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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.