Re: [tlug] Seagate Sudden Death....

["Lyle (Hiroshi) Saxon" <ronfaxon@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>Currently (of recent models; I've got at least one 10-year-old drive
>still in R/O service for archives---why throw it out when it's still a
>lot faster than the CDs they're backed up to?) I only have IBM drives
>in operation and one IBM on the shelf.  Why IBM, I don't know---I just
>buy what's cheap, keep a stock (by buying two smaller drives instead
>of one big one), and stay away from new technology (eg, when spindle
>RPMs get bumped, I wait until the fast speed has 20% of the market,
>etc).  I would guess this costs me about 20-30% more than thorough
>purchase cost minimization, but I don't see how to improve on the TCO,
>including "my time" and "my peace of mind".
>
>I'm not recommending this pattern to anyone else (in particular, many
>people care more about performance than I do), but it works for me.  I
>thought Jake Morrison's post was an excellent one in the same vein.
>

Thank you for explaining your setup.  It makes sense to me!  After 
buying two Seagate drives at about the same time (one of which is the 
one I've been writing about) I bought several IBM/Hitachi (a couple were 
labeled IBM just before they sold the hard drive division to Hitachi and 
the others say Hitachi), with the same DeskStar(?) product name.  
Hopefully those IBM drives (one 80GB and the rest 120GB) will hold out 
for a bit ....  There are also some ancient computers running other 
things, like a Micron with an 8GB Fujitsu drive and a Hitachi with a 
10GB Fujitsu drive.  I'm now debating what to put in the machine that's 
running the temporary Maxtor 10GB drive......

Lyle