beww at beww.org
Mon Jul 14 15:00:47 UTC 2008
On Saturday 12 July 2008 23:59:43 David Brodbeck wrote:
> Jason Flatt wrote:
> >> Only good bit is that this drive is less than 2 years old, so I will at
> >> least get a new one from WD!...
> > Nope, you get the last guys junker that they were able to cobble back
> > together.
> Usually, but sometimes you get lucky. It depends on what they have in
> stock. At work I've had to RMA three Western Digital drives in the past
> year. Two of them were replaced by "recertified" drives, but they sent
> me a brand new one as a replacement for the third. Amusingly enough
> that last drive was over two years old.
> I can't say if there's any difference in longevity between the
> recertified drives and brand new ones. I'm spinning about 35 drives,
> all Western Digital, but that's really not a big enough sample size when
> failures are such rare events. I don't think the Google paper addressed
> that particular question, either. Common sense would seem to suggest
> that a new drive would always be better, but a lot depends on how good
> the quality control process is for each. If the recertified ones are
> checked over more carefully before leaving the factory they might
> actually be more reliable on average than new.
I always wondered if there was a difference
between "recertified", "refurbished", "remanufactured" or any of the other
terms used to refer to other-than-new drives. If the "remanufacturing"
process replaces the parts known to fail often those drives may be just as
good as a new one. OTOH if "recertified" simply means the drive was tested
and found to work it's probably not as good as a new one.
I really wonder when I see "refurbished" CPUs offered for sale. I really don't
see what they could do except clean off the thermal compound and maybe shie
up the pins.
More information about the mythtv-users