[mythtv-users] 2 TB Hard Drive Recommendations
beww at beww.org
Mon Dec 6 02:11:28 UTC 2010
On Sunday, December 05, 2010 06:53:42 pm mike at grounded.net wrote:
> > So sure they are under warranty, but really it's pretty poor from
> > seagate. I was very happy with seagate in the past.
> Which makes me think I should add something to my input of earlier,
> that the majority of drives I'm using are under 500GB, mainly fibre
> channel as well. I've only used six TB drives to take and of that
> one, a Seagate went bad right from the start.
> I've also read that big drives are known to be troublesome. I don't
> dare use them for tier1 storage but for raid5 low access storage, no
> big deal.
I think the industry is trying to move faster than they are capable of.
I'm running out of vendors to stay away from, and I don't buy anything
bigger than 1TB any more.
I read somewhere that WD was not storing the drive firmware on any
internal chips, to save power, it's stored on the platters somehow.
So let me see: You have to be able to read data from the platters in
order to be able to read the data from the platters that tells the unit
how to read data from the platters.
Nah, nothing wrong with that system design.
No wonder the vendors stress warranty coverage so much, since everyone
seems to need it, but I don't want a good warranty, I want a unit that
doesn't need it.
Has anyone seen a reliability difference between parallel IDE and SATA?
That's probably an unfair comparison though, since most newer ones are
But looking at my pile of failed drives, I notice almost all of them are
SATA, and I have a lot of older parallel units still working fine (which
are presumably older).
But again that's not fair, You don't see very large drives with parallel
interfaces I guess, and it's the large drives that seem to be
But I guess this is nothing new, remember Micropolis?
More information about the mythtv-users