Which is more reliable - internal notebook HDD or external desktop HDD?

[wearetheborg]

Which option would be better, for drives running 24/7 ? Which one would last longer, have smaller probability of failing ?
Say external drive is in an AMS DS3 enclosure.

 

[corkyg]

Notebooks should not be run 24/7. Their cooling systems are really not designed for that.

Having said that, to say one external would be more "reliable" than a given internal has too many other variables.

Assuming they are exactly the same drives, OEM and size, there is another variable for notebooks.

External notebook drives generally always require separate power, i.e., a small 5 vdc module, or be connected via a powered hub. That introduces two more variables.

Reliability to me is that it always runs and always functions properly.

My experience in this area covers about 10 years worth of 5 notebooks and a half dozen external drives. I have never found any difference in reliability - but I do not run a notebook 24/7.

 

[Thorny]

If your going to run an external HDD in an enclosure, you'll want to make sure it has adequate cooling. Some enclosures will get hot to the touch when left on, and its easy to forget to turn them off since they're on seperate power.

I would say and external drive would be safer than a lappy drive though. You can check out the MTBF on the manufactures website to get a general comparison.


I've personally put a lot more lappy drives in the freezer than full size, if that means anything.

 

[Bobthelost]

I'd go for a 3.5" factor drive with an actively cooled external enclosure, it'll be noisier than any other option, but it's the one i'd put the reliance upon.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I'd go for a 3.5" factor drive with an actively cooled external enclosure, it'll be noisier than any other option, but it's the one i'd put the reliance upon.

There again, we are avoiding answering the question. By having two different types of drives, we are comparing apples and oranges. The question is, assuming the same exact drives, which is the friendlier environment - internal or external in a laptop. That means the question only addresses 2.5-in drives.

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
I'd go for a 3.5" factor drive with an actively cooled external enclosure, it'll be noisier than any other option, but it's the one i'd put the reliance upon.

There again, we are avoiding answering the question. By having two different types of drives, we are comparing apples and oranges. The question is, assuming the same exact drives, which is the friendlier environment - internal or external in a laptop. That means the question only addresses 2.5-in drives.

In the title he says external desktop HDD. By that I assume he means 3.5

 

[corkyg]

You are right! Therefore, the question is somewhat ambiguous and requires an ambiguous answer.

In general, all 3.5-in HDDs are more reliable than 2.5-in ones regradless of where you put them.

Peace!

 

[wearetheborg]

Originally posted by: corkyg
You are right! Therefore, the question is somewhat ambiguous and requires an ambiguous answer.

In general, all 3.5-in HDDs are more reliable than 2.5-in ones regradless of where you put them.

Peace!

Reaaallly - 3.5 ones are more reliable than 2.5 ones ? - thats a surprise. I thought the 2.5 ones were more robust and lasted longer.

 

[corkyg]

Looks like every respondent selected the 3.5" option. Really!

I would be hard put to bet the farm on it, but - look at the MTBF data for each. Presently I have (in service) 8 2.5" drives - 6 of which are in external cases. I have 8 3.5" drives, and all of themn are internals.

I have never had either category fail since my first HDD in 1985 - gee - that's 21 years with out a failure.

Just for an example - the Seagate 120 GB Barracuda (3.5") currently has an MTBF of 60K hours.

The Seagate Momentus (2.5") currently has an MTBF of 60K hours.

I guess it is really 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. But, cooling in a laptop is not as good as a more spacious external case.

 

[wearetheborg]

Originally posted by: corkyg
Notebooks should not be run 24/7. Their cooling systems are really not designed for that.

But is there any difference wrt failure in running a notebook for 7 continuous hours vs running them 24/7 ?

 

[corkyg]

I have run a notebook for over 7 hours, but that is not a common occurrence. I run my desktop 24/7 most of the time. My laptop is off unless I am synchronizing for a trip or actually travelling.

Probably - but then that would depend on how the notbook's power management is set up. If it hibernates and sleeps, it probably makes no difference. All of these variables must be made constant to really do a valid comparison.

Constant running of a laptop is not so much of a hard drive problem as it is in wasting the display's backlight. Then you also have to settle on a laptop's HDD speed. 7200 RPM drives generate more heat than 4200s. 5400s seem to be their current "sweet spot."

Too many variables.

 

[GeekDrew]

I know of several laptops (one being one of my old ones) that ran 24x7 for several years. I've also had a few 2.5" external drives run continuously for years.

Similarly, I've also had a few internal 3.5" drives run 24x7, and a few external 3.5" drives run 24x7.

I've had failures all around, but in general, I've seen external drives, no matter the form factor, fail much more frequently than internal drives.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but Seagate used to offer a 2 year warranty on external 2.5" drives, but 5 years on internal 2.5" drives... and the drive was the exact same model; the only difference was that the external one came inside of an external housing. I assume (be that correctly or no) that they're betting that internal drives will last longer.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: GeekDrewI'm not sure if this is still the case, but Seagate used to offer a 2 year warranty on external 2.5" drives, but 5 years on internal 2.5" drives... and the drive was the exact same model; the only difference was that the external one came inside of an external housing. I assume (be that correctly or no) that they're betting that internal drives will last longer.

Good point GeekDrew. But - how does Seagate know where the drive was when it failed? Example - I have several Seagate 2.5" drives in external housings - but they all came as a result of upgrades to the laptop's internal drive. IOW, all were at one time Internal and then gotshifted by me as they were replaced by bigger drives internally.

If one fails, and I request a replacement under the 5-year warranty, and I provide the laptop's model, etc., how can a distinction be made?

But, I do agree with your logic that Seagate must have a reason for a shorter warranty on externals.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: GeekDrewI'm not sure if this is still the case, but Seagate used to offer a 2 year warranty on external 2.5" drives, but 5 years on internal 2.5" drives... and the drive was the exact same model; the only difference was that the external one came inside of an external housing. I assume (be that correctly or no) that they're betting that internal drives will last longer.

Good point GeekDrew. But - how does Seagate know where the drive was when it failed? Example - I have several Seagate 2.5" drives in external housings - but they all came as a result of upgrades to the laptop's internal drive. IOW, all were at one time Internal and then gotshifted by me as they were replaced by bigger drives internally.

If one fails, and I request a replacement under the 5-year warranty, and I provide the laptop's model, etc., how can a distinction be made?

But, I do agree with your logic that Seagate must have a reason for a shorter warranty on externals.

I personally buy internal 2.5" hard drives, and enclosures, and make my own external hard drive. That's how I have 5 year warranties on my external drives.

 

[Zepper]

Mechanically, notebook drives are more rugged (if you are planning on dropping it frequently) and use some higher temp rated components. And they are generally significantly slower. If I was selecting a drive for use in an external enclosure, I'd be buying a 3.5" PATA internal drive and mounting it in an enclosure of my choosing (mainly on the $$/GB factor). Just be careful with it - I'd be surprised if either wouldn't last 5 years (on average) if not dropped or thrown and kept reasonably cool. If you're using it for a backup drive, I'd rotate the drive out on a 4 to 5 year cycle. That should be no problem at all.

Listen to me talk.. Some of the drives I'm still using in my machine on a daily basis are pre-2000 and still ticking along with nary a bad sector - that's SCSI for you. And I've got my Linux on an ancient 4.5GB, 5400 rpm Fujitsu IDE drive.

.bh.

 

[corkyg]

Zepper - if you get a chance, please add a comment on this thread:

800