|
It still works after a year so this is not helpful to you.
HDDs fail and this is a norm.
So far I had few failures over the years with WD (those were suppose to be "industrial strength" etc. but failed).
I do not remember if Seagate failed on me but I was once warned about those two.
|
|
|
|
|
Well it's a pity that HDDs which I got in 2006 are working without any problem. I got the one which stopped around 2010 or 2011.
My Blog
Tai'shar Manetheren! Tai'shar Malkier!
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't touch a Seagate, or a Toshiba with your most carefully tended appendage. I know of no happy tales to tell about either brand after more than 30 years of designing, building, programming, integrating, debugging, and generally spending far too much time in the company of computers. Both are bottom of the barrel, best used as boat anchors or starting masses for coral colonies.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but you can't even drive WindowsUpdate in a straight line.
Bought and used dozens of Seagates and have had one die on me and that includes the Maxtor's I bought before they were swallowed by Seagate.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I have had a mixture of Seagate, WD, Hitachi and a Toshiba amongst my more than 32TB of storage at the moment. Up until now I have had two failures, both of them with WD drives so I now only get Seagate 2TB drives. I have had some of them since they first appeared and they have so far been rock solid and are still going. Both of the WDs that failed were 1TB drives.
Your experience may vary.
EDIT: I forgot I also have 5 Fantom 2TB drives in my collection; they also seem to be working fine.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Well to start with it's useless to ask about the quality of a HDD brand, they're all having an annual failure rate between 1-4%.
It varies wildly between the different models within a brand. Have a look at this[^] statistics for example. WD is at both the top and the bottom, and the only thing differing between the models is one character.
The next problem is that you won't know how good a drive is until they're already outdated.
So I'll stick out my neck here and tell you that you shouldn't bother about the brand at all.
Buy the drive that has the properties you want, with the best warranties and return policies for the price.
And if I should generalize, the better the warranties the better the quality.
Politicians are always realistically manoeuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.
Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure about Toshiba, I have never used it. But recently after reading many reviews, I came to a conclusion that 'Western Digital Caviar Green'[^] are the most reliable HDD available in the market. And Hitachi has the best performance. And at anytime for the storage, I will go with the reliability.
I bought two 2 TB WD Green HDD. (Also IMO, don't go for 3TB and 4TB drives, get the 1TB or 2TB ones)
Do not look for the price tag when buying a HDD, get the best one, because you can't afford it to fail with your data. You can replace all the other parts on your computer but not the one storing your 'Data'.
|
|
|
|
|
My Google-fu is not working - I keep ending up with maths links! Does anyone have any links to articles / resources detailing the time overhead of logging to file? I've added logging to my undo functions to give a rough session activity trace and my boss is concerned about the time overhead wrt file access (I open, append, and flush every message).
Before I start timing things, can anyone speak about this from experience?
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the best way to do this is to whip up a quick test program. Should be very simple, I would benchmark 10,000 writes and see what the min/max/average time is. Also do this during disk operations (move a big file) to get a good measure.
|
|
|
|
|
A little CodeProject-fu can go a long way: [^].
That's only one of a number of excellent articles on CP relevant to precision Timeing in .NET. You should use the StopWatch Class, not a Timer.
good luck, Bill
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
If you're really concerned about the impact of logging to a file you can do the logging in a seperate thread dedicated to that functionality. This may be a bit more resource intensive than directly writing to the file but also reduces the cost on the main execution thread.
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the reasons I would look for external sources for logging, rather than rolling my own version. There are any number of excellent logging systems, and I would have looked to use one of these instead. Saying that, there are several things that you can do to alleviate issues - log in the background, don't write to file on every log (build a buffer which you periodically flush to disk), investigate alternatives to writing to file.
|
|
|
|
|
This is essentially a debugging tool, since our users are rubbish at describing what they were doing when a problem / crash happened (aren't they all?). I started off logging to memory, then dumping the session log and call stack in my "crash-catcher". But then I was concerned about memory usage and likelihood-of-failure at the crucial moment, and obviously then my log wouldn't be available in non-crash situations. Since it is a CAD program and logging actions happen only a little more frequently than you can do things with a mouse, I don't think the overhead will be significant - but I'll probably have to do some timings to prove it to my boss!
I'll also chuck in a settings switch to turn logging off if necessary, that should keep everyone happy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet again Amazon has failed at that. They never cease to amaze with WTFs!
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
- Mitchell Kapor
|
|
|
|
|
Dang and I just ordered one for $120K, shoulda waited for the roll-back!
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know what this is?
No?
Then let me tell you.
Someone has put this up for a huge amount of money because they are embezzling money from the company they work for.
It is under $100,000 which is presumably an amount that requires supervisory authority.
They make the purchase, presumably hidden under some bland narrative as Technical Equipment and have the cost sent to a paypal account.
The trouble is that people are stupid.
There will be a full audit trail leading right back to them.
Also, Amazon, eBay etc are all aware of this type of fraud and you can bet your bottom dollar they are monitoring it.
Accountants are not stupid, and will pick this stuff up in the annual audit.
I certainly would question the bona fides of such an amount.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. The seller (bonbonshop) has several other items[^] for sale, each priced at CAD 99.999.00.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody's fired
www.dirkstechblog.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
Either that or fired up!
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, definitely a procurement fraud.
the employee will get the company to buy as much as possible, very quickly, then disappear.
It sounds simple, but it will inevitably end in tears before bedtime for the crooked employee.
Much better to sneak snaller amounts through over a longer time span.
As I said before though, most people who try accountancy frauds are unaware of the controls in place or the trail they leave.
You never hear of accountants defrauding people, do you?
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] is one of my favorite shows. Amazing how gullible people can be - even those who ought to have known better.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Greed, heedless of wisdom, has brought many a man down.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed - even otherwise rational and intelligent ones.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Just heard back from Amazon (pretty quick, methinks):
"Our investigations team will look into the situation and take appropriate action."
/ravi
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
