Separate HD for OS = Longer lifespan?

[craige4u]

I was wondering if I should get a separate HDD strictly for the OS & a few programs like MS office, Antivirus. The only reason to ask this question is to know if I can increase the life of both the HD if I go with this route.

As for the data I will connect another 2TB HD.

Please keep this discussion to lifespan only. No performance OR SSD talks plz!

 

[rsutoratosu]

I dont even know how to measure lifespan of a drive, they'll give you the MTBF but it doesn't mean much because I see drives fail a week out of the box up to years without failure. I mean I dealt with enterprise sas drives that not even suppose to fail but I had to RMA a few of them because the smart error kicked in.

Usually separate drive is between os and data is good because if your os fails to boot you can just replace that instead of trying to get your data out.. but either way your data drive may fail also

 

[fffblackmage]

If anything, having two drives might increase the chance that one will fail, and I don't think that a relatively lighter load will extend their lifespan.

I have two drives mostly just for the ease of reformatting. Any performance gains is secondary. I never even thought it might extend lifespan.

 

[KingFatty]

I wonder if you will cause harm by doubling the heat output, and warming both drives up more than just one drive alone?

Although, you could set the non-OS drive to spin-down, so it would spend most of its lifetime in a non-use state. You think that would prolong its lifetime, but is there an opposite effect of causing more wear by spinning up/down all the time?

What reduces lifetime the most, constant usage, or heat, or spin-up and spin-down?

 

[craige4u]

Yeah, i think HD life gets short on every boot, as it involves loads of I/O process, hence i am thinking to buy a 250GB HD install OS on it and another 2TB for Data.

As it can be expensive to replace a 2TB HD (Segate reduced warrenty to 1 yr only thts why)

 

[blckgrffn]

Yeah, two drives / MTBF = failure is more assured, really. It's like RAID 0, except you have different data on different drives.

If you are serious about "reliability", get two matched 2TB drives and put them in a RAID 1. Space them out in your case and use a fan to cool them. Theoretically you should never lose data this way (due to drive failure, of course )

 

[rsutoratosu]

Consider nearline or enterprise storage ie seagate constellation es, they still carry 3yr warranty and are made for 24/7 operation.

But still, i had es drive fail as well, so to me, its all advertisement and stuff... I just have backups and stuff

 

[dma0991]

I have two drives mostly just for the ease of reformatting. Any performance gains is secondary. I never even thought it might extend lifespan.

This.

Lifespan is something that you would have to take your chances. It could DOA or malfunction 5 years later. The only form of protection against data loss is to do constant backups to a secondary drive.

 

[blckgrffn]

This.

Lifespan is something that you would have to take your chances. It could DOA or malfunction 5 years later. The only form of protection against data loss is to do constant backups to a secondary drive.

This. RAID for availability and PITA factor, backups for data integrity. Backups are the really critical piece, RAID is just really really nice when it works for you. It depends on how much you value your time and how risky you like to be.

 

[craige4u]

Okay I understand using a separate HD for OS wont lead to increase in HD lifespan.

blckgrffn Says - "Yeah, two drives / MTBF = failure is more assured, really. It's like RAID 0, except you have different data on different drives"

What do you mean? Suppose i have a 2TB HD and then I add another 1TB HD to increase space.. I will automatically increase my HD failure chances ? as it will be a RAID 0 Setup ?

 

[Bad ConNecTioN]

He's saying that the more drives you have the more chances for failure their are. Unlike Raid 0 however, two separate drives are a safer bet, as you will only loose the data on the individual drive that fails, unlike Raid 0 where failure of either drive corrupts data on the entire raid array.

Either way, a separate OS drive will make a marginal impact on the lifespan of either drive in the system. The only reason you would want a separate OS drive is for increased performance. Perhaps use a small SSD to boot windows from, and keep your conventional hard drive for raw storage.

 

[exdeath]

Not worth worrying about unless for performance (separate spindles, more heads).

If you're looking for reliability, use the second drive for a RAID1 or as a backup drive.

 

[blckgrffn]

He's saying that the more drives you have the more chances for failure their are. Unlike Raid 0 however, two separate drives are a safer bet, as you will only loose the data on the individual drive that fails, unlike Raid 0 where failure of either drive corrupts data on the entire raid array.

Either way, a separate OS drive will make a marginal impact on the lifespan of either drive in the system. The only reason you would want a separate OS drive is for increased performance. Perhaps use a small SSD to boot windows from, and keep your conventional hard drive for raw storage.

Right, exactly. If you have one drive with a 10% failure rate, and you add another drive with 10% failure rate (from my bum #'s, btw) I believe the math means you are basically doubling your chances for a drive failure (20% in this case.)

There are some great RAID reliability calculators out there where you can compare JBOD/RAID 0/RAID 1/RAID 5/RAID 6/RAID 10 etc. and their impact on your likelyhood of drive failure. In nearly all cases add more drives increases your exposure to drive failure.

RAID 1 eliminates this (nearly).

As also mentioned, two drives gives you more IO and that is one of the reasons people do it, not longevity of either drive.