Dovoljan je broj korisnika svakog imena HDD-a, za formiranje vojske ljudi koja se kune u svoj izbor. Briga kuma Gojka sto mu u firmi pljuju po Max-u kad njemu doma vec 3-ca generacija kupljenog Maxtora radi kako treba. Isto tako misli i Stjepan X - zanimanje konspirator - o svome Seagate-u. Ni Verica Glukozovsky, sa trenutnim prebivalistem u Kopaoniku, takodjer vec 13-u godinu ne stedi hvale za svoj izbor Seagate. Sto je zajednicko ovom timu? Svi su zadovoljni svojim izborom.
Ta prenosna komponenta odluke je vecini puno vaznija od prica koje kolaju, bile skroz tocno ili paušalne. Cini se da na to jos uvjek racunaju i proizvodjaci. Ali ipak, po onoj mudroj
Jedino Znam Da Nista Neznam, katkad se izvan uopcenih storija pojavi i ona koju doista mozemo uzeti kao izvrstan pokazatelj ove tvrdnje :
Google je napravio mini studiju/rad koju je i objavio u par manjih dijelova. Integralna je ovdje :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Izuzetno zanimljiva stvar je u tome sto su SVI koristeni HDD-i, od stotine tisuca (!) upravo konzumentski i od svakog proizvodjaca bez razlike ili posebne selekcije.
Ono sto Google ing-ovi tvrde potpuno relativizira sve uobicajene prakse (koje cu i dalje provoditi, barem iz navike) i radnje kojima se trudimo osigurati toj limariji sto bolje uvjete za rad.
Postoji i manji video uradak ali nije mi pri ruci dok pisem. Nemogu naci ni glavni link. Ali ovo ce vam biti i vise nego dovoljno :
It ain't smart to rely on SMART
Google studied a hundred thousand SATA and PATA drives with between 80 and 400GB storage and 5400 to 7200rpm, and while unfortunately they didn't call out specific brands or models that had high failure rates, they did find a few interesting patterns in failing hard drives. One of those we thought was most intriguing was that drives often needed replacement for issues that SMART drive status polling didn't or couldn't determine, and 56% of failed drives did not raise any significant SMART flags (and that's interesting, of course, because SMART exists solely to survey hard drive health); other notable patterns showed that failure rates are indeed definitely correlated to drive manufacturer, model, and age;failure rates did not correspond to drive usage except in very young and old drives (i.e. heavy data "grinding" is not a significant factor in failure); and there is less correlation between drive temperature and failure rates than might have been expected, and drives that are cooled excessively actually fail more often than those running a little hot.