Calling All Techies: Hard Drive Question

[ericperlberg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 - I have this exact drive and paid $89.99 shipped less than one month ago (http://www.newegg.com).

 

2 - From reading between the lines, I see that you are probably planning a RAID array to mirror your internal drive. That's what I used to do and I'm now totally against it. This is what I now do.

 

a) I have my "working files" on a single drive.

These files are "mirrored" at 11:20am everyday to an similar internal drive (that's the time at which I go pick-up the kids).

c) On a weekly basis, I back-up everything to the external 500Gb drive in an Antec MX-1 eSATA enclosure.

d) On a monthly basis, I repeat c) on a different external drive.

 

The RAID array needs to be "managed" while this automatic software-based solution allows you more control over which directories get copied, which file types, etc. For example, in my case, I never copy my TIFF files since they are intermediate files (I only keep the raw, settings, and the final PSDs).

 

In addition, my staggered back-ups are very useful in case of inadvertently overwriting a file. It happens from time to time that I resize a PSD and inadvertently save the PSD in the small version. The problem is that you may no realize you did this until you re-open the file a week later. This is where the weekly or monthly back-up come handy.

 

Anyway, that's my $0.02 and it works for me.

 

Not that you asked about RAID but I agree with JR that RAID arrays add a level of complexity and Murphy's law which may not always prove best to small scale users. I've also had the experience that JR mentions of absent mindedly overwriting a file, but being able to recover it from my non-raided backup. Worse, raid controllers are not infallible and all are not created equally. Quality backup software can be more reliable, less costly alternative.

 

I personally wouldn't know whether Seagate top line drives are better than Western Digitals. My guess is that each has strengths and weaknesses on subcomponents too tweaky-tweaky for me to know or care about. Both have solid reputations for their top line models. From there, luck and fate play their roles as to the specific drive you wind up buying. That's why managing risk is the name of the game as said earlier.

[cwf]

Given that all drives will eventually fail and that statistical information about a model will not tell you much useful about the specific drive you obtain, and notwithstanding that I'd still try to buy the best I can identify, I'd really focus, as others have suggested here already, on making multiple back ups and then testing the back ups.

 

Vis-a-vis hard drives, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who have had hard drive failure and those who will have hard drive failure.

 

So, for me at least, I'd plan to cope with the inevitable failure rather than try (over time, hopelessly) to avoid it.

[S. Wong]

I have used both Seagate and WD drives with great results, never had a drive fail on me.

I went with Seagate because I was told they are the Sears of HD manufacturers (if it fails for any reason in 5 years, its replaced)

 

I've read interesting papers on HDD tech read/write times, and RAID 5 is not the best. Rather, for speed, RAID1 (mirror) is the best combination for both survival and speed.

For RAID, check your motherboard to see if it supports RAID in hardware instead of software (much better, not wasting CPU cycles for datamanagement), and be sure you have the drivers on a floppy/cd drive ready to go for the XP install

 

When backing up to an external drive, eSATA drives are the fastest by far due to the lack of data conversion between formats (ata/SCSI) transfer cable (USB/Firewire) and the system (ATA/SCSI)

 

-Steven

[marknorton]

Given that all drives will eventually fail and that statistical information about a model will not tell you much useful about the specific drive you obtain, and notwithstanding that I'd still try to buy the best I can identify, I'd really focus, as others have suggested here already, on making multiple back ups and then testing the back ups.

 

Vis-a-vis hard drives, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who have had hard drive failure and those who will have hard drive failure.

 

So, for me at least, I'd plan to cope with the inevitable failure rather than try (over time, hopelessly) to avoid it.

 

Sensible advice, especially the testing part. I've had users who have religiously been taking backups for months only to find they haven't been working - the backup is unreadable - and they have lost everything. Must be one of the biggest emotional swings you can imagine: "My hard drive has failed but it's OK, it's backed up" (warm fuzzies) to "The backup is bad as well" (abject misery).

 

Other advice.

 

Once a drive has given the slightest indication of trouble, such as an error reading a file or running really slowly or making a clicking noise, stop, don't wait, get as much data off it as you can, now, and bin it. Don't reformat and think all will be well.

 

Don't trust a new drive. Just because it is a new drive, don't think it'll be fine. More than once, I've restored data to a new drive and had that go down as well. Keep taking those backups, don't think there is a honeymoon period.

 

Laptops present special problems - the hard drives are not as reliable, are subject to more shock and vibration, and you're much more likely to lose the whole computer, so backup everything, every night.

[EH21]

I use the WD RE2 drives....I've got about 14 of these running right now and so far so good. I've had a number of drives go down since 2000. 3 segates, 1 Maxtor, 1 WD.

 

I bought into the RE2 because it was designed for server use which means it should have a higher duty factor - not just the amount of hours use but also how heavy.

 

These are good drives and quiet too.

 

The above posts about using back-ups is a very good idea. Actually you need backups for backups to be totally safe.

 

Mark - how in the world can you get all your files on 500GB? I need 2Tb to store my data.

[marknorton]

Mark - how in the world can you get all your files on 500GB? I need 2Tb to store my data.

 

You misunderstand - that 500GB is just one of 8 drives (4 500s and 4 750s) which give me 3.5TB capacity across two NAS boxes.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean:

 

Is this for long-term backup and access or more for day-to-day operation?

 

Day to day operation.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

 

I'm not sure what makes you draw that conclusion. I'm looking for feedback on reliable drives; no need to read more into than that.

 

Thanks for all the feedback so far, folks.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I use the WD RE2 drives....I've got about 14 of these running right now and so far so good. I've had a number of drives go down since 2000. 3 segates, 1 Maxtor, 1 WD.

 

Was the WD an RE2? How long have you been running those 14?

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

[marknorton]

I think the point Craig was trying to make was that hard disk drives are fundamentally unreliable, not fundamentally reliable. They will fail at some point and contrive to spoil your day unless you have a viable backup strategy in place.

 

Choosing hard disk drives is a lottery because there's good and bad experiences around of every make and just because some people have had good experiences of Seagate doesn't mean everyone will.

 

Key, to my mind, is to build in your own reliability - or more precisely, resilience to failure - by implementing a rigorous backup strategy and, personally, I don't think using a pair of mirrored drives and hoping that if one goes crunch, the other will be fine, is good enough.

[sean_reid]

I think the point Craig was trying to make was that hard disk drives are fundamentally unreliable, not fundamentally reliable. They will fail at some point and contrive to spoil your day unless you have a viable backup strategy in place.

 

Choosing hard disk drives is a lottery because there's good and bad experiences around of every make and just because some people have had good experiences of Seagate doesn't mean everyone will.

 

Key, to my mind, is to build in your own reliability - or more precisely, resilience to failure - by implementing a rigorous backup strategy and, personally, I don't think using a pair of mirrored drives and hoping that if one goes crunch, the other will be fine, is good enough.

 

Indeed, but this information has been useful to me because I'd like to place my bet on a horse with a good track record. I don't recall discussing my overall backup strategy here but I'll certainly ask if I have questions about that

[wparsonsgisnet]

I don't know if the link was posted here, but Google has published a review of their drive experience that is available on the web.

 

They use zillions of consumer-quality hard drives and find that they are indistinguishable from one another.

[sean_reid]

I don't know if the link was posted here, but Google has published a review of their drive experience that is available on the web.

 

They use zillions of consumer-quality hard drives and find that they are indistinguishable from one another.

 

Actually, I understand that some drives were more reliable than others but Google, for various reasons, is keeping mum on that topic.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[marknorton]

Google seemed reluctant to single out - or at least publish - which manufaturers were better than others and I suppose that however much data is accumulated on particular drive manufacturers and drive models, statistical spread and batch variation will contrive to ensure YMMV for specific drive samples.

[sean_reid]

Maybe...but without those results we don't know that.

[farnz]

Sean,

 

To take a completely different tack, I notice that noone so far has mentioned backing up or archiving to the 'web, which is obviously about as remote as it gets. It may be that cost, upload times or security concerns make this option prohibitive but it clearly offers advantages in reduced equipment outlay and maintenance concerns, completely off-site storage and accessibility from virtually anywhere in the world.

 

Has anyone seriously considered this option or is it not yet sufficiently developed to be feasible?

 

Pete.

[marknorton]

A recent survey here in the UK indicated most people take no backups at all and those that do mostly rely on a USB data stick. For those, an ISP provided backup service makes sense because the volumes of data are small and the users are too incompetent to do better.

 

For M8 users here, the volumes are likely to be much larger and even the fastest shared internet connection will not match a LAN attached NAS box, let alone a locally attached hard drive. Then, how secure is the backup? You can only verify it by downloading the data again and the small print is unlikely to hold the ISP responsible when their own hard drives fail.

 

As it happens, I have my own off-site FTP server with a static IP address which allows me to back up my images while I am travelling in case my laptop goes AWOL but that FTP server is under my lock and key.

[Guest stnami]

Lost my working external drive last night9 reformatted it). about 300+ gig......... said oh and went to sleep. Raw and DNG are backed up in 2 places............. no great loss reloaded what I really needed...came to less than 60 gig,

I don't save tiffs or jpegs...................use DNGs, presets, memory, aquiring new skills, taking new shots and discarding what is no longer relavent.... works for me.........probbably scare most

[marknorton]

That's exactly a situation where I would replace the drive. To my mind, one strike and it's out.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Photoskeptic]

Every manufacturer seems to have suffered from sudden death syndrome. That said, I and several friends who are also pro photographers have had good luck with Maxtor. A Western Digital in my last Dell failed miserably. I'm about to call Dell about adding a second internal hard drive - and hoping they have more than one choice