If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: tl;dr there is no single answer. https://www.extremetech.com/computin...ives-actually- live-for Summarizing this 2013 cite, an online backup company called "Backblaze" analyzed the failure rate of their 25,000 consumer-grade drives. They found three "failure phases": the first 1.5 years, 5% fail due to manufacturing defects. The next 1.5 years, 1.5% fail randomly. After 3 years, 12% fail from wear. (I've done slight rounding.) https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...tats-for-2017/ The same company presents stats from last year, breaking out brands and sizes. I didn't do the math, but at a glance, it looks like their 2013 data is still pretty close for the first two failure phases, while the third (wearing out) has improved somewhat. Summarizing, nospam is right: "there is no single answer", but the prudent individual would start seriously shopping for a new drive at four years. not necessarily. again, it depends on use. backblaze's systems are 24/7, which is very different than a home user, where drives are likely spun down most of the time and therefore will see much longer useful life than 4 years. also, a home user can tolerate down time, whereas a business cannot, especially one such as backblaze, so a home user can replace drives when they fail rather than preemptively replace them to avoid any downtime. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 12:06:53 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Software may become obsolete or hardware become old and unreliable: there must come a time when it is best to replace the NAS with a new one. Hence my serious question: how often would you expect to have to replace (i.e. refresh) a NAS? again, replace & refresh mean different things. in any event, how often do you replace/refresh hard drives in your laptop or desktop computer? how often do you replace/refresh the computer itself? how heavily do you use the computer? how much down time can you tolerate if there's a problem? nas hardware is mostly the same (sometimes exactly the same) as a desktop computer, just optimized for a different use case. tl;dr there is no single answer. Now in previous discussions you have told us the economic life of a PC is about 3 years and of Apple about 5 years. That means the life expectancy of a NAS will be about the same as that of a CD disc or similar. nope. a nas has a very different use case than a desktop/laptop computer. a nas sharing files does not need to run the latest version of photoshop or whatever else, nor does it need a fancy gpu, so as long as the hardware continues to work, there's not a pressing need to replace it. At that time you will be looking to either replace it or, at the least, install new drives. You may prolong its life by fitting new drives but I doubt if you would do that a second time. also wrong. Let's say that after 5 years you choose to replace the drives in the NAS. If you keep to the same program you will be replacing them at 10 years. The question at that time is, what about the operating system? Will you keep to the same old operating system (assuming that it is still suitable) or will you choose to go for a new one? Will general hardware, including ethernet hardware, still be good for another 5 years (i.e 10~15 years of age) or if you upgrade it are there drivers for your operating system? I think the odds are that at 10 years you will etire the old hardware and install new. You may even be running fibre optics at that time. I really do doubt new drives would be installed a second time. I am sure there are people who would not even do it at five years. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 09:21:54 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote: On 11/2/18 9:31 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Serious question: how often would you expect to have to replace (i.e. refresh) a NAS? replace/refresh what? also, replace & refresh mean different things, so what exactly are you asking? keep in mind that a nas can be a computer with file sharing enabled (along with whatever else) and one or more drives. it doesn't have to be a nas box such as synology or qnap. there are advantages to each. I didn't ask you for a definition of 'NAS', a term which you introduced to this discussion. I was wanting to know "how often would you expect to have to replace (i.e. refresh) a NAS?" a question which is unclear and doesn't make much sense. To explain the term 'refresh' to you, it comes from Alan Browne's use of the word in: ----------------------------------- tl;dr discs are *not* archival. That's why I refresh them every 5 - 6 years. ------------------------------------ ... which I took to mean he replaced them because they had come to the end of their reliable life. optical discs degrade and will eventually become unreadable much faster than hard drives, while sitting unused on a shelf. The same problem, although from different causes, must occur with NAS storage. of course. nothing lasts forever. Software may become obsolete or hardware become old and unreliable: there must come a time when it is best to replace the NAS with a new one. Hence my serious question: how often would you expect to have to replace (i.e. refresh) a NAS? again, replace & refresh mean different things. in any event, how often do you replace/refresh hard drives in your laptop or desktop computer? how often do you replace/refresh the computer itself? how heavily do you use the computer? how much down time can you tolerate if there's a problem? nas hardware is mostly the same (sometimes exactly the same) as a desktop computer, just optimized for a different use case. tl;dr there is no single answer. https://www.extremetech.com/computin...ually-live-for Summarizing this 2013 cite, an online backup company called "Backblaze" analyzed the failure rate of their 25,000 consumer-grade drives. They found three "failure phases": the first 1.5 years, 5% fail due to manufacturing defects. The next 1.5 years, 1.5% fail randomly. After 3 years, 12% fail from wear. (I've done slight rounding.) https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...tats-for-2017/ The same company presents stats from last year, breaking out brands and sizes. I didn't do the math, but at a glance, it looks like their 2013 data is still pretty close for the first two failure phases, while the third (wearing out) has improved somewhat. Summarizing, nospam is right: "there is no single answer", but the prudent individual would start seriously shopping for a new drive at four years. That was my point also. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Now in previous discussions you have told us the economic life of a PC is about 3 years and of Apple about 5 years. That means the life expectancy of a NAS will be about the same as that of a CD disc or similar. nope. a nas has a very different use case than a desktop/laptop computer. a nas sharing files does not need to run the latest version of photoshop or whatever else, nor does it need a fancy gpu, so as long as the hardware continues to work, there's not a pressing need to replace it. At that time you will be looking to either replace it or, at the least, install new drives. You may prolong its life by fitting new drives but I doubt if you would do that a second time. also wrong. Let's say that after 5 years you choose to replace the drives in the NAS. If you keep to the same program you will be replacing them at 10 years. The question at that time is, what about the operating system? Will you keep to the same old operating system (assuming that it is still suitable) or will you choose to go for a new one? that depends if there are features in the new system that are desirable. if not, then no. Will general hardware, including ethernet hardware, still be good for another 5 years (i.e 10~15 years of age) of course it will. or if you upgrade it are there drivers for your operating system? nas & das do not need drivers. I think the odds are that at 10 years you will etire the old hardware and install new. You may even be running fibre optics at that time. 10 years is a long time in technology. you'll have replaced your desktop/laptop at least once, probably 2-3 times. I really do doubt new drives would be installed a second time. I am sure there are people who would not even do it at five years. how often do you replace hard drives in your dases? how often do you replace your desktop/laptop computer? why do you think a nas is different? if someone wants to get a new nas, they will. if what they have suffices for their needs. they won't. same for anything else. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 18:54:52 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Now in previous discussions you have told us the economic life of a PC is about 3 years and of Apple about 5 years. That means the life expectancy of a NAS will be about the same as that of a CD disc or similar. nope. a nas has a very different use case than a desktop/laptop computer. a nas sharing files does not need to run the latest version of photoshop or whatever else, nor does it need a fancy gpu, so as long as the hardware continues to work, there's not a pressing need to replace it. At that time you will be looking to either replace it or, at the least, install new drives. You may prolong its life by fitting new drives but I doubt if you would do that a second time. also wrong. Let's say that after 5 years you choose to replace the drives in the NAS. If you keep to the same program you will be replacing them at 10 years. The question at that time is, what about the operating system? Will you keep to the same old operating system (assuming that it is still suitable) or will you choose to go for a new one? that depends if there are features in the new system that are desirable. if not, then no. Will general hardware, including ethernet hardware, still be good for another 5 years (i.e 10~15 years of age) of course it will. If you had applied that philosophy about 10 years ago you could now be stuck with 100Gb ethernet. or if you upgrade it are there drivers for your operating system? nas & das do not need drivers. I think the odds are that at 10 years you will etire the old hardware and install new. You may even be running fibre optics at that time. 10 years is a long time in technology. you'll have replaced your desktop/laptop at least once, probably 2-3 times. That's my point. I really do doubt new drives would be installed a second time. I am sure there are people who would not even do it at five years. how often do you replace hard drives in your dases? I'm not sure what you mean by 'dase' but if are referring desktop attached storage: I have been forced to replace all my older stuff after about five years simply because they were too small. I expect that would be the case with any NAS I had bought say 10 years ago: it would have proved too small. how often do you replace your desktop/laptop computer? My oldest computer (DELL) s trundling along doing mundane tasks at the age of 9 years come next January. why do you think a nas is different? I don't. If a drive in Dell packs a sad I might replace a single drive but I am almost certainly not going to replace both. if someone wants to get a new nas, they will. if what they have suffices for their needs. they won't. same for anything else. Gee, I would never have realised that! -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Will general hardware, including ethernet hardware, still be good for another 5 years (i.e 10~15 years of age) of course it will. If you had applied that philosophy about 10 years ago you could now be stuck with 100Gb ethernet. more like 20 years ago. macs first had gigabit as far back as 2000. just about everything from 10 years ago has gigabit, including routers and switches. I think the odds are that at 10 years you will etire the old hardware and install new. You may even be running fibre optics at that time. 10 years is a long time in technology. you'll have replaced your desktop/laptop at least once, probably 2-3 times. That's my point. then why do you consider a nas to be any different? I really do doubt new drives would be installed a second time. I am sure there are people who would not even do it at five years. how often do you replace hard drives in your dases? I'm not sure what you mean by 'dase' but if are referring desktop attached storage: yep, as opposed to nas, which is network attached storage. I have been forced to replace all my older stuff after about five years simply because they were too small. I expect that would be the case with any NAS I had bought say 10 years ago: it would have proved too small. you're confusing drive capacity with hardware limitations. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Capture One 11 Pro: was - Got to admit; when Windows fails, itdoes so spectacularly.
On 01/11/2018 10:10, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 17:59:58 UTC, Neil wrote: On 10/31/2018 12:51 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2018-10-31 15:33:04 +0000, Neil said: On 10/30/2018 6:26 PM, Savageduck wrote: Do you mean Photoshop 5.0 (version 5.0), or Photoshop CS5 (version 12.0)? Â* Version 5.0. The only reason I upgraded beyond that was for OS compatibility. It does little for my productivity to have menus shifted around or the keyboard commands changed. Version 5.0 is over 20 years old and the World has moved under it, that includes finding any currently supported OS, Mac, or Windows. If you re-read what I wrote, above, it clearly states that I'm not still running version 5.0. So why not say what verion you are running that would make things much clearer than saying I;m running a later version than 5.0 it coudl mean you're running 5.01 or almost anything. I find this aspect of Neil's posts frustrating - trying to pin down what software/hardware they actually use. With which cameras, and what's shot and for whom. I have some sympathy with their reluctance to try other software because of the learning curve - it could take a non-trivial amount of time to appreciate the potential of some of the higher end software - especially if they're not that strong computer-wise. Only some sympathy, though, especially as they're a pro photographer. I don't use it as a replacement for Photoshop. I wrote that it's on *this notebook for personal use*. What is confusing you about that? This sort of differnce can confuse people, as an example I use photoshop CS5.1 at work and I use word and excel at work as they have bought copies under whatever license agreement the university has at the time. At home I don't have PS or word or excel. I have affinity photo, pixelmania and use numbers and pages. Years ago I had illegal copies of PS at home and used to take work home and bring the images into work, then I decided I wasn't going to do that and said unless they get me the software I can't do the work, so I stopped doing that work. When we move to a new lab at the end of the year they have said I'll get a new computer I;ve not dea what Mac or PC and no idea what software will be on it, but I doubt the versions of PS and word/excel I have will work as they are old versions now and a bit flakey at times. We might have similar problems with the 96 new PCs running W10, but that's IT servises problem not mine. At our university you have to make a 'business case' for any non-standard kit. -- Cheers, Rob |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 00:12:31 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Will general hardware, including ethernet hardware, still be good for another 5 years (i.e 10~15 years of age) of course it will. If you had applied that philosophy about 10 years ago you could now be stuck with 100Gb ethernet. more like 20 years ago. macs first had gigabit as far back as 2000. just about everything from 10 years ago has gigabit, including routers and switches. Yeah. I though afterwards I thought afterwards its been commonly available for a bit more than 10 years. I think the odds are that at 10 years you will etire the old hardware and install new. You may even be running fibre optics at that time. 10 years is a long time in technology. you'll have replaced your desktop/laptop at least once, probably 2-3 times. That's my point. then why do you consider a nas to be any different? I don't. That's my point. About the time Alan Browne is replacing and refreshing his collection of optical discs the owner of a NAS will be having a good look at that piece of hardware for the reasons we have discussed. I really do doubt new drives would be installed a second time. I am sure there are people who would not even do it at five years. how often do you replace hard drives in your dases? I'm not sure what you mean by 'dase' but if are referring desktop attached storage: yep, as opposed to nas, which is network attached storage. I have been forced to replace all my older stuff after about five years simply because they were too small. I expect that would be the case with any NAS I had bought say 10 years ago: it would have proved too small. you're confusing drive capacity with hardware limitations. Its the reason why I replaced them. Alan Browne could merely add a few more CDs, for certain values of few. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Capture One 11 Pro: was - Got to admit; when Windows fails, itdoes so spectacularly.
On 11/4/2018 2:34 AM, RJH wrote:
On 01/11/2018 10:10, Whisky-dave wrote: On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 17:59:58 UTC, NeilÂ* wrote: On 10/31/2018 12:51 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2018-10-31 15:33:04 +0000, Neil said: On 10/30/2018 6:26 PM, Savageduck wrote: Do you mean Photoshop 5.0 (version 5.0), or Photoshop CS5 (version 12.0)? Â*Â* Version 5.0. The only reason I upgraded beyond that was for OS compatibility. It does little for my productivity to have menus shifted around or the keyboard commands changed. Version 5.0 is over 20 years old and the World has moved under it, that includes finding any currently supported OS, Mac, or Windows. If you re-read what I wrote, above, it clearly states that I'm not still running version 5.0. So why not say what verion you are running that would make things much clearer than saying I;m running a later version than 5.0 it coudl mean you're running 5.01 or almost anything. I find this aspect of Neil's posts frustrating - trying to pin down what software/hardware they actually use. With which cameras, and what's shot and for whom. I'm sure that it would frustrate anyone who has an agenda and disregards the original points. What aggravates me are such bobble-headed questions that obviously provide no insights into any aspects of my usage. It doesn't matter which digital camera I use (those who claim that I never discussed such things should review their contributions to topics where some were discussed at length). They all produce bitmap images that are edited in the same manner with regard to software tools. If, as I wrote above, the only reason that I upgrade PS is for OS compatibility and I'm running Win10 (as would ALSO be obvious from my participation in this and other of RichA's topics about the OS), what version of Photoshop would that imply? Those who can't figure that out certainly have nothing to offer in terms of insights into how new features might improve my productivity, or as I've stated, by and large bring nothing useful to me. In my view, the obvious question would be, "why is that?", but instead I only get idiotic time-wasting side tracks like those in this post. So, excuse me if I choose not to participate in them. I have some sympathy with their reluctance to try other software because of the learning curve - it could take a non-trivial amount of time to appreciate the potential of some of the higher end software - especially if they're not that strong computer-wise. That is a very logical conclusion. However, if you've actually read some of my posts, you would know that I've been working with digital image hardware and software for over 45 years and thus have used many professional image editing tools. Only some sympathy, though, especially as they're a pro photographer. No sympathy is required. None of the commenters here are my clients or even the clients of those that submit their work to my company for publishing. As I've been scolded in the past, this is a newsgroup mainly for amateurs, but that hardly means that I should behave like one. -- best regards, Neil |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Got to admit; when Windows fails, it does so spectacularly.
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: I have been forced to replace all my older stuff after about five years simply because they were too small. I expect that would be the case with any NAS I had bought say 10 years ago: it would have proved too small. you're confusing drive capacity with hardware limitations. Its the reason why I replaced them. then why did you bring up hardware limitations such as 100mbit ethernet? Alan Browne could merely add a few more CDs, for certain values of few. he replaced them because of degradation, a lengthy manual process. a nas can hold tens of thousands of dvds and automatically expand as needed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sigma, tired of LYING about resolution, admit they needed more | Gary Eickmeier | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | October 9th 10 07:38 PM |
Rita, you have to admit that Nikon can't do this! | Charles[_2_] | Digital Photography | 8 | July 22nd 08 12:37 AM |
Admit it; You'd like a Nikon FE-2 with a digital back | Rich | Digital Photography | 62 | April 3rd 06 09:36 AM |