Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Is 650 days much on harddrives in a server? - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Is 650 days much on harddrives in a server?

2»

Comments

  • myhkenmyhken Member
    edited February 2015

    I got one more server from the serverbidding, a i7 3770 with 16 GB RAM and 2 x 3 TB disk for only €26. And this time I was really lucky with the hard drives. Has only been on for 27 days total. Thats brand new disks.

    Just started up 5 times, 3 of them is me. So maybe the hardware is old, but the disk is brand new. And all that for just €26/mo :D

  • its ok 650 days

  • @nexmark said:
    Toshiba, Or Hitachi or Seagate... I don't feel good with 2+ years on it

    Really? I'd put Hitachi right next to Western Digital. They're the only two brands I'd buy.

  • First people care about I/O results when it rarely makes a difference, and now people are complaining about how long their harddrive has been on? There are more important things to worry about in the world.

  • rm_rm_ Member
    edited February 2015

    David_P said: I'd put Hitachi right next to Western Digital.

    Bwahaha, WD. Hope you didn't mean the 3TB ones at least...

    https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/
    (Toshiba=Hitachi for most intents and purposes.)

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • @hostnoob said:
    First people care about I/O results when it rarely makes a difference, and now people are complaining about how long their harddrive has been on? There are more important things to worry about in the world.

    I don't complain, I asked a question. Hetzner gives you lots of info about their serverbidding, so it's impossible to miss that you buy used hardware, and they can not take any responsible for how good it's working. BUT they will change any default hardware for free, for all future. So thats a good deal.

    My last post about my newest server, I just was happy to get a dirt cheap dedicated server (core i7 3770 4c/8t - 16 GB RAM, 2 x 3 TB disks, 20 TB bw @ 1 gbit, then 10mbit if you use more then 20 TB, free hardware replacement, no contract, no setup fee, 14 days money back option, all this for only €26/mo. And then I also get brand new hard drives. So not complaining, just being happy with my newest server.

  • PwnerPwner Member
    edited February 2015

    @rm_ said:
    (Toshiba=Hitachi for most intents and purposes.)

    After looking at that graph, I feel quite proud of myself for settling with a Hitachi laptop drive that I placed 2 years ago in my older MacBook.

    Just one thing about the accuracy of the graph, is it based on a set amount of hard drives for each brand (e.g. per 10,000 hard drives) or just in general? I'd feel like the Seagate one would be higher based on sales.

  • myhkenmyhken Member
    edited February 2015

    @Pwner said:
    Just one thing about the accuracy of the graph, is it based on a set amount of hard drives for each brand (e.g. per 10,000 hard drives) or just in general? I'd feel like the Seagate one would be higher based on sales.

    I think it's a huge storage provider, with 100k drives or something in their server park that gives out that stats, which disk that they have most issues with. They mix all kind of disk in to the pool because of the price. So mostly desktop versions of all types. They give out stats for all types they have more then 10 of.

  • @myhken said:

    Makes sense, I appreciate the clarification. :)

    It's a shame to see Seagate so high up on that graph, I've had a few of their drives for years without any issue and have been very satisfied with their performance.

  • @myhken said:
    When I check S.M.A.R.T I can see that the disk (an most likely the server) has been online for around 650 days [...] Is this much for a server?

    There's not really a good answer to this question.

    "Too much" is relative, disks are generally replaced only when they fail or show symptoms of failing. I've had hard drives last a week and a decade.

  • @Pwner said:
    It's a shame to see Seagate so high up on that graph, I've had a few of their drives for years without any issue and have been very satisfied with their performance.

    I have around 30 hard drives at my home servers/computers, and Seagate has let med down time after time, just three weeks ago a 1 year old Seagate 7200.11 3 TB failed on me, with over 500 DVD movies on it. (Of course I have backup, but still).
    But I have also had truble with WD Green 1.5 TB series, they have failed a couple of time.
    Trying to buy Toshiba disks now, and have had very good experiance with Samsung disks, just replaced a server with 8 Samsung disks that had over 2000 days running on them (checked with SMART).

    But my main computer provider (the largest in Norway), do only sell WD, Seagate and Toshiba. And just one or two weeks ago they took in HGST, but they are expensive.
    But I think Toshiba is the disk I will use when I buy new ones in the future.

  • @myhken said:

    I recently replaced my MacBook 2007's old hard drive (160GB Hitachi Travelstar) with a new one (750GB HGST Travelstar) due to the previous one failing. I can confirm that it was due to my negligence at the time and not understanding the concept of moving the laptop while the hard drive is spinning which most likely led to it's untimely failure, but I've overall been happy with the replacement. Except that it appears to have slowed down tremendously since first purchasing it. I haven't even used 2/3's of the drive yet.

  • myhken said: I have around 30 hard drives at my home servers/computers, and Seagate has let med down time after time,

    Yes, failure rates also suggest seagate being the less reliable of all for me, I even had one defective from the start, in teh sense that it worked fine for an hour or so, then started to slow down till rates of transfer of an analogue modem after a week-end. Really, 1.7k...
    Before, maxtor was the one witht he most failures, however, i was preferring those due to much better performance, those days regular drives were really slow, while maxtor, while getting really hot, did deliver and with a cooler lasted for a long time too, but power failures killed them fast. I see it only fitting that seagate bought maxtor...

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • qpsqps Member, Host Rep

    Our experience has been that pretty much every manufacturer has issues with some of their models and reliability. One model will be great, another model will be not so great.

    For instance, the 7200.11 drives from Seagate were pretty much universally a nightmare. We had to RMA nearly every one of those we had. However, the 7200.14 drives are a lot more reliable. Although, I did come across a 7200.11 recently that had over 50000 hours on it and still running strong, which was crazy considering our experience with the others.

    With HGST/Toshiba, we had a whole batch of drives that were bad, but others from the same model were fine.

    It's really random and it's better to spread the business out among all of the manufacturers, as one isn't really more reliable than the others when you look at it over time.

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • Ok, this might be the thread to ask this question...

    Is there a tool to monitor hard drives and in case there's a bad sector or hard drive error found it notifies me?

    It'ld be good to know if I will start having had related errors beforehand.
    (:

  • I use Argus Monitor, it's monitors all that, and gives you an alert if any of the values is bad

    Thanked by 1Nomad
  • @Nomad said:
    Ok, this might be the thread to ask this question...

    Is there a tool to monitor hard drives and in case there's a bad sector or hard drive error found it notifies me?

    It'ld be good to know if I will start having had related errors beforehand.
    (:

    smartd for me. It's part of the smartmontools package.

Sign In or Register to comment.