Maxtor OneTouch oddity(?)
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Fwd: First reviews of the iPad
Next: Raindrops
From: Jim on 2 Apr 2010 02:42 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > RAID 0 - Not Redundant therefore Not Actually RAID, but there we go. > This pretends that the disks in the array are all one big disk and you > can read and write to any of them at the same time. Faster because of > the simultaneous access, but a two disk RAID0 is twice as likely to > have a disk die, and if any disk dies you lose all the data. Don't > touch this type! Which is why it's sometimes called "Scary RAID". Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Chris Ridd on 2 Apr 2010 03:29 On 2010-04-01 23:06:52 +0100, Bella Jones said: > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:44:24 +0100, me9(a)privacy.net (Bella Jones) >> wrote: >> >>> Just been through the hoops at Seagate site. (Maxtor are now Seagate, it >>> appears). I now have to post it back. The instructions for posting are >>> 15 pages long! >>> >>> This is concerning though. The WD MyBook died after 3-4 years. Now this >>> one's iffy after 12 months. >> >> Hard drives are inherently failure prone and untrustworthy, so I >> applaud your choice of kit - it's far better for the RAID to have done >> its job and not lost your data than any alternative. >> >> Seagate bought up Maxtor a couple of years back, but they're running >> both brand names. > > I must now blushingly say that I still am not entirely sure what a RAID > is. So don't all drives have a backup whatsit inside? It's not a backup whatsit in the general sense of a data backup. What you've got is redundancy. So it is insurance against one device going south; at least everything is automatically on the remaining working device (or in the general case, devices.) The main downside against devices with multiple disks is that the mean time to failure is reduced whenever an extra disk is involved. (To half if you've got 2 disks, a third if you've got 3 disks, etc.) But the upside is that your data doesn't suffer. The upside should outweigh the reduced MTTF :-) It would be even better if you could replace the broken disk yourself instead of having to send it back. What are Seagate going to send you in return, a remanufactured/refurbished unit? -- Chris
From: Bella Jones on 2 Apr 2010 05:17 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-01 23:06:52 +0100, Bella Jones said: > > > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: [...] > > > > I must now blushingly say that I still am not entirely sure what a RAID > > is. So don't all drives have a backup whatsit inside? > > It's not a backup whatsit in the general sense of a data backup. What > you've got is redundancy. > > So it is insurance against one device going south; at least everything > is automatically on the remaining working device (or in the general > case, devices.) > > The main downside against devices with multiple disks is that the mean > time to failure is reduced whenever an extra disk is involved. (To half > if you've got 2 disks, a third if you've got 3 disks, etc.) But the > upside is that your data doesn't suffer. The upside should outweigh the > reduced MTTF :-) > > It would be even better if you could replace the broken disk yourself > instead of having to send it back. > > What are Seagate going to send you in return, a > remanufactured/refurbished unit? Yes. Think so. They are being v strict about correct packaging. -- bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
From: Chris Ridd on 2 Apr 2010 08:00 On 2010-04-02 10:17:11 +0100, Bella Jones said: > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > >> What are Seagate going to send you in return, a >> remanufactured/refurbished unit? > > Yes. Think so. They are being v strict about correct packaging. That seems terribly unreasonable of them. They should be able to accept it back if it was packaged sufficiently carefully and undamaged. They're not trying to shirk their returns policy are they? -- Chris
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 2 Apr 2010 08:18
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:00:36 +0100, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 2010-04-02 10:17:11 +0100, Bella Jones said: > >> Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: >> >>> What are Seagate going to send you in return, a >>> remanufactured/refurbished unit? >> >> Yes. Think so. They are being v strict about correct packaging. > >That seems terribly unreasonable of them. They should be able to accept >it back if it was packaged sufficiently carefully and undamaged. >They're not trying to shirk their returns policy are they? Last time I did a Seagate RMA, they were "Use this packaging or equivalent", so they were pretty reasonable then. Hard drives are delicate goods. Cheers - Jaimie -- Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. |