Is it true that small HD's (<100) are more reliable than 200+ ?

[Osteole]

 

[Crescent13]

I seriously doubt that. I had a 30gb drive die on me after about a year (lappy drive), but I also have a 160GB drive that is still running strong after 2+ years. Both were created at about the same time.

 

[suicidalpigeon]

doesnt always depend on the manufacture/size. the way people use it can contribute to the failure as well as getting a bad unit of the bunch.

 

[GreyMittens]

All I know from personal experience over the last 15 years is to stay away from maxtor 🙂

 

[Kevlar Coated Tent]

Well really the main thing is going to be the quality of manufacturing/parts used.
But in theory higher density means its more likely to fail/get damaged/corrupt but most drives should be reliable enough to not worry about that, well you'd hope.

 

[Gannon]

I really hope flash becomes a viable storage medium alternative to hard disks, but I don't think they will ever match the data density and cost per Gbyte.

 

[Pariah]

More platters, means more points for failure. So, technically, yes, smaller capacity drives should be more reliable. Real world, the difference is probably so close to nil as to not matter.

 

[Auric]

I would suppose that newer, higher density drives generally make use of improved technology and these are not made in small capacities since they would be unsellable at the insignificantly lower price they could be offered at. So, with technology and quality being equalivalent, overall capacity could not be a factor so much as the number of parts so that a single patter with a single read/write head is ever so slighty more reliable than three platters with six read/write heads. In any case, it is generally recommended to choose drives with the lowest number of platters for the required capacity since it suggests the best performance (highest density) and lowest noise.

 

[quackerww]

I have to agree maxtor is utter rubbish, do not ever buy them. Even if you have a gun to your face and they are selling them for a $1 each..

 

[Trevante]

Eh, you get some good ones and you get some bad ones. I have a 200GB maxtor in my gateway from 2003. Still going strong. Have a 250GB Maxtor in my xbox which is still running just fine. Hell, I have a 20GB maxtor from a 5 year old computer that is still going. My 300GB Seagate (in my current computer) already started showing signs of failure in less than 3 months :-\.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Pariah
More platters, means more points for failure. So, technically, yes, smaller capacity drives should be more reliable. Real world, the difference is probably so close to nil as to not matter.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: asadasif

Originally posted by: Pariah
More platters, means more points for failure. So, technically, yes, smaller capacity drives should be more reliable. Real world, the difference is probably so close to nil as to not matter.

Unless you compare a highly dense three platter 240Gig hard-drive to a less dense five platter 100Gig hard-drive.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: asadasif

Originally posted by: Pariah
More platters, means more points for failure. So, technically, yes, smaller capacity drives should be more reliable. Real world, the difference is probably so close to nil as to not matter.

Unless you compare a highly dense three platter 240Gig hard-drive to a less dense five platter 100Gig hard-drive.

I'm still not sure the lower-density drive would be more reliable in that case. You might be less likely to experience random data corruption, but the drive motor and the actuators on the read/write heads will have to work harder in the five-platter model (unless it is also a lower-RPM drive). And these are the parts that are most likely to fail or have problems.

As for the original question: basically, the real-world difference in reliability is likely to be indistinguishable.

 

[Tennoh]

Well I just had a Maxtor 20Gb HD die on me yesterday. So I don't tend to think size matters. Warranty expired 1yr ago 11/04. So far all drives that I have died on me have been Maxtor.

 

[gsellis]

This will really fall to model specific instead of size specific. Also, smaller drives have had a longer period of minor revisions to improve their reliability, IF they are still being manufactured.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Pariah
More platters, means more points for failure. So, technically, yes, smaller capacity drives should be more reliable. Real world, the difference is probably so close to nil as to not matter.

More components = more chance at failure.

Old 40GB drives used to have 3-4 platters. New 40GB drives only have 1 platter.

 

[CZroe]

I've RMA'd my old 60GB IBM Deskstar 60GXP four times and never got a working unit (The last one was DOA).

Of course, you must factor in what generation the drive is and not simply the capacity. At 60GB in 2001 it was one of the drives pushing the platter-density limit at that time. It was higher density than the 5-platter "Deathstar" 75GXP. Higher density = more fragile. More platters = more fragile. Higher RPM = more fragile. You can still find new 5400RPM OEM drives and you can investigate platter densities to make a wise decision if reliability is the #1 issue.

Also, laptop drives are generally reliable though I've had so many Travelstar drives die within days of use that I wouldn't buy one.

 

[firewall]

Seagate 40GB hasn't failed me after years of use. I have shifted over to a Samsung 200GB now and it has worked perfectly till yet.

 

[DEredita]

The only hard drive failure I ever had was a Western Digital Raptor drive. I've used Maxtors over the years, while none failed - some of them got louder over the years.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Pariah
More platters, means more points for failure. So, technically, yes, smaller capacity drives should be more reliable. Real world, the difference is probably so close to nil as to not matter.

More components = more chance at failure.

Old 40GB drives used to have 3-4 platters. New 40GB drives only have 1 platter.

That's what I said. More platters means more points of failure. You would be hard pressed to find a 3 platter 40GB drive for sale today. Without looking at every currently available drive, I doubt any manufacturers are selling lower capacities ATA desktop drives with higher platter counts than higher capacities drives, making it not necessary to make that distinction. The closest you will get is the possibility of companies selling single capacities with multiple platter counts.