* Siegbert Marschall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-21 02:38:10]: > Hello, > > > > > I'm curious how much more failure in the new "perpendicular" drives > > you are seeing. I can certainly see various drive makers pushing > > capacity irrespective of reliability. Germane to this case, some > > of them reduce the reserve storage for bad sectors for that extra > > storage. Tisk tisk. > > > to new, not that many in use yet and it will likely take a while for > the errors to show up. when searching for an unrelated issue with the > samsung 1TB, I found some reports of high numbers of reassigned > sectors in SMART data, floating around. but that is not necessarily > an issue, could be just an aspect of the higher density handled with > more ECC. nice poster one has to admit, the "terabite". :) > > the bad-sectors we saw where mostly found in cheap 80/160GB single > platter drives. of the 300/400/500 we had only a few errors so far. > > i think there are some companies out there having collected a lot > more smart-data the we do, wonder what they do with it... ;) > > -sm >
Well, I would not consider SMART to be the most accurate way of doing things. Implementations will vary from company to company, and even within their product lines. Also, you can make more money if you set the SMART thresholds higher than they ought to be so users think their drive is performing better/won't be replaced under warranty. This sounds paranoid, but some companies are just obsessed with making more money rather than a quality product. -- Travers Buda
