Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

SUGGESTION FOR HARD DISK REPLACEMENT

Jul 17, 2011 9:44PM PDT

Hello everyone, I'm new to the forum, my name is Luigi and I decided to write to get opinions from expert users about the choice of new HD because mine are now running out (I can hardly run xp on them/it) and replacing any other components for compatibility with new HD. THEN: see my hw/sw configuration CPU: INTEL CORE 2 QUAD 8200 4MB SKT775 BOX Mainboard: ASUS P5N73-AM GF7050 DDR2 Svga+MAXT RAM: n. 2 DIMM DDR2 2GB 800MHZ PC-6400 kingston Hard Disk: n. 2 HD MAXTOR 500GB SATA2-300 7200r Graphic Board: SVGA ASUS EN 9800 GT HB/HTDI 1024MB Glaciator PCIE HDMI Audio Board: Integrated nella M.B. Monitor: ACER 19" V193BDM LCD MM DVI black Power: 520W Operating System: WINDOWS XP PRO. Case: CASE MT CM ELITE 334 black (520W) , so I said above that apart from changing HD, maybe I will also need to replace the MB and other components, but I'm not sure, because I do not know if I would they will be compatible with new HD. it all started with a block of the computer during a video game, I restarted the pc from the button, the desktop still knocked out, I turn off abruptly the pc and does not start xp any longer. I Overwritten xp without formatting but nothing (the disk is full but the programs Do not work, launched the image made at 25 june and installed simple diagnostic programs to evaluate the condition of the HD because I was not even able to defrag. Scandisk points that HD has some damaged clusters. Why all of this? in effect after the launch of back up of June, the PC worked, but: a) could not do a new back-up, b) the diagnostic progr. said that the drives were in poor condition,; he primary was at 34% health .. I did a scan in dos without repairing or replace bad blocks using a sw. called HDD REGENARATOR (as I told above some damaged cluster were not detected), and what result did I get? (rather than the usual previous situation)? that the PC is a terrible slowness. I formatted all, today, but still problems .. re-launch the back up of June in order to keep the pc working with my progr. until I would replace the disk, but nothing, I think NTDR file is missing or MLTDR I do not remember the correct name.. and now ia m formatting again .. MY QUESTIONS ON HD: a) I would like to buy a reliable / durable hard driveb) the number of it should be at least 2 or 3, one for xp and programs and maybe games, one for games only if I did not put them in the first one, and the other for storage and back up, perhaps by partitioning it into 3 parts for the image of xp, image of the games and various storage. I have an external HD which I can not understand the features, because I do not know what it's like 3.5 "USB 2.0, etc., branded Mediacom, which I would use to save a second copy of the HD storage / backup.Thank goodness I have this now, I have not lost at least my data storage before formatting .. c) the other requirement even if less important is the speed of read / write and file transfer velocity, but if this is in contrast with the reliability I'm willing to not take into consideration it. (I never understood what speed transfer means. For example: 3gb/so internal 6Gb / s of the new HD now on sale, or just 300 mb / s, and I do not know the transfer speed of my current HD, Could you explain this in simple terms?) d) RAID technology intrigued me even though I finally understood only RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 0 +1 and RAID 1 +0. Instaed I have not understood 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, For personal culture could SOMEONE be so kind to tell me the DIFFERENCES between them and briefly explain me the pros and cons? OF COURSE I DO NOT KNOW IF Raid can be applied MY MOTHER can you confirms it for me looking at my hw config. above? I was goingt to buy 1 HD 360 GB RAID 1 +0 (as explained in wikipedia) to use for XP and for games, in three copies so that the info will be divided into 3 parts among the 3 HDs, but at the same time will be written in double copy since the hard disks are 3 double blocks double: - Block A-> 120 +120 GB - Block B-> 120 +120 GB - Block C-> 120 +120 GB so any information is written 2 times, ie the first third of it is written twice, second third twice too and third third twice too. Sorry I re-explain TECHNOLOGY RADI 1 +0 but it was for having from you an implicit confirmation that I understood correctly. Can you let me know whether the system put up with/support the rupture of a disc for each block and the replacement of failed hard disk can be made while the system is working on the PC? about the storage disk, I need a reliable and much more capacious hard dirve, at least 1 TB. I read also that the raids are generally composed of SCSI disks, I do not know all the models and brands of HD present on the market. SATA, SCSI, SSD, WESTERN DIGITAL, HITACHI, FUJITSU and so on. I just realized that the SCSI is more expensive and reliable than the SATA ones. Idem for the WD. Instead I did not understand much of SSD model, these one should be made even without disk drives and heads inside ... Shocked this said, which HD, according to the brand, model, technology raid / non-raid, and the above stated requirements, do you recommend for me? Thanks very much. I apologize for the long post, but I tried to summarize the whole story to understand causes and needs, and maybe because if I did not write all the things now I forgot to ask something (although this might have happened anyway Grin )

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
Re: hard disk
Jul 17, 2011 9:53PM PDT

I'd just replace the failing 500 GB hard disk by a new one of 500 GB or bigger. Any SATA-2 300 MB/s) hard disk should do.
Why do something else?

Kees

- Collapse -
suggestion for hard disk replacement
Jul 18, 2011 6:13AM PDT

hi kees,

why do u suggest me to buy a sata 2 hd 500 gb? it's just the model i have, it broke down after 2 years, i want a hd that is reliable and stronger. i asked suggestion on the brands and model above and also explanation about the raid technology and other stuff.

please let me know if you can help me.

thanks,

- Collapse -
2 years of what use and at what temperature?
Jul 18, 2011 6:18AM PDT

It's not fun to discover a dead HDD but how to tell the owner it was inside the case running hot for 2 years 24x7 and they were lucky to get that many years?

I think another drive is the right choice along with a quite review of the machine's layout and cooling.
Bob

- Collapse -
suggestion for hd replacement
Jul 18, 2011 8:08AM PDT

i did never monitor the temperature of the hd.
just in these past 5 days after the problems. and it was at most 41

- Collapse -
Sorry for the typo.
Jul 18, 2011 9:20AM PDT

I meant "quick review"

As to RAID, I fear that's not a good solution as we look at setup annoyances plus the fact that "more parts will be less reliable."

I know you want me to pick out a drive for you so here's one at newegg.com and look at the feedback.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136073

Even at 2 years that's 2 bucks a month for rent.
Bob

- Collapse -
SUGGESTION FOR HARD DISK REPLACEMENT
Jul 18, 2011 6:03PM PDT

thanks bob for your answer.

sorry, but since im italian, some time i think i can not understand everything well.
about your sentence "event at 2 years..." do you mean that the cost of a hd is so low that even if its duration is just 2 years, anyway i have time to mortagage it spending just few money per month? if it's so, in this case, i spent 100 euro for 2 hd, so it is 4 euro per month, not only 2 Blush .

in any case in your opinion, is that true that SCSI HD are more reliable than SATA ones and so WD brand than Maxtor ?

can you tell me something about SSD hd?

Pls also let me know whether the RAID system put up with/support the rupture of a disc for each block and the replacement of failed hard disk can be made while the system is working on the PC?

For personal culture i had asked if SOMEONE could tell me the DIFFERENCES between raid 2,3,4,5,6, and briefly explain me the pros and cons

i dont know if Raid can be applied MY MOTHER and i'd be glad if one of you can confirm it for me considering my hw config. above

in the end since I never understood what speed transfer means. For example: 3gb/so internal 6Gb / s of the new HD now on sale, or just 300 mb / s, and I do not know the transfer speed of my current HD, Could you explain this in simple terms?

thanks for your availability.

- Collapse -
Re: disk
Jul 18, 2011 6:25PM PDT

Why 2 new hd's? As far as I understand your rather unreadable first post, only 1 is failing, so I see no need to replace the other.

The interface (SCSI, SATA, IDE) doesn't influence the reliability. And I doubt if there is any systematic difference between different makers (like Maxtor or WD) that's important for you.

Internal hard disks are quite reliable (I've never had a failure myself) and whatever you have, you still should backup. So setting up a redundant RAID configuration just isn't worth the trouble for you and me. Let's leave that to the professionals in a critical business environment where every minute downtime costs 100 euro's.

An SSD hard disk is different technology. Only chips inside. No mechanical parts. Too expensive yet to have a 500 GB one (they don't even exist!) in your desktop. But quite nice inside a 32 GB iPad. On a desktop I would only use a 60 GB one to store Windows on for a faster startup if you're willing to pay for that faster startup. Long term reliabilty has to be proven yet. So making an occasional image copy of that 64 GB to an external hard disk (or even your internal big traditional HD's) wouldn't harm.


The transfer speed is the speed for the transfer of data between your hard disk and RAM. 600 MB/sec is twice as fast as 300 MB/second, but 300 MB is quite a lot anyway and if your motherboard doesn't support that higher speed it won't even work. Let's say that Windows needs to read 300 MB off the hard disk to boot. Then that twice as fast hard disk would mean that your boot time would decrease from, say, 75 to 74 seconds. If that's important for you, and it works with you, and you're willing to spend somewhat more money, don''t hesitate to do it.

Kees

- Collapse -
SUGGESTION FOR HARD DISK REPLACEMENT
Jul 18, 2011 11:31PM PDT

hello kees,

thanks for your answer. i liked your reply.

about raid technology and faster transfer, for me, were only some issues which i was curious of.
nothing more.

i prefer to leave the raid.
and i dont want at all costs a faster transfer for my hd. my question was just to understand what that transfer speed was referred to. what its meaning was. just that.
in fact i told in my first post that im willing to leave it if that will affect negatively the reliability of the hd or if the gain i get does not worth the expense that i should submit.

i just do not understand though, why if the transfer speed is double, i gain only one or few seconds in starting up.. doesn't that work in linear /proportional way?
<b>and in any case i don't know if my mother board could bear up with a faster hard disk.


can you tell me that,
according to the model of my MB written above? or give a link where i can find out
what is the speed that my MB can support?

</b>i am not expert at PC field, sorry.

SORRY FOR MY UNREADABLE POST.
i know it contains a lot of info and the format which it is written in is not very clear.
it is one only block and was not very easy to be read. Blush
that's why i was in a hurry to get suggestions from you and i wrote everything that came over my mind in order not to forget some important details. i did not respect grammatical pauses Blush and i had not time to review before posting it because i wrote while i was on my job, so i was supposed to do quickly.

about back up, i tell you that i am used to do it, in fact the cause of my whole story was just that.
i would have liked to update my previous back up but i couldn't.

my hard drive are two, and sorry if i made you understood that just one broke up.
at the time of the post, both was working but also acted up.

in these past 2 days one can not be read by my m.b. anymore, and the other one, at the beginning, sounded like to be working correctly, but later did not let me install any o.s.
- windows 7 ended up with an error.
- xp instead, completed the first part, and reboot continuously without letting me go on.
after several trials my father did succeed to make a full installation of xp, but in the last step, just before the XP INTRODUCTION movie starts, xp ended the installation with errors too.

so both now are k.o. and i need to replace them asap.

i will get one 500 or 750 gb. for storage and back up
and the other, same size for xp and progr. and games.

just one of your suggestion surprised me.
i hope i got it correctly.
you told me that it would be better to take a small size hd for xp to get a faster start up.
this one should contain xp, and just the more important progr.
why? why a small size hd is faster than a big one i.g. of 500 GB?
so should i buy one small hd for xp and progr
one medium for games and other heavy progr.
and one for storage / backs up?


thanks for your reply

- Collapse -
Re: disk
Jul 18, 2011 11:41PM PDT

That small size was only for a SSD. Those don't exist so big or they are too expensive. For a normal hard disk 500 or 750 GB is standard nowadays. Nothing wrong with that.

Kees

- Collapse -
SUGGESTION FOR HARD DISK REPLACEMENT
Jul 19, 2011 12:13AM PDT

ok, i got it wrongly.

in any case do you know what speed transfer my M.B. can support?

luigi,

- Collapse -
Re: speed of hard disk
Jul 19, 2011 5:02AM PDT
- Collapse -
SUGGESTION FOR HARD DISK REPLACEMENT
Jul 19, 2011 6:46AM PDT

thanks kees, i looked for it on asus web site me too.
i found it out the same you told me: 3gb/s and my mb support raid technology

but i will not implement those kind of hd on my mb.

i am going to take 2 hd 500 or 750 gb, probably WD branded, or hitachi
sata2 (said also sata300) techonology.

thanks for your support.