9 gig drives
RON HORNER
bad things about them. Is there anyone here that has some experience
with these drives. Let me know you opinion about them.
Thanks!
Shawn Gordon
replaced, but no problems with the others.
RON HORNER <RHO...@AMGUSA.COM> on 01/14/99 07:32:38 AM
Please respond to RON HORNER <RHO...@AMGUSA.COM>
To: HP30...@RAVEN.UTC.EDU
cc: (bcc: Shawn Gordon/IS/FHM/FHS)
Subject: 9 gig drives
Michael L Gueterman
drive almost two years ago and with the exception of a power supply going
bad on me in the external case, the drive itself has performed fine dince
day one.
Regards,
Michael L Gueterman
Easy Does It Technologies
Allaire Alliance Partner
email: M_Gue...@editcorp.com
http://www.editcorp.com
voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (509) 943-5108
fax: (509) 946-1170
--
Trudeau, James L
Got ten of them. After oh, say umm, six months one died and it's
replacement died 3-4 months later.
Other than that, all is well.
jt
On Thursday, January 14, 1999 9:33 AM, RON HORNER [SMTP:RHO...@AMGUSA.COM]
wrote:
Strunk, Kara K
installed them the same time we implemented Mirror/IX and our system
performance was disastrous. We have 16 pair of 9 gig drives in our user
volume set mirrored. (We know this is too many and working breaking up the
volume set.) We've lost about 4 disks in 5 months. (2 in one day while the
mirrors were re-syncing which required a system reload from tape.) We've
also found that if we have any user files on the Master pair of our user
volume set system performance is unacceptable. We've been using MPEX to
move all files from the Master to other disks. Then build big empty files
on the Master to keep other files from being written to it. (This was the
best advice experts at HP could give us.)
But, we've been told repeatedly that our experience is not typical.
Kara Strunk
Stru...@maritz.com <mailto:Stru...@maritz.com>
Neil Harvey
It's very worrying. I don't mind a disk that's DOA - that is just
annoying and inconvenient.
But disks that die after a few weeks/months in production really upset
me.
I must say, we haven't had trouble with the few 9GB drives we've
installed, but we've lost a lot of 4's and before that 2's at various
sites.
What is it with these babies? Are handling them roughly, is the power
bad? Dust in the computer rooms?
Or could just be that a few years ago, we each only had three drives,
and now we all have 30?
How on earth do they continue to work in laptops?
It's worth putting new drives through "hell" before relying on them in a
production environment.
Set them up initially in a "test" private volume, and thrash the "****"
out of them with copy jobs and sort work files.
Then switch them off and on over and over, and thrash them again.
I know this is futile, but you'll feel better :)
Regards
Neil
Donna Garverick
> Got ten of them. After oh, say umm, six months one died and it's replacement
> died 3-4 months later.
> Other than that, all is well.
Michael Gueterman wrote:
> I'm not much of a test case here, but I installed a Seagate 9.1GB
> drive almost two years ago and with the exception of a power supply going
> bad on me in the external case, the drive itself has performed fine dince
> day one.
>
...and then there was kara's story <sob> and some of you may recall that it was
a 9gb drive i lost last year about this time on a machine that had never been
backed-up <blush>....
it can't tell you how many 9gb drives we (all of longs) have -- it's a large,
non-trivial number. iMo, i feel like we've not gotten a satisfactory answer
from hp about why these seagate drives are flakey. i've heard mention of
problems with the power supplies (i'd insist on redundant power supplies!).
what i think i'm seeing consistently is an early failure on these drives --
something along the lines of <6 months. if you make it thru the first 6
months, then you're probably ok <knock, knock>. one thing to keep in mind,
however, is spindle counts. i'm in the process of adding more 'jamaica' drives
to my 995 and 957. we elected to go with 4.3 drives because we have the
*perception* that they're more reliable, i've got a higher spindle count and
less to restore if i lose a drive. a jamaica fully-populated with 9gb drives
gives ~36gb of total storage. to fill the enclosure with 4.3gb drives yields
~34gb -- a very small difference.
so there's probably not a definative answer and a whole bunch of ymmv :-)
hth - d
--
Donna Garverick Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631 dgarv...@longs.com
>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<
Patrick Santucci
> a jamaica fully-populated with 9gb drives
> gives ~36gb of total storage. to fill the enclosure with 4.3gb drives yields
> ~34gb -- a very small difference.
We have lots of the 4GB drives (which HP insists on labelling 4.3GB) in
Jamica boxes, and just got our first set of 9 GB drives. Guess what?
Their half-height, same size as the 4GB, so "fully populated" now means
you could put 8 of 'em in a Jamaica box and have a whopping 72GB of
disc...
Except, from what I can see, the 9GB drives (labelled 9.1 GB) are really
only 8.48 GB. This means a fully populated Jamaica box with 8 "9.1"GB
drives would yield 67.84 GB of disk space. At least, by my calculations:
At 256 bytes per sector, 4 sectors = 1024 bytes or 1k
35566208 sectors / 4 = 8891552.00 KB
8891552.00 KB / 1024 = 8683.16 MB
8683.16 MB / 1024 = 8.48 GB
therefore:
8.48 GB x 8 = 67.84 GB
Using this same formula (16776624 sectors/4/1024/1024) the 4.3 GB disks
come out to 4.00 GB. So a Jamaica box fully populated with these babies
gives you 32.00 GB, not 34.
<second-guess mode>
Or am I doing something wrong? 2^10 = 1024 or 1KB, right? And (2^10)^2
= 1048576 or 1 MB, which is the same as 1024^2, right? Please correct me
if I'm wrong on the math! (I won't take it personally; I'll blame Excel.
:-)
</second-guess mode>
Patrick
--
Patrick Santucci
Technical Services Systems Programmer
KVI, a division of Seabury & Smith, Inc.
Visit our site! http://www.kvi-ins.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If they try to rush me, I always say, 'I've only got
one other speed -- and it's slower.'" ~ Glenn Ford
Dirickson Robert S (Steve)
> bad things about them. Is there anyone here that has some experience
> with these drives. Let me know you opinion about them.
The first-generation of half-height (1.625-inch, 9-10 platter) 9GB drives
had some problems, particularly if they did not receive adequate cooling.
Later-model 1-inch-high 4-6 platter drives have been much more reliable. I'm
running a variety of 1-inch-high 9GB drives from Quantum, WD, and Seagate in
various machines, and have had no problems.
Steve
Genute, Thomas
72Gb. I have had three of these fully populated Jamaica units in production
for 3-4 months and have not experienced any problems.
Tom Genute
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Santucci
[mailto:patrick....@KVI-INS.COM]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 4:04 PM
To: HP30...@RAVEN.UTC.EDU
Subject: Re: 9 gig drives