I'm in the process of replacing my backup drive as I type this. It struck me that this is my 3rd replacement drive in about 5 years. Granted, it's not replacing a drive that's been replaced before, none of them were. But I'm starting to suspect I'm hard on drives.

About the only unusual thing I might suspect is I have a large number of very large (>1gb) files. Do large files "wear out" a hard drive faster than the same storage amount of smaller files?

Doug, I do not think so. Drives are mechanical and have a target life span of so many rotations or hours of operation. Probably the best thing you could do to prolong the drives life is to put it to sleep when not in use for prolonged periods of time (>20 mins). If you allow them to spin during all the system idle time, you are just wearing out the mechanics faster.
Regards, Murray

That could very well be it. One of the first things I do whenever I buy a new computer or reinstall an OS is go in and turn off all power-saving features (they tend to kick in during long operations such as rendering, etc.).

Doug, Google researchers examined hard drive failure rates. A brief summary of that study can be found here.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/18/massive-google-hard-drive-survey-turns-up-very-interesting-thing/



The full Google report is here

http://209.85.163.132/papers/disk_failures.pdf

Pete

Doug, Having files, or not having files of any size on a drive makes absolutely no difference to the life of the hard drive. What wears a hard drive out is caused by the spinning of the platter, the bearings may wear out, or the drive may be worn by the read/write heads if the bounce on the surface of the platter. Not so much of a problem as it used to be, but it can happen. Other than that, normal electronic failures in the control components. That is the reason that backups are so important. The other thing that happens is that over time the platter can loose its ability to hold a magnetic field. This usually happens in very tiny regions, that will cause sectors to go bad. This is usually the worse in areas that get rewritten the most. Areas that have static files stored there will have the least loss. Usually the areas that are written the least, but read the most are areas that contain the OS.

Also, remember, and photo stored on the hard drive is no different to the computer than any other file type. It doesn't matter if it is a program, or a graphic. To the computer, it is still just a data string of 1s and 0s. So storing a large photo, is no different that storing a large program file, such as Photoshop, or a large word document.

So the important thing is, backup, backup, backup!

I hope that this helps.

The google study was fascinating. I wish they'd release their final choice for drives, but it probably wouldn't be a surprise.

My understanding is that it has nothing to do with sizes of files, as much as it does how much reading and writing is done to the drive over it's life which determines it's life.

Problem is, that as our lives become more and more computer integrated, we need some bulletproof back up options....with archival life expectancies.

Doug, here is a reaction to that Google study.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070225-8917.html


One of the comments that i found interesting was that hard drive manufacturers have little economic motive to produce highly reliable drives. Hard drives have become disposable commodities with a two year life---

Doug, De-fragmenting the drive every now and again is supposed to help with lifespan too, If you're anything like me deleting files all over the place and adding new one's all the time some of the newer lager files can end up spread right across the disk making the drive work harder to access them, mind you i don't do it much but I'm pretty hard on drives too.

Hi doug,
well this is my 2 cents worth... first 3 drives in 5 years... something not kosher.... with the exception of 1 drive... it was about 3 years old, all of my other drives has lasted at least 5 years..... call me lucky, call me fortunate but that my experience..!! and looking at my friends... they have had a similar experience.... even my old 20meg and 40 meg hd lasted ....lol......
note: my hard drive on my other old win98 system HD is about 9 years old and still running.....

size of files... I don't think that that would effect the longivity much... especially since with winxp your always working large system files to begin with.... nothing unusal really

on your issue.. I would take a closer look at the hd manufacturer and the particular model you keep buying.... some models just don't last as long or built as well as others....

if your buying more or less generic HD.... and if there made in china or india... I would avoid those...

another thing i would look at... especially in your case... HD manufacturers will have there own gurantee.... now some models will only have a 2 or 3 year guarentee... but the ones I always bought generally had a 4 or 5 year guarentee....
note: if this last one only has a year or two.. give the hd manufacture a call and find out specifically what there guarenttee is... they may give you a new free one ...!!

so I guess what i am saying... on your next replacement... do a search on the net.... for that model your going to get and see if there any trend on it longivity.... well that my 2 cents worth... good luck



I'm in the process of replacing my backup drive as I type this. It struck me that this is my 3rd replacement drive in about 5 years. Granted, it's not replacing a drive that's been replaced before, none of them were. But I'm starting to suspect I'm hard on drives.

About the only unusual thing I might suspect is I have a large number of very large (>1gb) files. Do large files "wear out" a hard drive faster than the same storage amount of smaller files?

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=84

Very good article concerning hard drives and the myths that surround them.

Excellent myths article. Thanks.