and it keeps finding new bad sectors that weren't there the previous time I ran it. It is literally degrading before my very eyes. I have zero trust in it. For 2.5" hard drives, I have seen many, many crashed 2.5" drives from every brand, but never had one fail on me personally. I've always attributed it to human influence, people tend to be rough on laptops, tossing them onto the table, dropping them, leaving them in a hot or freezing cold car, etc. Also the nature of laptop use means a lot of on/off which means a lot of hot/cold which is really bad for hard drives. And for 5.25" hard drives I have an old 1.2 GB Quantum drive that sounds like a screaming cat going through a jet engine. You can seriously hear it from outside my house with all the windows and doors closed. But it actually still works all these years later. :)