What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives
-
-
I've always liked Google's take on the "it broke". It's marked as broken in the management layer and ignored till the entire data center gets a hardware refresh.
-
@travisdh1 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
I've always liked Google's take on the "it broke". It's marked as broken in the management layer and ignored till the entire data center gets a hardware refresh.
That seems insane... I mean I know there systems are that reliable, but dang.... to just ignore it because it would take "to much" to fix just sounds insane.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
@travisdh1 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
I've always liked Google's take on the "it broke". It's marked as broken in the management layer and ignored till the entire data center gets a hardware refresh.
That seems insane... I mean I know there systems are that reliable, but dang.... to just ignore it because it would take "to much" to fix just sounds insane.
This might have changed by now. I remember this from when they first publicly released information about their two data centers (yeah, I remember when they were that small.) They were using all white box microATX boards, two per 1u of rack space. No cases, just something for the boards to sit on. It was insanity.
-
I have some pretty old machines in production atm and rarely do i have to replace drives. Maybe two or three a year tops.
-
And when they do fail we just replace the machines, we do not bother with replacing since there are so old.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
@travisdh1 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
I've always liked Google's take on the "it broke". It's marked as broken in the management layer and ignored till the entire data center gets a hardware refresh.
That seems insane... I mean I know there systems are that reliable, but dang.... to just ignore it because it would take "to much" to fix just sounds insane.
Not as crazy as you might think. Machines fail rarely, machines are cheap, labour is expensive... it can make sense.
-
@travisdh1 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
@DustinB3403 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
@travisdh1 said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
I've always liked Google's take on the "it broke". It's marked as broken in the management layer and ignored till the entire data center gets a hardware refresh.
That seems insane... I mean I know there systems are that reliable, but dang.... to just ignore it because it would take "to much" to fix just sounds insane.
This might have changed by now. I remember this from when they first publicly released information about their two data centers (yeah, I remember when they were that small.) They were using all white box microATX boards, two per 1u of rack space. No cases, just something for the boards to sit on. It was insanity.
I know a guy who built systems like that at home.
-
@tiagom said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
I have some pretty old machines in production atm and rarely do i have to replace drives. Maybe two or three a year tops.
That's what I've found, it's rare.
-
@tiagom said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
And when they do fail we just replace the machines, we do not bother with replacing since there are so old.
Exactly. Either it's an opportunity to move to SSD, or the machine is just ancient, or it is like a freak thing. And normally those are replaced by the vendor under warranty.
Given that we really can't buy desktops without drives, and that drives are replaced for the first one to three years under vendor warranty, and after that almost never fail, and when they do we either replace the box or get a good upgrade for cheap... how tiny is the "cost of drives" to businesses?
-
We've experienced rather low HDD failures rates on desktops ... Plus, Cost/GB of SSD drives is way more than that of SSDs ... A 500GB SSD = $215 as opposed to $60 for a 500GB SATA (6 Gbps) makes it a "Not Worth it" for most .. We've almost never had a client requiring/requesting for a SSD for desktops .. A common response we've received is "Wow, that's a significant price difference. I would rather spend that extra $$ on RAM etc.."
-
Do you find needing 500GB SSD? Ive rarely gone above 256 which are like 100 bucks.
-
RAM won't improve system performance nearly as much as an SSD will, assuming you already have 4 GB of RAM, in a typical Office environment.
But as tiagom mentions, do you really need 500 GB drive? 120 GB drives are more than enough for most of my users. Windows 10, Office 2016, Dragon Medical v12 all fit in under 60 GB. my users save all data to network drives so the left over extra desktop space is not used.
-
@tiagom said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
And when they do fail we just replace the machines, we do not bother with replacing since there are so old.
That has been my case as well, I have not been in IT for significant amount of time but the only two drives that I have seen fail I didn't have to replace because we already had a new server in place.
-
@Dashrender said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
RAM won't improve system performance nearly as much as an SSD will, assuming you already have 4 GB of RAM, in a typical Office environment.
But as tiagom mentions, do you really need 500 GB drive? 120 GB drives are more than enough for most of my users. Windows 10, Office 2016, Dragon Medical v12 all fit in under 60 GB. my users save all data to network drives so the left over extra desktop space is not used.
Almost never, even with apps like Photoshop or AutoCAD installed ... In any case, I always prefer having around 30% of disk-space to be free ..
I'm just comparing cost/GB, which is typically how the pricing for storage works ..
Yes, SSDs do give a performance boost, but where desktops are concerned, when the client sees the price difference, they're willing to live without it ..
-
Bought a few Intel 160GB drives refurbished on the egg for $38 each about a month ago. Made an old OptiPlex 3010 blazing fast for office work. Just waiting to put the rest in older machines to refresh them.
edit:
Also I have never had a hdd fail on me at home. At work a few times over the years, but it is rare indeed. -
@momurda said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
Bought a few Intel 160GB drives refurbished on the egg for $38 each about a month ago. Made an old OptiPlex 3010 blazing fast for office work. Just waiting to put the rest in older machines to refresh them.
edit:
Also I have never had a hdd fail on me at home. At work a few times over the years, but it is rare indeed.Wow that is cheap!
-
@Dashrender said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
RAM won't improve system performance nearly as much as an SSD will, assuming you already have 4 GB of RAM, in a typical Office environment.
I find that even for browsing these days, I need 6GB. 4GB just can't do it.
-
@Dashrender said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
But as tiagom mentions, do you really need 500 GB drive? 120 GB drives are more than enough for most of my users. Windows 10, Office 2016, Dragon Medical v12 all fit in under 60 GB. my users save all data to network drives so the left over extra desktop space is not used.
I dont even use that much myself!
-
@scottalanmiller said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
@Dashrender said in What If You Didn't Need to Replace Hard Drives:
RAM won't improve system performance nearly as much as an SSD will, assuming you already have 4 GB of RAM, in a typical Office environment.
I find that even for browsing these days, I need 6GB. 4GB just can't do it.
But you are a power user. From what i see common office workers tend to rarely need more then 4GB.
