<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hi Neal,<br>
<br>
I don't own any 1.5 TB drives, but I do have a few Seagate or Hitachi 1
TB drives that I bought within the last few years. They've been fine.
I would recommend stress testing any new drive you get as follows
before trusting it with data. I've almost always bought Seagate, and I
almost always look for the 5 year warranty.<br>
<br>
Method A) Use a utility to write random data to the entire drive. The
Ultimate Boot CD has some such things. Be careful not to erase your
main system drive. Do this at least 6 times. This forces the drive
controller to thoroughly evaluate each sector and determine if any are
weak. It also, more or less, forces each bit on each sector to be
written with different values at least a few times.<br>
<br>
Method B) Write random data to the drive once, just so it's not all
zeros. Then, use the SpinRite utility from Gibson Research to run a
level 4 surface analysis 5-6 times. The SpinRite utility will read
each sector, invert it, write it, read it, invert it, and write it
back. This accomplishes the same purpose as Method A), but is more
thorough and predictable in that every single bit is tested both as a
zero and a one. Using SpinRite has another advantage as outlined below.<br>
<br>
After doing A) or B), use Disk Utility in Linux or similar to run a
long SMART surface test, which is read only, I think. This assumes the
computer and drive allow you to access the SMART subsystem. This test
should pass with no errors. There should also be no bad sectors
reported. If there are bad sectors, I would consider RMAing the drive.<br>
<br>
After all this, partition and format the drive and use it for data.
Now, I would run SpinRite 2-3 times / year on the drive. This is
important. The SpinRite algorithm is non destructive. You can run it
on a drive with data on it. This actually helps prevent errors by
strengthening and refreshing all the magnetic domains. So your data is
not subject to fade over time (bit rot). Also, it gives the controller
another chance to review each sector both for reading and writing and
determine if any are going bad. By doing these procedures, I've kept
many of my drives running more than 5 years, barring any mechanical
problems. Running a long SMART test instead of SpinRite will not
accomplish the same thing. While it will test each sector to see if it
can be read, it will not test each sector to make sure every bit can be
written and read with both 0 and 1.<br>
<br>
If sectors are difficult to read, SpinRite will work as hard as
possible to recover the data rather than just discarding the entire
sector. It tries to read finicky sectors up to 2000 times, as I
recall. Note that SpinRite works at the SECTOR level, not the file
system level. If the file system is screwed up, reading all the data
on each sector won't help, because that data is corrupt. While I have
been known to run FSCK or CHKDISK (Windows) when having problems, it is
probably better to first run SpinRite to make sure the sectors are as
readable as possible from a magnetic point of view, then run FSCK or
CHKDISK to correct any file system errors.<br>
<br>
Drives certainly can and do fail later in life. Sometimes, this
exhaustive testing will expose pending problems, such as if SpinRite
just cannot read some sectors, or if the SMART test reveals bad
sectors. This will give you a chance to recover the data before the
drive totally blows up. SpinRite has a SMART screen, but I don't put
too much credence in that part of the program. The reason is that
every manufacturer does SMART differently and they don't always publish
their design docs. At the time he designed SpinRite, Steve had to
reverse engineer the data on the SMART screen. It's not always set in
stone. I'd trust the Linux SMART test in Disk Utility more for that
purpose.<br>
<br>
By the way, this advice is for magnetic drives. Do not use on SSD's as
you will probably accelerate the wear on the unit, and most of the
positive benefits don't exist. You can use it on a hybrid SSD /
magnetic drive.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Ron<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/2/2012 11:18 AM, Neal Rhodes wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1330705138.22578.21.camel@t3.mnopltd.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="GtkHTML/3.24.5">
I've gone ahead and ordered an HP core i3 system to be our next Centos
home/office server. <br>
<br>
It's got a 1.5TB drive; normally on these off-lease units I'd buy two
brand new drives and mirror them. Or that's what we've done with the
last 3 linux servers. All of which are still technically
functioning since Fedora core 1. <br>
<br>
This drive is likely about a year old, so I'm thinking I'll just buy a
new 1.5TB drive and install Centos to mirror the primary. <br>
<br>
When I look at the crop of 1 - 1.5TB drives on TigerDirect and read the
reviews, they seem to be uniformly terrible - DOA, failed after 3
weeks, replacement failed after a week, etc. Seagate seems to be the
worst, although WD not too far behind. <br>
<br>
Ummm, isn't one of the primary selling features of a disk drive that
it's not supposed to blow up and take down all your data with it?
Has there been a massive quality slip in the last couple years since I
last bought drives? Seriously - I can lose a power supply, a
motherboard, a display - you name it, and once I replace it I can
expect to still have the data. Yes, I should do backups, and I do,
and yes, I should mirror the drives, and I do. I should do SMARTD
monitoring and I do. But isn't this like selling tires that tend to
shred randomly? Isn't not blowing up catastrophically with no
warning beforehand a basic selling point for disk drives? What's the
point of mirroring if the odds are good that both drives will fail
completely the same week? What's the point of SMARTD monitoring if
the darn drive quits without warning? <br>
<br>
Does anybody make a decent drive in that size range? <br>
<br>
I'm thinking that not even considering economy, my old theory of
buying a pair of new identical drives may not be wise anymore, and
sticking with one drive that has lasted over a year and one new drive
is a better plan. <br>
<br>
Thoughts? <br>
<br>
Neal<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
(PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might want to
call on the phone. I get about 300 emails per day from alternate energy
mailing lists and such. I don't always see new messages very quickly.)
Ron Frazier
770-205-9422 (O) Leave a message.
linuxdude AT c3energy.com
</pre>
</body>
</html>