Keeping a healthy hard drive

[GoNz0]

dont go and do the /r then, takes forever

 

[LeeJend]

Coathangar

I've got to ask - what are you using your PC for?

Because in 15 years of gaming, engineering analysis, graphics work and general usage I haven't had a HD die on me.

The one that got flaky was a Seagate that developed a high pitched whine, but that was 16 years ago (and my last Seagate).

I don't do anything special to care for them -
Defrag once every couple of weeks but thats it.
I did finally put a fan in to cool the HDs when I went to my WD 120 gig 7200 w/8m cache last month.

 

[Gus K]

your so wrong, open the command prompt and type chkdsk /?

Am I missing something here? I see no mention of Scandisk, just chkdsk.

From XP Newsgroups FAQ's:

Q. What happened to ScanDisk?

A. Windows XP contains an improved disk utility called Check Disk, so ScanDisk is no longer necessary.
To start Check Disk

1. Open My Computer, right-click a drive, and then click Properties.
2. On the Tools tab, under Error-checking, click Check Now

To check a particular drive from the command prompt, add the drive letter after the command, for example, chkdsk c: and the check will be limited to that drive.

 

[GoNz0]

they renamed it for the NT kernal, its a far better scandisk than the 1 you get with 95/98/me

under the GUI xp version it's just called error checking, theres no auto scan after a system crash like the 98 version as NTFS file security will allow you to reboot even with a corrupt sector, i had a major slowdown this week, mabey dure to a crash i had, running the chkdsk /r command found the problem and fixed it

i know it aint called scandisk, mabey the m$ guys were bored when they did it ? or felt like it was time for a name change LOL..

after all, this is the same bunch that released the tweakomatic..

 

[Gus K]

i know it aint called scandisk, mabey the m$ guys were bored when they did it ? or felt like it was time for a name change LOL..

Well that's not what you said when you decided I was so wrong (which I was not). Chkdsk has been improved, but it has been around since the earliest incarnation of DOS.

 

[Friend of Bill]

The primary killer of hard drives is heat. Also, performing repeated Gutmann wipes will cause some wear and tear on hard drives.

 

[coathanger007]

I used to download and install heaps of software but I don't think that's the problem. Problem is heat. My 2 HDDs were right beside each other. Now I have the floppy between them. Though a lot of heat is still generated because there are no gaps between drives. I'm not sure if overclocking affected my HDDs previously. Now I have a PCI RAID controller and PCI frequency is overclocked. Good thing is HDDs have long warrranty periods

 

[ghayes]

"This shortens HD life. And so does defrag."

????

Where did you come up with this?

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

 

[GoNz0]

basic physics 1 on 1 aint it greg ? the more you use somthing with moving parts the more it wears out ?, unless of course they invented the friction free drive, then there would be no more heat than room temp would there.

 

[leedogg]

If you leave ur pc on 24/7 then you might want to enable turn off hard disks in power management.

 

[coathanger007]

Originally posted by GoNz0
basic physics 1 on 1 aint it greg ? the more you use somthing with moving parts the more it wears out ?, unless of course they invented the friction free drive, then there would be no more heat than room temp would there.

I believe its Flash RamDisk - look here:
http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm

 

[GoNz0]

but thats no hard drive, its a large flash card, no moving parts.

 

[coathanger007]

The way of the future

 

[Petros]

A good power supply doesn't hurt, too. Cheap ones often deliver power spikes that may not cause catastrophic failure, but cause a lot of wear on components inside your hard drive (resistors, circuits, etc).

 

[ToronadoXP]

Originally posted by coathanger007
Don't reboot your PC or Shut down and turn on more than necessary. This shortens HD life. And so does defrag.

Actually rebooting and shutting down the hard drives isnt such a bad thing. I shut my computer down thruought the day. I have a IBM 120GXP in my other computer and I've had it for a 1 1/2 years. No problems/noises. My friend leaves his pc on all the time and he wonders why is hard drive goes out every few months. He bought the same drive I have and has had about....5 rma's on that specific drive. Some manufactur's sugest only running for a max of 8 hours a day.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by ToronadoXP
Actually rebooting and shutting down the hard drives isnt such a bad thing. I shut my computer down thruought the day. I have a IBM 120GXP in my other computer and I've had it for a 1 1/2 years. No problems/noises. My friend leaves his pc on all the time and he wonders why is hard drive goes out every few months. He bought the same drive I have and has had about....5 rma's on that specific drive. Some manufactur's sugest only running for a max of 8 hours a day.

actually hdd's are tested to a specified lifespan... the number of times you turn it on and off should not matter as much as the expcted hrs of operation...

there is a difference...

also if anyone is saying only use an hdd for a few hrs a day... that sounds a little off since its ludicrous to place limits on computer equipment like that...

 

[ghayes]

"basic physics 1 on 1 aint it greg ? the more you use somthing with moving parts the more it wears out ?, "

Then that would leave you in a catch-22 situation. Fragmentation caused extra hard drive seeks - which according to your explaination would reduce the life of the drive. However, if you defragment so that extra hard drive seeks are eliminated, by the very act of defragmenting you are incurring extra seeks and therefore reduce the life of the hard drive. Catch-22.

That would also mean that actually using your hard drive will itself reduce its life - to ensure maximum hard drive life you would need to keep web browsing to a minimum, keep downloads to a minimum, only access files if it is absolutely necessary, etc...

I'm not buying your argument. Life expectancy of hard drives is far beyond what you need to worry about "incurring extra seeks"

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

 

[U2Penn]

Originally posted by coathanger007
Don't reboot your PC or Shut down and turn on more than necessary. This shortens HD life. And so does defrag.

I can understand maybe that excessive defragging can tress the HD but why is rebooting and shutting down ur pc hard on ur HD? Usually the only time I reboot is when I do a Microsoft Critical update.

 

[U2Penn]

ok, i'm a little late with the previous post...got the answers from above. thanks.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by GHayes
[BThen that would leave you in a catch-22 situation. Fragmentation caused extra hard drive seeks - which according to your explaination would reduce the life of the drive. However, if you defragment so that extra hard drive seeks are eliminated, by the very act of defragmenting you are incurring extra seeks and therefore reduce the life of the hard drive. Catch-22.
"

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems
[/B]

so there is a paradox Greg.

while I buy the paradox you present, I don't buy the diskeeper moto;

"you must defrag everyday"

this is defiantly in a counter productive practice.

so, as far as you can see (the NT file sty stem as the caveat in your remark):

what is the point of "diminishing returns" as to the percentage a hardrive needs to be fragmented to notice a performance hit, vs
wear and tear that is not called for on a hardrive.

For I do have the anecdotal evidence where everyone I know that defrags as a daily routine has had more hardrive failures then those that have not.