Will the hard drive last for a week if under heavy use?

[kingknightrider]

Though this one caught me a little by surprise but not completely.

The drive was fine 2 days ago.

The drive got dropped about 2 feet on to a desk while configuring hard drive tower on Saturday.

Had no problems before that -this nights' triple stutter was the first symptom.

I have another hard drive coming and will be here Wednesday.

Problem is this drive is my main OS and work computer hard drive and I will not have a chance to clone it till Friday night.

I however in the mean time have to use it the rest of the week for work.

Will it last long enough with the "Uncorrectable Sector Count" and "Current Pending Sector Count" for me to get the cloning done Friday -especially since the drive passes the S.M.A.R.T. test with Western Digital's own diagnostic program?

[Jurrunio]

maybe, but could see data loss. Backup important stuff every day before you turn it off then.

[Spotty]

5 minutes ago, kingknightrider said:

The drive was fine 2 days ago.

The drive got dropped about 2 feet on to a desk while configuring hard drive tower on Saturday.

Do you have any important data on there you want to save? If so, my recommendation would be to power down the machine and remove the drive until you have a drive available to copy the data to. The longer you run it, the more likely it will completely fail and you won't be able to access the data.

Even if you don't have another drive, if you have some USB drives or DVDs you can backup the most important data to would be a good step. If you have decent internet you could look at cloud storage services such as Google Cloud https://cloud.google.com/

 

Also, if you will need to reinstall your OS on to the new drive, make sure you download the Windows 10 installation media and set it up on a USB drive
https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/software-download/windows10

[Guest]

 

[kingknightrider]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

Do you have any important data on there you want to save? If so, my recommendation would be to power down the machine and remove the drive until you have a drive available to copy the data to. The longer you run it, the more likely it will completely fail and you won't be able to access the data.

Even if you don't have another drive, if you have some USB drives or DVDs you can backup the most important data to would be a good step.

I have a bit a space on one drive the rest are full .... hard to find space for 1.7 TB of data on the fly with no USB or DVD drives.

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

maybe, but could see data loss. Backup important stuff every day before you turn it off then.

The one time a 24/7 machine should be turned into a sleeper?
Would there be any degradation of performance if I switch all my drives to these:

https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-3-5-Inch-SATA3-Drive-DT01ACA300/

 

To these:

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FJRS628/

 

[Jurrunio]

5 hours ago, kingknightrider said:

The one time a 24/7 machine should be turned into a sleeper?

I just mean backing up important data daily

 

5 hours ago, kingknightrider said:

Would there be any degradation of performance if I switch all my drives to these:

https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-3-5-Inch-SATA3-Drive-DT01ACA300/

 

To these:

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FJRS628/

I think the WD Blacks are faster and have longer warranty than the Toshiba drives....

[kingknightrider]

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

I just mean backing up important data daily

 

I think the WD Blacks are faster and have longer warranty than the Toshiba drives....

That could be bad -1.7 TB to back up daily...

Just trying to hold on till Wenesday.

Plus it is still a fact that mechanical hard drives fail in parts so most data should be recoverable. So even if failure I think I can recover drive most of the drive.... Still going to back up my 10 gigs of music.

 

According to this they are the same speed in RPM.

Warranties don't really matter to me -I never return anything -even if DOA - I find more... constructive ends for hardware that fails -experimentation.

Is it the transfer rate to which you mean the Toshiba being slower?

IE: SATA II vs SATA

Is that really a loss I dont get but about 150mb/s when transffering between files between hard drives -all the same WD2003FZEX model.

Would I really see a great loss if I replace the decaying drive with a Toshiba?

WD Black 2TB Performance Desktop Hard Disk Drive - 7200 RPM SATA 6 Gb/s 64MB Cache 3.5 Inch - WD2003FZEX

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FJRS628/

Quote

 

• Next-generation desktop performance hard drive designed to intensify your PC experience
• Improved Architectural Designs: Dual Core Processor, High Resolution Controller (HRC), StableTrac Technology
• Improved Data Protection: Vibration Control Technology (VCT), Corruption Protection Technology (CPT), NoTouch Ramp Load Technology
• Industry-leading 5-year manufacturer limited warranty
• Package includes a hard drive only - no screws, cables, manuals included. Please purchase mounting hardware and cables separately if necessary.
• Ships in WD-certified box for safe transit during shipping
• Next-generation desktop performance hard drive designed to intensify your PC experience

• Improved Architectural Designs, featuring a Dual Core Processor, High Resolution Controller, and StableTrac Technology
• Improved Data Protection, with Vibration Control Technology, Corruption Protection Technology, and No Touch Ramp Load Technology
• 2 TB capacity holds up to 400,000 digital photos, 500,000 MP3 files, and 240 hours of HD video
• Superior responsiveness with the next-generation speed that you need

 

Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB 7200 RPM 3.5" Internal Bare/OEM Drive

https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-3-5-Inch-SATA3-Drive-DT01ACA300/dp/B009CPDI62

Quote

 

The SATA interface 7,200 RPM desktop series drives are targeted at desktop all-in-one and gaming PCs, home servers, external HDDs, and consumer electronics products such as set-top boxes and digital video recorders.

 

Serial ATA (SATA) is a serial interface that can operate at speeds up to 6Gb/s.

 

SATA is scalable and enables easy integration, high performance, and efficient system designs. SATA is the evolutionary replacement for the Parallel ATA (PATA) storage interface

.

Ramp Load technology restricts the drive’s recording head from touching the disk media, resulting in improved protection of the drive while being transported and less wear to the recording head.

 

Optimized for use in power-friendly consumer and commercial desktop computing systems, the drive’s power management technology provides significant power consumption savings at 5.2 watts (or less) active idle, and 1.0 watt standby and sleep power requirements.

 

Toshiba’s advanced servo techniques and mechanical design minimizes drive acoustics, making them as silent as possible during operation.

 

 

[Jurrunio]

43 minutes ago, kingknightrider said:

Is it the transfer rate to which you mean the Toshiba being slower?

IE: SATA II vs SATA

actually I'm just based on WD Blacks being faster than WD Blues in general despite the similar specs on paper, while WD Blue roughly equals the Toshiba drive. They are all SATA 3 6gbps supported and never hit that speed anyway.

 

 

[kingknightrider]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

actually I'm just based on WD Blacks being faster than WD Blues in general despite the similar specs on paper, while WD Blue roughly equals the Toshiba drive. They are all SATA 3 6gbps supported and never hit that speed anyway.

 

 

Equal to the blue series?

I use to use the Blue line and personally don't see much difference between the black and them.

Except less failures.

Is that right?

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, kingknightrider said:

Would I really see a great loss if I replace the decaying drive with a Toshiba?

No.

Just now, kingknightrider said:

Equal to the blue series?

I use to use the Blue line and personally don't see much difference between the black and them.

Except less failures.

Is that right?

No. Any drive can fail. The only difference is the WD Black has 5 year warranty vs 2 years on the WD Blue. Warranty =/= reliability.

The WD Blacks are overpriced - They cost twice as much as the Toshiba/WD Blue/Seagate Barracuda.

 

1 hour ago, kingknightrider said:

Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB 7200 RPM 3.5" Internal Bare/OEM Drive

https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-3-5-Inch-SATA3-Drive-DT01ACA300/dp/B009CPDI62

Those are showing up as used (though you can buy new if you go to more sellers, however they're more expensive). Do not buy a used HDD.

 

Buy any of these (or the same models in higher capacities if needed).

https://www.amazon.com/WD-Blue-2TB-Hard-Drive/dp/B013QFRS2S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1541447423&sr=8-2&keywords=wd+blue+2tb

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-BarraCuda-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST2000DM006/dp/B01IEKG402/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1541447486&sr=8-2&keywords=barracuda+2tb

 

https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-Desktop-7200rpm-Internal-Drive/dp/B013JPKT9O/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1541447448&sr=8-4&keywords=toshiba+2tb

[kingknightrider]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

No.

No. Any drive can fail. The only difference is the WD Black has 5 year warranty vs 2 years on the WD Blue. Warranty =/= reliability.

The WD Blacks are overpriced - They cost twice as much as the Toshiba/WD Blue/Seagate Barracuda.

 

Those are showing up as used (though you can buy new if you go to more sellers, however they're more expensive). Do not buy a used HDD.

 

Buy any of these (or the same models in higher capacities if needed).

https://www.amazon.com/WD-Blue-2TB-Hard-Drive/dp/B013QFRS2S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1541447423&sr=8-2&keywords=wd+blue+2tb

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-BarraCuda-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST2000DM006/dp/B01IEKG402/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1541447486&sr=8-2&keywords=barracuda+2tb

 

https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-Desktop-7200rpm-Internal-Drive/dp/B013JPKT9O/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1541447448&sr=8-4&keywords=toshiba+2tb

Agreed.

Never buy used.

So the only real difference between WD Black/Obsidian(O from here on out) and WD B are the warranty?

I can see the speed is different: WD O: 7200 RPM vs WD B 5400 RPM.

Is there anything besides that and the warranty that WD O has that the WD B doesn't?

Or is there really no other difference between WD O and WD B?

 

 

Don't know why your seeing used:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B009CPDI62/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

 

Though:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00B229W04/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_size_name=2

Shows them around $85 USD. 

In a new state maybe replace the 2 tb with a 3TB gain some storage space?

Come to think of it the fail may have happened since drive is only got 7% free space...

Edited November 5, 2018 by kingknightrider

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, kingknightrider said:

So the only real difference between WD Black/Obsidian(O from here on out) and WD B are the warranty?

I can see the speed is different: WD O: 7200 RPM vs WD B 5400 RPM.

Is there anything besides that and the warranty that WD O has that the WD B doesn't?

Or is there really no other difference between WD O and WD B?

There are plenty of differences between the two. None that really make any real difference. At the end of the day you should be using a SSD for performance critical tasks (ie. OS drive) and a HDD for bulk storage. The WD blacks were okay 10 years ago before SSDs were widely available and affordable, but nowadays they don't really serve much of a valid purpose and are just a premium product with an inflated price tag. The WD Blacks also use more power and are much louder than the WD Blues. These days they just don't make any sense.

For the cost of the WD Black 2TB you could buy a WD Blue 2TB + a 250GB SSD.

 

If you want something that is 7200RPM, then go with either the Toshiba or Seagate Barracuda 2TB as they are 7200RPM.

 

1 hour ago, kingknightrider said:

Though:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00B229W04/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_size_name=2

Shows them around $85 USD. 

The ones I linked to were $60, so grab them instead.

 

1 hour ago, kingknightrider said:

In a new state maybe replace the 2 tb with a 3TB gain some storage space?

3TB would be a good pick. Same choice again with the Toshiba, WD Blue, and Seagate Barracuda.

[kingknightrider]

2 minutes ago, Spotty said:

There are plenty of differences between the two. None that really make any real difference. At the end of the day you should be using a SSD for performance critical tasks (ie. OS drive) and a HDD for bulk storage. The WD blacks were okay 10 years ago before SSDs were widely available and affordable, but nowadays they don't really serve much of a valid purpose and are just a premium product with an inflated price tag. The WD Blacks also use more power and are much louder than the WD Blues. These days they just don't make any sense. 

For the cost of the WD Black 2TB you could buy a WD Blue 2TB + a 250GB SSD.

 

If you want something that is 7200RPM, then go with either the Toshiba or Seagate Barracuda 2TB as they are 7200RPM.

 

The ones I linked to were $60, so grab them instead.

 

3TB would be a good pick. Same choice again with the Toshiba, WD Blue, and Seagate Barracuda.

Thank you.

Seagate and me have a horrible track record so will get the Toshiba.

Yep. Most people go with SSD now days for operating systems.

 

I still prefer manual hard drives for the simple reason: when a SSD fails -it fails completely and without warning.

And recovery from a SSD can be... problematic -if recovery is possible at all.

At least with mechanical drives at least you get a heads up on the drive falling.

IF this drive had been a SSD I would probably have used it till it died and lost more than can be retained.

 

My OS is a very customized WIndows 10 Enterprise edition -over 100 things modified: installing 3rd party drivers, multitude of registry edits, OS programs deviates, 3rd party control panel programs, re-acquisition of shortcuts (350+) ect over 3 hard drives now, ect. 

5-10 hours of work after a fresh Win 10 install. A process I have to repeat everytime I install a fresh WIn 10 OS install on to another hard drive -no matter the kind.

 

Just easier to clone the drive to a new mechanical drive.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, kingknightrider said:

...I still prefer manual hard drives for the simple reason: when a SSD fails -it fails completely and without warning...

I'm sick and tired of hearing that pathetic and completely invalid argument. Sure, when SSDs fail, it's usually irrecoverably without warning. so what? HDDs can (and do) do the same thing (btw, SSDs are less failure prone than HDD). Depending on a drive to not lose your data without warning you first is like playing Russian Roulette with only one empty chamber.

 

No matter if you use SSDs or HDDs, the only way to reasonably ensure your data is safe is for it to exist in at least three different places. For most people, this is on the computer, on an onsite backup drive, and on an offsite backup drive. For a backup drive to be an actual backup, it has to be kept powered down, disconnected from the computer, and stored away from the computer except while updating th backup (also, RAID is not a backup).

 

As long as you keep your data properly backed up, you don't have to worry about it should a drive fail, your data get corrupted by malware, someone steals the computer, the house burns down, or etc. since you will still have your data on a backup somewhere. Restoring the OS and programs can take only minutes if you have the OS and programs on their own drive.

[Razor Blade]

2 hours ago, kingknightrider said:

Thank you.

Seagate and me have a horrible track record so will get the Toshiba.

Yep. Most people go with SSD now days for operating systems.

 

I still prefer manual hard drives for the simple reason: when a SSD fails -it fails completely and without warning.

And recovery from a SSD can be... problematic -if recovery is possible at all.

At least with mechanical drives at least you get a heads up on the drive falling.

IF this drive had been a SSD I would probably have used it till it died and lost more than can be retained.

 

My OS is a very customized WIndows 10 Enterprise edition -over 100 things modified: installing 3rd party drivers, multitude of registry edits, OS programs deviates, 3rd party control panel programs, re-acquisition of shortcuts (350+) ect over 3 hard drives now, ect. 

5-10 hours of work after a fresh Win 10 install. A process I have to repeat everytime I install a fresh WIn 10 OS install on to another hard drive -no matter the kind.

 

Just easier to clone the drive to a new mechanical drive.

As someone who has had to deal with failures of both types and failures of many manufacturers (including Toshiba) I hope I can shine a little light on the subject.

 

Mechanical drives can go with little to no warning. Sometimes they can be repaired. Sometimes not. If the worst happens with a mechanical drive it isn't better... Data recovery with mechanical drives (though more places seem to claim they can work on them) can be risky if you take it to the wrong place. If you have a mechanical or electrical issue (Even if you have or source a perfect donor drive) there are zero guarantees you'll have data recovery success. Sure if the worst doesn't happen and the mechanical drive is simply wearing out, there are signs for it such as it can operate louder and louder or some that might start degrading in performance until they're infuriatingly slow. But if the problem isn't wear, data corruption is a very real thing (sometimes caused by so called "bit rot" which may or may not be the case).

 

Though to be noted I have heard of it happening, I personally haven't experienced the infamous "bit rot" on HDDs or SSDs. Only on improperly stored floppy disks. A lot of data loss can be fixed with software tools. Sometimes data can be in tact, the drive just can't find it or there is some other problem your computer can't correct by itself. This sort of thing can happen to either type of drive.

 

SSDs that start having issues won't just outright fail all the time. Though I have had one that had a bad case of the nopes and refused to operate anymore likely caused by a power issue, there are 2 others I have dealt with that both suffered significant performance hits and one triggered S.M.A.R.T test BIOS messages of "impending doom" so to speak...to be fair these were older SSDs so they had a pretty good life. Thankfully both drives were successfully backed up and they still kind of work...though I wouldn't put anything important on them.

 

I use SSDs for operations (for speed) and mechanical for storage (because mechanical drives are unbelievably cheap!). No matter what kind of drive it is, keep it cool, protected, and supplied with stable power it should have the best chances of survival. Even with every measure taken, failures will happen. I take an approach of if it is important, it needs to be backed up. My important data I use daily lives on an encrypted ZFS array but is still backed up every so often. I treat RAID and ZFS as uptime tools not a backup tool. My irrecoverable data is encrypted and backed up off site. If I lost everything from either location, I would still be okay.

[kingknightrider]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I'm sick and tired of hearing that pathetic and completely invalid argument. Sure, when SSDs fail, it's usually irrecoverably without warning. so what? HDDs can (and do) do the same thing (btw, SSDs are less failure prone than HDD). Depending on a drive to not lose your data without warning you first is like playing Russian Roulette with only one empty chamber.

 

No matter if you use SSDs or HDDs, the only way to reasonably ensure your data is safe is for it to exist in at least three different places. For most people, this is on the computer, on an onsite backup drive, and on an offsite backup drive. For a backup drive to be an actual backup, it has to be kept powered down, disconnected from the computer, and stored away from the computer except while updating th backup (also, RAID is not a backup).

 

As long as you keep your data properly backed up, you don't have to worry about it should a drive fail, your data get corrupted by malware, someone steals the computer, the house burns down, or etc. since you will still have your data on a backup somewhere. Restoring the OS and programs can take only minutes if you have the OS and programs on their own drive.

The argument is not invalid.

Sure both can fail without warning that is not the point.

The point is that HHD's can and sometimes can GIVE warning where SSD's don't -if ever give any warning at all.

HHD's can click, buzz, hum, SMART fails, Hardware IO, OS sluggishness, slow transfer rate, slow program execution ect where I doubt SSD's will.

I have the eagle eye for these so HHD just make more sense -since I can detect just the smallest warning.

Anything that gives warning is better something than does not give ANY warning in my book.

43 minutes ago, Razor Blade said:

As someone who has had to deal with failures of both types and failures of many manufacturers (including Toshiba) I hope I can shine a little light on the subject.

 

Mechanical drives can go with little to no warning. Sometimes they can be repaired. Sometimes not. If the worst happens with a mechanical drive it isn't better... Data recovery with mechanical drives (though more places seem to claim they can work on them) can be risky if you take it to the wrong place. If you have a mechanical or electrical issue (Even if you have or source a perfect donor drive) there are zero guarantees you'll have data recovery success. Sure if the worst doesn't happen and the mechanical drive is simply wearing out, there are signs for it such as it can operate louder and louder or some that might start degrading in performance until they're infuriatingly slow. But if the problem isn't wear, data corruption is a very real thing (sometimes caused by so called "bit rot" which may or may not be the case).

 

Though to be noted I have heard of it happening, I personally haven't experienced the infamous "bit rot" on HDDs or SSDs. Only on improperly stored floppy disks. A lot of data loss can be fixed with software tools. Sometimes data can be in tact, the drive just can't find it or there is some other problem your computer can't correct by itself. This sort of thing can happen to either type of drive.

 

SSDs that start having issues won't just outright fail all the time. Though I have had one that had a bad case of the nopes and refused to operate anymore likely caused by a power issue, there are 2 others I have dealt with that both suffered significant performance hits and one triggered S.M.A.R.T test BIOS messages of "impending doom" so to speak...to be fair these were older SSDs so they had a pretty good life. Thankfully both drives were successfully backed up and they still kind of work...though I wouldn't put anything important on them.

 

I use SSDs for operations (for speed) and mechanical for storage (because mechanical drives are unbelievably cheap!). No matter what kind of drive it is, keep it cool, protected, and supplied with stable power it should have the best chances of survival. Even with every measure taken, failures will happen. I take an approach of if it is important, it needs to be backed up. My important data I use daily lives on an encrypted ZFS array but is still backed up every so often. I treat RAID and ZFS as uptime tools not a backup tool. My irrecoverable data is encrypted and backed up off site. If I lost everything from either location, I would still be okay.

Indeed always keep it cool -as my photo in first post attains.

My computer is a 24/7 work horse machine.
It. Can. Not. Be. Down.

My case in point if I suddenly woke up one day and the drive was at deaths door many a time I could not just go out and get another that day.

That is what can happen more with a SSD than a HDD -with the latter there is at least warning.

I need warning at least 7 days in advance so that is why I choose HDD over SDD.

If I could clone my OS to a SSD I would feel to much on a razor's edge of fail or succeed.

 

[Razor Blade]

1 minute ago, kingknightrider said:

Indeed always keep it cool -as my photo in first post attains.

My computer is a 24/7 work horse machine.
It. Can. Not. Be. Down.

My case in point if I suddenly woke up one day and the drive was at deaths door many a time I could not just go out and get another that day.

That is what can happen more with a SSD than a HDD -with the latter there is at least warning.

I need warning at least 7 days in advance so that is why I choose HDD over SDD.

If I could clone my OS to a SSD I would feel to much on a razor's edge of fail or succeed.

 

Same here... Which is why I offloaded pretty much all data off of my PC onto a NAS which takes care of everything for me. It will run S.M.A.R.T tests, perform data scrubs, and if a drive were to fail I need only replace the drive and it will repair the array. If you have a highly customized OS and ever needed to reinstall, using imaging software is a HUGE time saver.  If the actual data is offloaded from your PC, you wouldn't necessarily need to keep making images (only for major software changes or updates).

[AngryBeaver]

16 hours ago, kingknightrider said:

Though this one caught me a little by surprise but not completely.

The drive was fine 2 days ago.

The drive got dropped about 2 feet on to a desk while configuring hard drive tower on Saturday.

Had no problems before that -this nights' triple stutter was the first symptom.

I have another hard drive coming and will be here Wednesday.

Problem is this drive is my main OS and work computer hard drive and I will not have a chance to clone it till Friday night.

I however in the mean time have to use it the rest of the week for work.

Will it last long enough with the "Uncorrectable Sector Count" and "Current Pending Sector Count" for me to get the cloning done Friday -especially since the drive passes the S.M.A.R.T. test with Western Digital's own diagnostic program?

So this could go either way. It depends on if the head is touching. The smart error you are getting is because of uncorrectable sectors. That means they are more than likely physically damaged from the drop. In itself that isn't a huge concern because they will be labeled as bad and just not used. The problem comes if the head has been bent or damaged from the drop and is now going to hit and cause more and more bad sectors. If that is the case then this disk will die soon and take all of your data with it.

[AngryBeaver]

1 hour ago, kingknightrider said:

The argument is not invalid.

Sure both can fail without warning that is not the point.

The point is that HHD's can and sometimes can GIVE warning where SSD's don't -if ever give any warning at all.

HHD's can click, buzz, hum, SMART fails, Hardware IO, OS sluggishness, slow transfer rate, slow program execution ect where I doubt SSD's will.

I have the eagle eye for these so HHD just make more sense -since I can detect just the smallest warning.

Anything that gives warning is better something than does not give ANY warning in my book.

Indeed always keep it cool -as my photo in first post attains.

My computer is a 24/7 work horse machine.
It. Can. Not. Be. Down.

My case in point if I suddenly woke up one day and the drive was at deaths door many a time I could not just go out and get another that day.

That is what can happen more with a SSD than a HDD -with the latter there is at least warning.

I need warning at least 7 days in advance so that is why I choose HDD over SDD.

If I could clone my OS to a SSD I would feel to much on a razor's edge of fail or succeed.

 

This is why we have raids and cloud/remote backups. If you have data you cannot afford to lose then you need to invest in the redundancy to keep it safe. I personally prefer cloud as they normally have good redundancy of their own... so my own redundancy has even more redundancy to keep it safe lol.

[kingknightrider]

47 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

So this could go either way. It depends on if the head is touching. The smart error you are getting is because of uncorrectable sectors. That means they are more than likely physically damaged from the drop. In itself that isn't a huge concern because they will be labeled as bad and just not used. The problem comes if the head has been bent or damaged from the drop and is now going to hit and cause more and more bad sectors. If that is the case then this disk will die soon and take all of your data with it.

It is make no sounds except normal operations... though the response is sluggish in the OS.

So far no more of either error have shown up.

So hopefully it will last till my spare gets here Wednesday and I get the new drive later on?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

3 hours ago, kingknightrider said:

The argument is not invalid.

Sure both can fail without warning that is not the point.

The point is that HHD's can and sometimes can GIVE warning where SSD's don't -if ever give any warning at all.

HHD's can click, buzz, hum, SMART fails, Hardware IO, OS sluggishness, slow transfer rate, slow program execution ect where I doubt SSD's will.

I have the eagle eye for these so HHD just make more sense -since I can detect just the smallest warning.

Anything that gives warning is better something than does not give ANY warning in my book.

Like heck it's invalid!

 

So you would prefer to gamble your data on maybe getting a warning that the drive is about to die? I don't give the north end of a southbound furry little rodent how vigilant you may think you are, that's insane!

 

If you really care about your data, you want to protect it from all drive failures, not just the ones you get a warning for (again, HDDs can and often do fail without warning). And, again, not all data loss is from drive failure. I've already listed some of the possible ways one can also lose data.

 

Again, since you didn't get it the first time, the ONLY way to reasonably ensure your date is safe is to exist in at least three different places, typically on the computer, on an onsite backup, and on an offsite backup. As long as your data exists in multiple locations, you don't have to worry about losing it due to many reasons, of which drive failure is only one.

 

Other than cost, there is no reason to not enjoy the benefits of SSDs as long as you BACK UP YOUR DATA, something you should be doing even with HDDs!

[kingknightrider]

Yes its invalid for I am not gambling with my data -IT IS backed up but I doubt you would like to go 7 states away to acquire it.

I don't do cloud storage since it would take too long to download and or upload 6.5 TB of data with this near dial up connection here in a constructive time frame.

 

Also despite your assurance that I can't detect such things -that I can't possibly be vigilant to detect the utter nuances of the hard drives performance.

I have in the past been able to detect the slightest changes in hard drives during their operation and have managed to circumvent at least 10 drives before they failed completely out 13.... so maybe vigilant would be the wrong word... maybe a better one is then that I am very hyper observant visually and auditory wise -the smallest noise, stutter, sluggishness, stutter ect. I notice...if you can't detect by sight a single pixel dead on the 64 in tv screen from 25 feet away or hear a pen drop while a rock concert is running full blast on a 7.1 surround sound system then further talk on such a subject is pointless.

 

And what benefits of SSD's are those?

What to some are benefits are to others disadvantages:

SSD may be fast but are just too expensive for the price to size ratio for me to consider.

 

A lot of my work requires saving to the desktop and thus the OS and this work session can reach into the 250-500 GB range at a time per project and usually two projects going in tandem. Since the biggest SSD of that caliber is nearly $350 (2TB) -something that literally makes SSD's unfeasible for me since the price would need to cover 5 2 TB drives... 350x5 -not very appealing. 

 

Nor the chance that they could hard fail worse that most normal hard drives -which while still being mechanical can give signs of current or future failure. Furthermore I would never think of having the storage and the OS be different form factors of speed -which to me is a bottle neck in-of-itself. OS faster than the storage and waiting on transfer and still waiting for storage to catchup or waiting on the OS to catch up to the storage not something I find appealing. Efficiency beats speed where I am concerned.

 

Just can't afford to put the computer out of commission for more than 30 mins besides the cloning.

Anyways this topic has deranged into a debate and opinion thread as to what is better a hard drive choice.

The goal of this thread has already been accomplished.
Thank you @AngryBeaver

[Lady Fitzgerald]

You just don't pay attention and you even contradicted yourself.

 

You never said that you backed up your data, not to mention a backup you can't access for recovery or updating is useless.

 

You are wise not to use cloud storage. Those sites, especially the free ones, are usually unreliable and insecure. Good paid cloud backup services are secure and reliable. However, they do cost money and they do require a reasonably fast broadband connection, which also costs money (even ore so if the connection has a data cap). It does take a long time for the initial upload and full recovery will also take a long time. Still, they do serve well as a good, last resort backup.

 

You keep insisting that you are vigilant enough to catch the warning signs of HDD failure then turn around and say you have been able to do so only ten times out of thirteen. If you had up to date, easlily accessable backups, you wouldn't have any data loss, even if you ever lost all your drives at once.

 

Just what on earth kind of work requires you to save data on the desktop? You can just as easily save to a drive other than the C:/ drive. You complain that you can't use storage that is slower than the drive the OS is on. Why is that? Why does the speed of SSDs makes them less efficient? My experience is very much the opposite.

 

OK, SSDs are too expensive for you. That's just you. Others may (and many do, otherwise no one would be buying them) find them to be worth shelling out the shekels for their higher speed, smaller size, lower power consumption, possible lower heat ouput, hight mechanoical shock resistance, etc. or any combination of those. If you can't justify  their expense, then don't buy them; no one is making you buy them. But just because you can't justify their expense is no excuse to unreasonably denigrate them with your utterly absurd allegations. 

 

If you truly need (or even just want) to ensure continuous operation despite a drive failure, then redundancy is what you need. But, even then, you still need to backup the data, not depend on being able to detect when a drive is going to fail (which you have already stated you cannot do every time).

 

Btw, the largest consumer grade SSDs are 4TB, not 2TB. Most people are able to make SSDs for the OS and programs and HDDs for storage work just fine and, frankly, I fail to see why you can't. The amount of time it takes for you save a project on the same HDD the OS is on will be no different than the time it takes to save it on another HDD. If the OS is on an SSD, it still will take the same amount tof time to save it on an HDD.

[AngryBeaver]

22 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

You just don't pay attention and you even contradicted yourself.

 

You never said that you backed up your data, not to mention a backup you can't access for recovery or updating is useless.

 

You are wise not to use cloud storage. Those sites, especially the free ones, are usually unreliable and insecure. Good paid cloud backup services are secure and reliable. However, they do cost money and they do require a reasonably fast broadband connection, which also costs money (even ore so if the connection has a data cap). It does take a long time for the initial upload and full recovery will also take a long time. Still, they do serve well as a good, last resort backup.

 

You keep insisting that you are vigilant enough to catch the warning signs of HDD failure then turn around and say you have been able to do so only ten times out of thirteen. If you had up to date, easlily accessable backups, you wouldn't have any data loss, even if you ever lost all your drives at once.

 

Just what on earth kind of work requires you to save data on the desktop? You can just as easily save to a drive other than the C:/ drive. You complain that you can't use storage that is slower than the drive the OS is on. Why is that? Why does the speed of SSDs makes them less efficient? My experience is very much the opposite.

 

OK, SSDs are too expensive for you. That's just you. Others may (and many do, otherwise no one would be buying them) find them to be worth shelling out the shekels for their higher speed, smaller size, lower power consumption, possible lower heat ouput, hight mechanoical shock resistance, etc. or any combination of those. If you can't justify  their expense, then don't buy them; no one is making you buy them. But just because you can't justify their expense is no excuse to unreasonably denigrate them with your utterly absurd allegations. 

 

If you truly need (or even just want) to ensure continuous operation despite a drive failure, then redundancy is what you need. But, even then, you still need to backup the data, not depend on being able to detect when a drive is going to fail (which you have already stated you cannot do every time).

 

Btw, the largest consumer grade SSDs are 4TB, not 2TB. Most people are able to make SSDs for the OS and programs and HDDs for storage work just fine and, frankly, I fail to see why you can't. The amount of time it takes for you save a project on the same HDD the OS is on will be no different than the time it takes to save it on another HDD. If the OS is on an SSD, it still will take the same amount tof time to save it on an HDD.

I will chime on this a little. First if he doesn't want to move to SSD there is nothing wrong with that. He is able to make that choice. I agree with you that they do have their advantages, but right now (even though they are better) price/gb is still much higher than the HDD offerings. Now in 2019 we are suppose to see SSD price per GB drop to .08/gb which will change things.

 

Now his argument is true that you do often get more warning of a failing drive from a HDD. The thing is the quality an endurance of SSD's have greatly increased. They have gotten to the point that I think they have a reliability advantage over a HDD. An HDD can wear our or have a head/platter crash etc because they are physically moving parts. On the other hand an SSD doesn't wear out in the same way... they wear out due to being written to and luckily you have an endurance rating that lets you know when this will happen. So if you do not need to write loads of data to an SSD they will last much longer than an HDD and also are not as easily damaged by being dropped etc.

 

Now this isn't for your quote, but for the OP. I do understand that some people are limited by bandwidth and can not use cloud backup solutions. There are good onsite options though. You could purchase a decent NAS with raid capabilities which would give you a backup with redundancy on itself. You can also go cheap and purchase something like one of the WD backup options which are normally cheap, slower, and do not have raid support. This would give you a good onsite option and even a decent NAS with raid can still be had for less than $500 which if your data is valuable is a very small drop in the bucket.

 

Anyways there is no need to beat up the OP. He knows the risks he is taking and he also happy with his setup. If it works for him and he is happy with it, then why should any of us try to change it?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

4 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

I will chime on this a little. First if he doesn't want to move to SSD there is nothing wrong with that. He is able to make that choice. I agree with you that they do have their advantages, but right now (even though they are better) price/gb is still much higher than the HDD offerings. Now in 2019 we are suppose to see SSD price per GB drop to .08/gb which will change things.

 

Now his argument is true that you do often get more warning of a failing drive from a HDD. The thing is the quality an endurance of SSD's have greatly increased. They have gotten to the point that I think they have a reliability advantage over a HDD. An HDD can wear our or have a head/platter crash etc because they are physically moving parts. On the other hand an SSD doesn't wear out in the same way... they wear out due to being written to and luckily you have an endurance rating that lets you know when this will happen. So if you do not need to write loads of data to an SSD they will last much longer than an HDD and also are not as easily damaged by being dropped etc.

 

Now this isn't for your quote, but for the OP. I do understand that some people are limited by bandwidth and can not use cloud backup solutions. There are good onsite options though. You could purchase a decent NAS with raid capabilities which would give you a backup with redundancy on itself. You can also go cheap and purchase something like one of the WD backup options which are normally cheap, slower, and do not have raid support. This would give you a good onsite option and even a decent NAS with raid can still be had for less than $500 which if your data is valuable is a very small drop in the bucket.

 

Anyways there is no need to beat up the OP. He knows the risks he is taking and he also happy with his setup. If it works for him and he is happy with it, then why should any of us try to change it?

I've already said if kingknightrider doesn't want to use SSDs, he doesn't have to. What I'm saying is the reasons (more like excuses) he is trying to pass off as why no one should use SSDs are pure bunk.

 

I have stated more than once that SSDs are more expensive than SSDs. That doesn't make them bad. A Lincoln cost more than a Ford; that doesn't make Lincolns bad, either. While, overall, SSD prices have been dropping, I seriously doubt that SSDs good enough to be worth having will drop to $0.08 next year.

 

I've also said multiple times that HDDs often do give warnings before failing but they don't ALWAYS give warning. Even kingknightrider inadvertently admitted that. I've also agreed that most of the time, SSDs don't always give warning before failing and that, when they fail, it's pretty much always irrecoverable. What I'm trying to convey is that depending on getting a warning on impending failure so one can move their data to another drive to avoid losing it is foolish since even HDDs do not always give warning before failure. People like kingknightrider can't seem to grasp that concept nor that the ONLY, I repeat, the ONLY way to reasonably ensure the safety of their data is for it to exist in at least three, separate places.

 

I agree that SSDs are more reliable than HDDs.

 

I still feel a NAS for a backup is overkill for most people and, if the NAS is kept running and connected to the computer at all times, it is NOT a backup. it is much less expensive and easier to just use two, separate external drives (or internal type bare drives in a dock or hot swap bay) for backups for each drive in the computer. While a NAS can be part of a backup scheme, the same as RAID in a computer, it is not a backup in itself.

 

I'm not trying to change how the OP is doing things. If he wants to gamble with his data, that's his choice. What I have issues woth is him trying to pass off inaccurate and downright dangerous information, such as why SSDs are (according to him) are inferior to HDDs (using invalid rationalization) and using dangerous practices for securing data.