Are bigger hard drives ever less reliable?

[Qiranworms]

Boomstick: Thanks, but I'm pretty set on the enclosure with drive setup, as opposed to a closed-up external. All-in-one externals tend to have shorter warranties than internal drives. Internal drives can also be replaced or upgraded, and an enclosure can easily be re-used even if the drive dies/gets upgraded. Lastly, internal + enclosure is a lot cheaper per gigabyte.

Gaara: even within series it doesn't make much sense. Why is the 120 GB Seagate (7200.9) MORE expensive than the 160 GB seemingly equivalent Seagate (ALSO 7200.9)? I still don't understand. Should just forget about this and get the cheapest 160 GB Seagate, or am I compromising something I don't know about by doing that?

Again, thanks for all the advice.

 

[Nitestick]

to be honest i would just use a 2.5" laptop hdd that can be powered by usb. by actual definition i believe a large hdd is anything larger than 32gb and an "ultra-large hdd" is anything larger than 137gb. by my definition though i would say 120gb. that is mainly because in my opinion i would never need more than 120gb portable storage as opposed to my friend who uses a 300gb external for his laptop.

 

[Qiranworms]

Problem with the laptop HDs are the much higher prices you pay for them. Even more than closed externals.

Thing is, 120 GB is the minimum right now. 160 is probably a bit more comfortable.


Strangely, the WD 160 GB drive I was looking at is no longer available. I guess that seal(gate)s my decision...(I'm fully aware of how lame that was)



Again, thanks for all the advice and everything.

 

[Apokalipse]

the 7200.9 drives have the highest platter density of all Seagate drives
the 7200.7 have a higher platter density and perform better than Seagate's ATA V (generation previous to it) drives

but I'm not sure what the 16A, 22A or 23A mean

 

[Qiranworms]

Alright. That makes sense.

So if fewer platters/heads are better in terms of reliability, higher platter density (more storage per platter, thus fewer platters necessary for a given capacity) is a good thing?

 

[TheMajor]

Higher platter density generally means more space. If you have very important data you should not back it up on just one disk. Always make a second copy. I have my important stuff on 3 different disks.

 

[Qiranworms]

I plan to have all the stuff backed up, likely on DVD-Rs, as well as by keeping all the many installation CDs and DVDs. I guess by reliability, I mean that I need it not to ever fail me while I'm playing (keyboards) through the software that's using it to stream multi-gigabyte samples live, and I need it to be able to withstand frequent transportation.

 

[TheMajor]

I plan to have all the stuff backed up, likely on DVD-Rs, as well as by keeping all the many installation CDs and DVDs. I guess by reliability, I mean that I need it not to ever fail me while I'm playing (keyboards) through the software that's using it to stream multi-gigabyte samples live, and I need it to be able to withstand frequent transportation.

CD's are unreliable. Better use HDD's.

 

[Qiranworms]

CD's are unreliable. Better use HDD's.

Seriously? I've only ever had problems with rewritables. The write-once variety have never caused problems for me in the past.

If I have the data on the 160 GB Seagate, and duplicated onto DVD, what is the likelyhood that they both fail? Why not have the data duplicated on two sets of DVDs so all of it is ultimately stored in three seperate pieces of media. I say this because having duplicated DVD-Rs is still cheaper than additional HDDs, at least at the prices I find them all.

 

[gaara]

In answer to your question about the price...I see the 160 has a mail-in rebate and those can often be unreliable or take a few months to complete so it's up to you

In reality drive failure is very rare IMO and you can usually find indication your drive in dying and take the necessary back-up steps while you still can...or in some cases you can even revive a dying drive by freezing it