Why dont we use 2.5" hdds in our desktops

[Dredgy]

I have a 320GB WD Blue 2.5" in my current desktop atm, which I'm about to phase out in favour of my new build. But I'd filled up the primary 500GB HDD and I had a point of sale system laying around that had this in it.

 

Certainly fine for mass storage, though not performance, and I'd always take the cheaper 3.5" option unless my case didn't have mounting for larger drives.

[alpenwasser]

with higher rpm HDD's causes a higher chance of failure if say you tilt it the pladder could hit the metal casings...

Not really, the bearings for the spindle on any decent HDD

are designed so that this should not happen. Also, with many

2.5" HDDs being laptop drives (i.e. they get tilted far more

frequently than desktop drives), I'd estimate that this is

actually less of an issue for those drives.

And high-rpm server drives? Yeah, they're built well enough

that this is not an issue, at least the ones I've come across.

 

the 6TBvs6x1TB is a debate but at the point it kind of wastes tons of space and I have a Matx (not itx) Mobo and I only have 6 sata ports plus if your worried about speed I think a 250GB SSD for speed works usually with a big HDD for mass storage is the best compromise...

As said, this depends very much on your needs. For you (since you don't

need the higher IOPS performance of a 2.5" array), it would be a waste.

For somebody who does need those IOPS, it's very much not a waste.

As for SSDs, yeah, of course those give you even better performance, but

they also still cost a ton more, especially if we're talking about

enterprise-grade components (a nice HGST SAS SSD can run you several

thousand USD).

For the time being, high-rpm 2.5" HDD storage arrays are still a very

viable middle-ground.

 

Lesser build quality is usually because of size limitations and they use weaker magnets and such...

Using weaker magnets is just good engineering. If you don't need

stronger ones (i.e. more expensive), then there is no reason to use

those. That would just increase costs without any tangible benefit.

And has anyone actually ever had any issues with 2.5" drives where

they could positively identify magnet weakness as the source of

troubles? I've never heard of that.

Also, 10k and 15k rpm 2.5" rpm drives tend to be built very solidly,

more solid than any desktop low-rpm drive.

And what would you say is "lesser build quality" actually? Weight?

Of course 2.5" drives will be lighter, they're smaller. Materials

used (like, alloys for platters and casings)? How would a consumer

even be able to evaluate that, you'd need to run lab tests to

determine that. The bearings? Again, hardly something a consumer

can actually determine reliably. The read/write heads, the controller

PCB, the platter coating, the read/write arm actuators, I'm not

really sure how one can evaluate those things without dismantling

the drive and running extensive tests on the individual components

TBH.

As an indicator though, let's take MTBF: WD's Xe drives have an

MTBF rating of 2,000,000 hours (source), whereas its 3.5" enterprise

drives (the Re line) are only rated for 1,200,000 hours (source).

So at least comparing those two, it seems that the 2.5" drive

is actually built better, not worse, than the 3.5" one.

 

The failure rate I don't actually have source for but I also think you misunderstood I was not referring to DeadOnArrival(DOA) I was referring to, it was more lesser build quality and the *usually* mobile form factor just beats up the drives...

Of course laptop drives used in laptops are likely going to have

higher failure rates, but that doesn't mean they're bad drives,

that's very likely just a consequence of them being tossed and

bumped around a lot. If you use a 2.5" drive in a desktop, that

kind of abuse will (hopefully) fall away, so the drive should

function just as well.

If you take a 3.5" desktop drive and treat it as badly as laptop

drives usually are, it'll die a lot sooner because it's simply

not built for that kind of abuse.

 

Non Standard was referring to more or less the lower availbility of 2.5" HDDs

That hardly makes it non-standard, it just means that there are

fewer offerings. At least at my local retailers, I have quite a

nice selection of 2.5" drives to choose from. Having said that,

I wouldn't be opposed to more options.

 

You sortof proved me right actually I said power efficient not power using when you calculate in the usually higher speed(5400rpm vs 7200-15k), and data content(example 6TB vs 1TB) so in say extreme standards you could get 3xspeed, and 6x capacity and the 2.5" vs the 4TB you listed in your example was 3x more power not 18x...

Well, yes, whether or not the 2.5" form factor is more power

efficient depends very much on what kind of setup you need.

If all you need are a few hundred gigabytes of space for some

data, you can get a small 2.5" drive, and your PC will end up

using less power than if you'd gone with a 3.5" drive (if you

pick the right drive).

For more complicated setups, you will need to evaluate what

is important to you, and then decide based on that (Watts/IOPS,

Watts/bandwidth, Watts/terabyte, w/e). Just because it's not

right for you, doesn't mean the same holds true for other

people.

[IdeaStormer]

They do, the velocitaptors and the sort have 2.5" platters. I think they're not common because the 2.5" drives are usually laptop drives.

Maybe they'd be more hazardous and use more energy.

 

None of the 2.5" Drives I have seen ever had a logo as such:

 

 

OR

 

 

So I think they are safe, if I can go out on a limb :rolleyes:

[RatedBlam]

None of the 2.5" Drives I have seen ever had a logo as such:

 

 

OR

 

So I think they are safe, if I can go out on a limb :rolleyes:

And none of the Wd velocitaptors were actual dinosaurs. They do seem pretty safe.