|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > August 2004 > Warranty Length Not Related To Drive Life?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Warranty Length Not Related To Drive Life?
|
|
| Ron Reaugh 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
| |
| Bill Todd 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
|
"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
> remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
Well, AFAIK nothing physical changed in ATA drives when manufacturers a
while ago decided to drop the warranty period from 3 years to 1. And I just
read that Seagate is now going to *raise* that period to *5* years as an
inducement to prospective buyers (something I'd certainly take into
consideration: I deliberately chose a 3-year-warrantied drive last time I
bought one).
Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
for the resulting bad publicity. So I'd guess that drives should be in the
bottom of their 'bathtub' curve for several years regardless of what the
nominal warranty period is: unless they fail (even during that nominal
period) at a fairly significant rate the savings that the manufacturer can
realize by shortening it would seem unlikely to be large (though in such a
cut-throat pricing environment the resulting price difference might
noticeably affect sales, so if one does it, the rest may have to follow, and
the same may be true for lengthening the period as Seagate is doing, since
it would otherwise give them a unique selling point for very little price
difference).
Whether similar considerations apply to the terms of service (e.g., duty
cycle) specified for the drive is less clear: there may be fairly
noticeable savings in manufacturing a drive for light-desktop rather than
server-style use, even leaving aside more obscure characteristics such as
resistance to the need for re-seeking in environments subject to vibration.
- bill
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
|
"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
was[vbcol=seagreen]
As usual your pompous jibber below says little.
The deal is that HD warranties were ALWAYS a marketing and price point
decision and had little to do with expected HD life. Since the 1 year and 3
year warranty HDs ALREADY had an expected life of over 5 years. So in a pen
stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even retroactively
without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going to last for 5
years anyway as I've always said.
Seagate simply announced a modest cost change internally and externally
effectively a modest price decrease, nothing more.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well, AFAIK nothing physical changed in ATA drives when manufacturers a
> while ago decided to drop the warranty period from 3 years to 1. And I
just
> read that Seagate is now going to *raise* that period to *5* years as an
> inducement to prospective buyers (something I'd certainly take into
> consideration: I deliberately chose a 3-year-warrantied drive last time I
> bought one).
>
> Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
> drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
> first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
> for the resulting bad publicity. So I'd guess that drives should be in
the
> bottom of their 'bathtub' curve for several years regardless of what the
> nominal warranty period is: unless they fail (even during that nominal
> period) at a fairly significant rate the savings that the manufacturer can
> realize by shortening it would seem unlikely to be large (though in such a
> cut-throat pricing environment the resulting price difference might
> noticeably affect sales, so if one does it, the rest may have to follow,
and
> the same may be true for lengthening the period as Seagate is doing, since
> it would otherwise give them a unique selling point for very little price
> difference).
>
> Whether similar considerations apply to the terms of service (e.g., duty
> cycle) specified for the drive is less clear: there may be fairly
> noticeable savings in manufacturing a drive for light-desktop rather than
> server-style use, even leaving aside more obscure characteristics such as
> resistance to the need for re-seeking in environments subject to
vibration.
>
> - bill
>
>
>
| |
| Impmon 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:11:02 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
>simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
>length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
>remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
>unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
What I do understand are that hard drive warranties are often at the
time they are manufactured and not the date of purchase so if you
bought a new hard drive today, has a manufactor date of July 20, 2003
and it breaks down, the manufactor may not take it even though you
just bought it.
Most current warranties are for one year and in my experience,
properly manufactured hard drive should last at least a few years.
Unfortunately they tended to build them as cheaply as possible so it's
not unusual for hard drive to die horribly in just months or even
weeks.
I still have an old Seagate 20MB drive somewhere that is almost 20
years old and still works but Maxtor 120GB hard drive that I got new
last year went south after only 3 months. A 200 GB Western Digital
hard drive that refused to work properly even though I have 2 more of
the same models working just fine in the same PC.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
| |
| Faeandar 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| You've got issues. I thought the information was well laid out and
fairly intuitive.
Everything is about price, but there's unquantifiable costs as well;
like bad publicity when your drives barf in year 1. Even with a
warranty I wouldn't buy that mfg again simply because it's a pain in
my butt to restore all the data and get it back the way I had it. I
will pay more money for a drive that doesn't barf even with a shorter
warranty. So my guess is a mfg would make the drive as robust as
possible without losing money. But like I said, some costs are not
quantifiable.
I would agree that warranty length isn't *all* about drive life but
I'm sure it has something to do with it. An example is a Mecerdes
Benz. The warranty has little to do with why people purchase the car,
it's because of the reputation. However, if they made the warranty 1
year some people would likely consider another mfg.
~F
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:29:21 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message
>news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>was
>
>As usual your pompous jibber below says little.
>
>The deal is that HD warranties were ALWAYS a marketing and price point
>decision and had little to do with expected HD life. Since the 1 year and 3
>year warranty HDs ALREADY had an expected life of over 5 years. So in a pen
>stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even retroactively
>without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going to last for 5
>years anyway as I've always said.
>
>Seagate simply announced a modest cost change internally and externally
>effectively a modest price decrease, nothing more.
>
>just
>the
>and
>vibration.
>
| |
| Paul Sherwin 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:11:02 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
>simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
>length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
>remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
>unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
I also think this has always been a marketing exercise. Manufacturers
offset the cost of warranty claims against the increased sales that a
long warranty generates.
You also have to consider how many purchasers actually bother to claim
under warranty when a drive is 2 or 3 years old. By then, larger,
cheaper, smaller, cooler drives will be available, and most people
just buy a replacement. The vast majority of drives will last for more
than 5 years whatever the warranty arrangements.
Here in the UK, many stores offer extended warranties on consumer
electronics items for a one off payment. Some offer to refund your
payment if you don't make a claim. Of course, you have to actually
*ask* for the refund after 3 or 5 years. Last time I heard, the
proportion of purchasers that remembered / could be bothered to do
this was under 10%.
Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk
| |
|
|
|
|
| Faeandar 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:13:09 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo...21,2285,00.html
>
Not arguing they did it, but for me I don't care if the warranty is 10
years. If it fails in year 1 I'm going to replace it with someone
else. The warranty does not take into account my time and effort to
put things back.
Like I said, I agree a warranty is alot of marketing. But so are
statistics and benchmarks.
~F
| |
| Folkert Rienstra 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| Heheh, the wacko troll has stepped up a tree on the psychopathic ladder.
Now he is Super Wacko.
"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[vbcol=seagreen]
And now you know who that someone was.
When it looks like a trap and sounds like a trap and smells like a trap,
THEN IT USUALLY IS A TRAP.
[vbcol=seagreen]
And now you are part of that select group.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Well, AFAIK nothing physical changed in ATA drives when manufacturers a
> while ago decided to drop the warranty period from 3 years to 1. And I just
> read that Seagate is now going to *raise* that period to *5* years as an
> inducement to prospective buyers (something I'd certainly take into
> consideration: I deliberately chose a 3-year-warrantied drive last time I
> bought one).
>
> Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
> drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
> first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
> for the resulting bad publicity. So I'd guess that drives should be in the
> bottom of their 'bathtub' curve for several years regardless of what the
> nominal warranty period is: unless they fail (even during that nominal
> period) at a fairly significant rate the savings that the manufacturer can
> realize by shortening it would seem unlikely to be large (though in such a
> cut-throat pricing environment the resulting price difference might
> noticeably affect sales, so if one does it, the rest may have to follow, and
> the same may be true for lengthening the period as Seagate is doing, since
> it would otherwise give them a unique selling point for very little price
> difference).
>
> Whether similar considerations apply to the terms of service (e.g., duty
> cycle) specified for the drive is less clear: there may be fairly
> noticeable savings in manufacturing a drive for light-desktop rather than
> server-style use, even leaving aside more obscure characteristics such as
> resistance to the need for re-seeking in environments subject to vibration.
>
> - bill
>
>
>
| |
| Hobblenob 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| >Even if manufacturers over time might be able to cut corners such that a
>drive would often fail in its second year without too much risk of
>first-year failures, it seems unlikely that the cost savings could make up
>for the resulting bad publicity.
That may not matter. The corporate
world-view is often only 3-6 months.
"If you haven't shown tangible results
on the P&L in six months, someone
else gets your job."
For managers with the authority to
make such cost-of-manufacture/durability tradeoff decisions, the inevitable bad
publicity may be outside their window of fiscal reality. If they cut costs,
even
at the expense of real-world mtbf,
the difference shows up on the balance
sheet immediately, while they may be working somewhere else by the time the
bill for that decision comes due.
How many times in how many different
corners of the industry have you seen
this before?
| |
| chrisv 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| "Rod Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message
>news:rvWdnV9fgJxzK5vcRVn-uw@metrocast.net...
>
>As usual your pompous jibber below says little.
>
>The deal is that HD warranties were ALWAYS a marketing and price point
>decision and had little to do with expected HD life. Since the 1 year and 3
>year warranty HDs ALREADY had an expected life of over 5 years.
Which is what he said, idiot.
Classic RonnieRetard - attack someone even when they are in agreement!
Wacko jibber snipped.
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:60dfg01tj2euj0aonr8a9ifdejacrpbt49@
4ax.com:
> Wacko jibber snipped.
Shouldn't the post be empty, then? There's nothing but wacko ranting coming
from the ronnie-beast.
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
| Monster 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| marketing ploy or not customers benefit by being able to send dead drives
back for a new one instead of forking out money again to get another flaky
hd. bottom line is a 5 year warranty beats the shit out of a 1 year warranty
"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aNxNc.336547$Gx4.279986@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
> remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
>
>
| |
| Impmon 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:15:31 GMT, "Monster"
<do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.XXX.com> wrote:
>marketing ploy or not customers benefit by being able to send dead drives
>back for a new one instead of forking out money again to get another flaky
>hd. bottom line is a 5 year warranty beats the shit out of a 1 year warranty
True. And in the past when I tried to exchange the dead drive with a
new one, they often send a bigger hard drive. Long ago I had Maxtor
5.6GB that went south. Got it RMA'ed and they sent me 20GB. A few
years ago, it died. Got it RMA'ed (since the warranty on 20GB was
from date of manufacture and not from the 5.6's original warranty) and
they sent me a 100GB. That one outlasted the warranty before it died.
Maxtor used to be good before but now they sell garbage. :/
Anyway even if in 5 years your 250GB drive goes south and there are
faster and better drive on the market, get it exchanged anyway because
the replacement drive may be the better one.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-07-28, 5:45 pm |
| Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in
news:1i6gg0t7gft7kku4onmvnckkud7lfaaskq@
4ax.com:
> Maxtor used to be good before but now they sell garbage. :/
Maxtor used to be the absolute worst shit money could buy, then they got
very good, but are losing quality again, it seems.
> Anyway even if in 5 years your 250GB drive goes south and there are
> faster and better drive on the market, get it exchanged anyway because
> the replacement drive may be the better one.
Or use the 250 as boot drive when Windows 2008 needs 200+ GB disk space to
install 
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
| Malcolm Weir 2004-07-28, 8:45 pm |
| On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:15:31 GMT, "Monster"
<do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.XXX.com> wrote:
>marketing ploy or not customers benefit by being able to send dead drives
>back for a new one instead of forking out money again to get another flaky
>hd. bottom line is a 5 year warranty beats the shit out of a 1 year warranty
True. However, I rarely by warranties in isolation, and the HDD with
1 year warranty may beat the shit out of the HDD with the 1 year
warranty for whatever reason you bought the HDD in the first place!
Malc.
| |
|
| > Maxtor used to be the absolute worst shit money could buy, then they got
> very good, but are losing quality again, it seems.
Are you talking about the IDE drives or SCSI drives. My experience of the
IDE drives is that, if they last, they are very good. Regards the SCSI
drives though, they always appear to be rated very highly - I have a few
10K3 drives and I was considering sticking with Maxtor for a forthcoming
upgrade. Are there problems with the current 15K offerings?
Thanks in advance for any feedback here.
PM
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2004-07-28, 8:45 pm |
|
"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
news:v4hgg0dg1ss2rqdu84ms6kvj6q7c6efor5@
4ax.com...
> True. However, I rarely by warranties in isolation, and the HDD with
> 1 year warranty may beat the shit out of the HDD with the 1 year
> warranty for whatever reason you bought the HDD in the first place!
Hmm, it sounds like you're into self mutilation<g>.
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-07-29, 2:45 am |
| "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:bQYNc.344282
$Gx4.241797@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> "Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
> news:v4hgg0dg1ss2rqdu84ms6kvj6q7c6efor5@
4ax.com...
>
> Hmm, it sounds like you're into self mutilation<g>.
It sounds like he's into getting the right solution for the job instead of
just going for budget. I don't mind getting a fairly short warranty period
on the HDS gear and paying for the support afterwards.
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-07-29, 2:45 am |
| "PM" <none@invalid.address> wrote in news:ce9hmj$ufr$1
@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> Are you talking about the IDE drives or SCSI drives. My experience of the
> IDE drives is that, if they last, they are very good. Regards the SCSI
> drives though, they always appear to be rated very highly - I have a few
> 10K3 drives and I was considering sticking with Maxtor for a forthcoming
> upgrade. Are there problems with the current 15K offerings?
Ah, the SCSI drives are Quantum - they've always been good, in my
experience
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
| chrisv 2004-07-29, 7:45 am |
| Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote:
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:60dfg01tj2euj0aonr8a9ifdejacrpbt49@
4ax.com:
>
>
>Shouldn't the post be empty, then? There's nothing but wacko ranting coming
>from the ronnie-beast.
True, I didn't snip all of Rod^Hn's jibber. Maybe I should have. 8)
| |
| Impmon 2004-07-29, 5:45 pm |
| On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:54:00 +0100, "PM" <none@invalid.address> wrote:
> Are there problems with the current 15K offerings?
A frying pan would help as those high speed drives can get really hot.
Nothing like fresh eggs and bacon while reading emails in the morning.
Do make sure your PC case have excellent cooling system before
considering 10K+ drives.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
| |
| Paul Repacholi 2004-07-29, 5:45 pm |
| Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> writes:
> Maxtor used to be the absolute worst shit money could buy, then they
> got very good, but are losing quality again, it seems.
Not really. Spun up a pair of 380MB ESDI drives last night. Anyone
remember them? Seem fine, once the grease warmed up a bit and got
spread around a little
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2004-07-29, 5:45 pm |
|
"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:og2ig01sftlnu4s9gc0l5fvv92gigcnp4l@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:54:00 +0100, "PM" <none@invalid.address> wrote:
>
>
> A frying pan would help as those high speed drives can get really hot.
No, users let them get hot. It's the users responsibility to keep the HDs
cool.
> Nothing like fresh eggs and bacon while reading emails in the morning.
>
> Do make sure your PC case have excellent cooling system before
> considering 10K+ drives.
Or use drive coolers.
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-07-29, 5:45 pm |
| chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:ivshg0tnsinblpmfeq3aqgoussb36e50hu@
4ax.com:
> True, I didn't snip all of Rod^Hn's jibber. Maybe I should have. 8)
Or just snip Ron entirely - let the jihad guys in Iraq have him.
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
| chrisv 2004-07-30, 7:45 am |
| Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote:
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>Or just snip Ron entirely - let the jihad guys in Iraq have him.
He'd fit right in with those wackos. Pretty soon we'd have terrorist
attacks on SCSI controller makers, not to mention the heretics at
storagereview.com... 8)
| |
| Johan Kullstam 2004-07-30, 5:45 pm |
| "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> length has nothing to do with expected drive life?
It cannot be *totally* unrelated. A manufacturer doesn't want a whole
lot of returns. You can expect that *most* drives will *at least*
make it through the warranty period.
A hard drive is free to continue operation well past the warranty
expiration time. As far as I can tell, the 3 to 1 year standard ATA
warrenty shorting has had no impact on actual drive lifetimes.
> Somewhere I think I
> remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
>
>
--
Johan KULLSTAM
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-07-30, 5:45 pm |
| chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:09ikg0husvp0ts3p0tr9jlkti7f8b3rjda@
4ax.com:
> He'd fit right in with those wackos. Pretty soon we'd have terrorist
> attacks on SCSI controller makers, not to mention the heretics at
> storagereview.com... 8)
Actually, i'd prefer if they'd just implant a large storage system in his
rectal passage, but seeing him get blown up by a tomahawk missile could be
fun, too
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
|
| "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:og2ig01sftlnu4s9gc0l5fvv92gigcnp4l@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:54:00 +0100, "PM" <none@invalid.address> wrote:
>
>
> A frying pan would help as those high speed drives can get really hot.
> Nothing like fresh eggs and bacon while reading emails in the morning.
>
> Do make sure your PC case have excellent cooling system before
> considering 10K+ drives.
> --
> To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net
Indeed they can - I have a Lian Li case which, so far, appears upto the job.
I was looking at getting CD bay drive coolers for any 15k drives I get..
Thanks for your advice
PM
| |
|
| > Ah, the SCSI drives are Quantum - they've always been good, in my
> experience
Same here, but now they are a part of Maxtor and, consequently, I wasn't
sure if you meant they had deteriorated.
Thank you.
PM
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2004-07-30, 8:45 pm |
|
"Johan Kullstam" <kullstj-nn@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87zn5hh0xu.fsf@sophia.axel.nom...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
was[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It cannot be *totally* unrelated. A manufacturer doesn't want a whole
> lot of returns. You can expect that *most* drives will *at least*
> make it through the warranty period.
Do ya think!
> A hard drive is free to continue operation well past the warranty
> expiration time. As far as I can tell, the 3 to 1 year standard ATA
> warrenty shorting has had no impact on actual drive lifetimes.
Do ya think!
| |
| Mike Tomlinson 2004-07-31, 2:45 am |
| In article <BWyNc.142036$OB3.105819@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
>So in a pen
>stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even retroactively
>without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going to last for 5
>years anyway as I've always said.
Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the Deskstar
75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?
--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
| |
| J. Clarke 2004-07-31, 2:45 am |
| Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> In article <BWyNc.142036$OB3.105819@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>
> Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the Deskstar
> 75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?
What's this "we", White Man? You have a mouse in your pocket?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-07-31, 5:45 pm |
| Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in
news:uki49LDpXyCBFwos@jasper.org.uk:
> Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the
> Deskstar 75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?
Oooh, those were almost as nice as the 36LZX 18gig ultrastars. I had 50
servers delivered, each with one of those drives. I had about 60 exchanges
on them before my vendor started giving me seagates
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
| Peter da Silva 2004-08-03, 7:48 am |
| In article <Xns9537E7E95F00Fnewsspamrootweilerdk@62.243.74.163>,
Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote:
> Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in
> news:uki49LDpXyCBFwos@jasper.org.uk:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Oooh, those were almost as nice as the 36LZX 18gig ultrastars. I had 50
> servers delivered, each with one of those drives. I had about 60 exchanges
> on them before my vendor started giving me seagates
HP Surestore 2000. Six drives, ten failures, we finally gave up when we
called HP for a replacement and got routed to some noname 'support'
organization. Apperently they'd sold the whole drive business, lock, stock,
and warranty.
--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
| |
| Michael Giegerich 2004-08-05, 7:45 am |
| Ron Reaugh:
> Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty was
> simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
> length has nothing to do with expected drive life? Somewhere I think I
> remember someone making such a claim and a bunch of trolls tried
> unsuccessfully to shoot him down?
Such claim would be wrong...
As with any product the percentage of failures will
increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
ring second and 2 % during third year of life.
Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
money...
Manufactures will work hard to get the failure rate
as much down as possible (less cost, competitive
advantage).
--
Michael Giegerich
| |
| Eric Gisin 2004-08-05, 7:45 am |
| Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first year,
under 1% in next two.
"Michael Giegerich" <migieger@web.de> wrote in message
news:5i2rec.gc22.ln@luva.home...
>
> As with any product the percentage of failures will
> increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
> ring second and 2 % during third year of life.
>
> Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
> money...
>
| |
| Michael Giegerich 2004-08-05, 7:45 am |
| Eric Gisin:
> Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first year,
> under 1% in next two.
Assuming you're right, after how many years the failure
rate would have come down to 0 % then?
Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
take a few years, but it will go there :-)
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Michael Giegerich" <migieger@web.de> wrote in message
> news:5i2rec.gc22.ln@luva.home...
--
Michael Giegerich
| |
| Mike Tomlinson 2004-08-05, 7:45 am |
| In article <fucrec.5r22.ln@luva.home>, Michael Giegerich
<migieger@web.de> writes
>Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
>work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
>take a few years, but it will go there :-)
It's usually taken for granted that the failure rate is plotted as a
"bathtub" curve. Here's an attempt at ASCII - view with a monospaced
font:
r |
e |
l |
i | ________________________________________
___
a | / \
b | / \
i | / \
l | / \
i | / \
t | / \
y | / \
+--------------------------------------------------------------
time
^ ^ ^ ^
1 2 3 4
The x-axis is time, the y-axis is failure rate.
What this says is that drive failure is high in their infancy (between
points 1 and 2). If they see out infancy, they tend to continue working
(between points 2 and 3) until they reach some point at which they wear
out, then failure rates increase (between points 3 and 4.)
Traditionally, the gap between points 2 and 3 has been three years for
consumer-level (=IDE) drives, and five years for high-end (=SCSI)
drives, coinciding with the typical warranty period offered on these
devices. Of course, this is generalising wildly and depends very much
on how the drive is treated prior to installation, its operating
conditions, etc. etc.
--
..sigmonster on vacation
| |
| Frank le Spikkin 2004-08-05, 7:45 am |
| Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in
news:aSjVg3C08UEBFwdH@jasper.org.uk:
> the y-axis is failure rate
....which means the 'curve' is upside down, but I can guess what you
intended: reliability = 1/failure rate ???
| |
| J. Clarke 2004-08-05, 7:45 am |
| Michael Giegerich wrote:
> Eric Gisin:
>
> Assuming you're right, after how many years the failure
> rate would have come down to 0 % then?
>
> Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
> work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
> take a few years, but it will go there :-)
Common phenomenon with electronics of any kind--a high rate of "infant
mortality" in the first few months of operation, then a relatively low
failure rate until pieces start dying of old age.
>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| |
|
| Remember ESDI, blimey, yup.. used to use 150MB ESDI drives many years ago.
And going back further... 20MB MFM and RLL drives.
Anyone remember the old AT&T 3B15 150MB drives... you know the ones that
were 3ft long and had disc brakes in them?
Mark
<KevH@yorkie.dabsolLL.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4121a284$0$37064$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> Still using a pair of 330MB's - 1 FH and 1 HH - in a DOS/WFWG311 system.
> Used once per week only though. Manufacturing date was either 1989 or
1991
>
|
|
|
|
|