4 ms·
Anyone have a reason why the WD30EFRX has such poor reliability in their last table? Granted it's a smaller sample size. Only asking 'cause it's my main data h
by porker 10y ago
Anyone have a reason why the WD30EFRX has such poor reliability in their last table? Granted it's a smaller sample size.
Only asking 'cause it's my main data hard drive...
- pfarnsworth 10y agoYeah unfortunately 4/5 of my drives are those as well... gulp...
- devonkim 10y agoIIRC 3TB drives were among the newer drives commercially available at retail when the flooding happened in Thailand and all retail drives were impacted negatively. Furthermore, aggregate capacity is only one factor in the design of a hard drive and most 3TB drives were made in a manner that reduces reliability (more platters of same capacity or fewer platters with greater individual platter capacity, can't quite remember which unfortunately). I don't see why a manufacturer would put the newest technology into product lines that are older so I'd presume that 3TB drives are among the greatest in number of platters and the extra components contributes to the failure rate. Among the least reliable drives I saw in previous reports were Seagate 3TB drives (supposedly they had worse reliability than the legendary IBM Deathstars) and after reading about how 3TB drives were designed across manufacturers years ago during the flooding crisis I decided to avoid 3TB drives entirely. Seems like my decision is finally getting some data to back it up now in hindsight (no pun intended).
- caf 10y agoThe smaller sample size is accounted for by the width of the confidence interval, which is 5.2% - 7.1%; even the low end of that still looks pretty bad.