[mythtv-users] BE Disk / Filesystem Layout
ryan.goat at gmail.com
Tue Apr 17 21:09:16 UTC 2007
On 4/17/07, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:15 AM, ryan patterson wrote:
> A five year warranty is not marketing. A five year warranty is a five
> year warranty. I can't talk about seagate in particular, but I have gotten
> six different hard drives replaced under warranty. I switched to SCSI years
> ago primarily because of the longer warranty for SCSI drives. The longer
> warranty is the primary reason why SCSI is more expensive not hardware
> cost. For a harddrive that will be powered on as much as a MythTV drive the
> longer warranty is very important.
> For you it apparently is. For me, if an 80 or 120GB drive that I had
> purchased 3 or 4 years ago failed I would just replace it with a larger one,
> even if it was still "under warranty". It's just not worth the hassle, plus
> the shipping cost, for a drive I could buy today for $35. The shipping might
> cost me $20 so I would be "saving" $15 in order to get an obsolete
> small-capacity drive, just not worth it. Remember too, if you read your
> warranty, that the maker has the right to "replace" your drive with a used
> one, not a new one, and you do not get any additional warranty beyond your
> original purchase.
> Today's 500GB drives might be different, but I doubt it. I suspect that in
> 3 to 5 years they will be available just as cheaply as the 80-120GB units
> There might be factors that change this picture. Small form-factor drives
> carry a price premium, and if you are outside the USA the financial
> situation might well be different.
> There are certainly differences between high-end SCSI drives and consumer
> IDE/SATA units other than the warranty. You could start with a 15,000 RPM
> rotational speed. If you wish to believe the differences are only in the
> warranty then there's not really much I can do to change that belief though.
> If you have had to replace 6 drives under warranty I'd seriously consider
> another vendor.
> The bottom line is that I don't want a warranty replacement, I want a
> drive that doesn't need to be replaced, and I'm happy to pay for that.
I said the warranty is the PRIMARY reason SCSI drives are more expensive. I
never said it was the only reason. Why do you want to compare a 15k RPM SCSI
drive against a regular IDE (do you actually mean ATA) drive? That is like
comparing a Ford focus against a Chevy corvette and saying all Chevys are
expensive because they are all sportscars.
I really don't understand your logic about how you would rather just buy a
new drive then get a warranty replacement. If you ever used RAID you would
know that when a drive fails there is no point in replacing it with a larger
drive. All the extra space will be wasted. Also the warranty applies to
the replacement drive too. Why do you think it wouldn't?
All hard drive manufacturers make drives that fail. There is no company
that makes a drive that is guarantied to not be replaced. So even though
you would be happy to pay for that, you can't. If you plan on upgrading to
a newer hard drive in a year or two then by all means buy a cheap one with a
short warranty. There is nothing wrong with that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mythtv-users