On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:52:07 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
Actually, what I'm currently doing for desktops is probably equally
dangerous. After about 4 years running, I buy a bigger|better|faster
drive, mirror the contents of the old drive to the new drive, and then
use the old drive for backups. In other words, pre-emptive
replacement.

What's dangerous about that? Considering how cheap hard drives are, it makes
perfect sense. If you buy two $60 drives every four years, that's $30 a
year -- 60 cents a week. That is cheap protection, and even cheaper
peace-of-mind.

I haven't counted for a while, but I think I have about 50 customers
(those that call for work more than once per year) involving about 150
machines. Pre-emptive drive replacement has totally prevented drive
failures, and the attendent all night restore session. However, it
also has produced in a rather motly collection of "used" drives,
mostly 10 thru 40GBytes. They still work, but being past their prime,
they're not suitable for use in a customers machine. I use them for
backups, but that's also risky if I run into one of those failures
that isn't dependent on running the drive. With 4 years runtime on
these drives, they're sure to fail within about 2-3 years of normal
use. I sell a few, with the usual disclaimer and non-warranty, but
after having to deal with a few irate former friends, I just stockpile
them. Anything where S.M.A.R.T. shows a climbing error rate, gets
recycled.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558