Why new HDDs are so unreliable

[c_hegge]

I never checked the AAM. I do agree though that a noisier drive is better than a failure prone one.

[c_hegge]

You won't believe what just came my way. Another dead barra ES.2. An ST3250310NS to be exact. It doesn't get detected in the BIOS.

[shovenose]

To think my old server was run by two 250GB Seagate ES2 disks

[LongRunner]

I wonder how the new Seagate 5mm laptop HDD will fare...good thing the casing is made of steel. (But then again, it doesn't look like very thick steel.)

They've also released SSDs for laptops, and a desktop hybrid drive (with two models - a 2-platter 2TB and 1-platter 1TB; why no 3TB model???).

Also, Hitachi has squeezed three platters into the traditional 9.5mm 2.5" form, resulting in a 1.5TB 5400RPM drive.

LATE EDIT: I just found out that IBM squeezed 4 platters into 12.5mm with the Travelstar 32GH back in 2000.

[LongRunner]

Added a poll on when HDDs were the most reliable. The options are 200x, "older" (1980-1999) and "newer" (2010-present). Of course, I don't expect anyone to vote for the latter option.

[c_hegge]

I'd say there's not much difference between around 07 and older. It's really only been the last two or three years that I've really been seeing them failed left right and center.

[shovenose]

Just don't tell the WD RE4 and WD Blue disks used in my servers

[LongRunner]

A difficult choice, I have to admit, but I went with 2005 as by then Western Digital (the last manufacturer to do so) had made the switch to fluid-dynamic bearings.