- each library has to be in its own folder on one disk (but maybe with some registry tweaking You can spread them on multiple drives; tho I don`t see why would You do that ?!?)
- multiple libraries can be installed in multiple drives
- Drives can be all different
- You have to name each drive (C: D: E: F: G: H: etc. this will be done automatically when You plug them in, but later You can change and rearrange the letters to Your liking)
- there will be no confusion in finding samples, since the information to the path of each library is written in the registry (this happens when You install a library or when You write Your own .nicnt file)
- You can move Your already installed libraries between different drives, but than You have to update the registry entryes for that library with the new path (or remove the entryes for that library and add it again ...there is a xml file that You have to delete too... see the instructions in the Kontakt thread Link )

 

If I were you I'd just buy a external disk, not as big as 3TB, but it could work as an extension of your actual hard drive

 

Yep, that's the smart one...(i've done the same)
Or, save some money, and buy two WD Blue's (EZEX).

 

I mostly run HGST Ultrastars these days. Used to run WD stuff. Blacks and REs. But came to HGST and don't regret it one bit. Also run a few large RAID disk shelves with HGSTs these days. Swapped out RE4s with Ultra4000 and happy. YMMV.

 

Also HGST (Ultrastar 7K4000) here , they are made by WD, so a reliable brand and can handle shock impact of 70G and have a MTBF of 2Mh

 

Happy camper with WD Black

 

Hitachi(HGST-They are now under WD brand, but are still(at least for now) the same group of people with own Hitachi technology), some models of Toshiba, Samsung, Wd Black. From those of "tested" by backblaze, the Hitachi 3-4TB models are most reliable(for now). So more parts don't necessary mean more failure although there of course exist higher possibility. I will gow with Hitachi right now if i need new hard drive, although they are not the fastest. Prety much proven good and fast by now is WD black. This will be probably my second choice, the third something from samsung or Toshiba. Stay away from most WD's and Seagate for now. Of course everything i write is for home user drive models not enterprise.

 

I can confirm that buying a external drive of 3TB is the worst thing I have ever done & will never do it again.
I had a Porsche Design 3TB (for OSX) & it was all good for about a year, then it went to shit & I lost everything on it,
I was able to retrieve a little bit back by the grace of god but it went str8 to the the garbage dump!

I then read after the fact that it is much more safer to stick with at least 2TB or less...as earlier mentioned by Cat, if I knew then what I know now...lol

 

FWIW, I've just gone through my PCs and set a new 300sec load/unload cycle on each of the 5x WD drives. I didn't realize that alert article was dated 2011 because this is the first i've heard of this design flaw - thanks fraifikmushi!

I had a couple or three WD Greens go belly up over the last two years for unknown reasons, just out of warranty of course. F**k WD. Their culture of secrecy about product flaws is just as bad as Seagate's. Having said that, I find WD generally reliable although I'll be getting the Blacks from now on, as recommended here.

Good thread and OP.

 

Don't do Raid0. Raid0 = if any of your HDs die, the other one is effectively toast. I'm not sure about JBOD, tht might be a hassle to set up, but your data is likleyto be at risk if any 1 of the HDs dies, as with Raid0

Nope. I've been using 1.4-2.7 TB HDs on 23/7 operation since 2010 or so.

1. WD GREEN 5400rpm 1.4TB 2010 (retired in 2013 due to bad sectors)
   
2. WD GREEN 5400rpm 1.8TB 2011 (retired in due to upgrades, succesfully unretired in 2015)
3. WD GREEN 5400rpm 2.7TB 2012 OK in 2015
4. ST Barracuda 7200rpm 2.7TB 2013 (RMA'd in 2013 due to bad sectors)
5. ST Barracuda 7200rpm 2.7TB 2013 (retired in 2014 due to degrading seek, but SMART OK)
   
6. WD RED 5400rpm 2.7TB 2013 OK in 2015
   
7. ST NAS 5900rpm 2.7TB 2014 OK in 2015

The two that i retired in LESS THAN A YEAR were 7200rpm.

Was the Porsche Design HD 7200rpm by any chance?

I'm guessing external HD enclosures cook the HD after a while if they're poorly designed.

I'd say <6000rpm 2.7TB bare drives in a PC case should be pretty good by now, possibly 3.6TB.

Larger HDs (4.5TB+) may use shingling which makes some rewrites slower.

Also, apprently windows checks the start of a HD every startup or every plugin, which causes more wear & tear there, and you'll cause some weat&tear every time windows sleeps the drive. You could try disabling the latter.

I've talked to a CSR and they had a customer that bought some WD Blues (7200rpm) and promptly fried them in a 24/7 NASbox. Should've spent an extra $10 per drive on RED.

Sum: Don't buy 7200rpm for 24/7 usage (unless it's a black). Keep HDs well ventilated.

I wouldn't say it's a critical design flaw. More of a retarded manuf' default. It's to do with excessive head parking.You can fix that. see later.

You have only yourself to blame. No HD lasts forever. All that is certain for larger HDs is that you lose more data when they die (if you don't back it up). Have a backup, or have a risk management plan. Since the 2000s, you have been able to check HD Health with SMART data. Use crystaldiskinfo or smartctl.

If you read the Backblaze study, sometimes the failures have been attributed to a single model. And all of them are running vertically in a hot environment. Do you do that at home? Do I? No. There are some valid points, but read it cautiously.

WD black could be OK.

BD XL at max can store up to about 90GB. Which is useless for large data collections. Large corporations use tape.

WD has a warranty of 2y for most consumer drives. ST has a warranty of 3y for most consumer drives. I think ST is generally more open about their drive info, and their SMART data exposes more variables.

Handling===
Don't handle HDs like frisbees. DOn't mail order them. Pick them up in person from a store, with plenty of padding.

Suggestions

• Avoid external non WD/ST-branded HDs?
• Don't buy 7200rpm for 24/7 usage (unless it's a black)
  
• You could buy WD Green, Red, or ST NAS,
• Or buy WD Black, SE, or RE if you have the money.
• Disable/delay head parking with WDIDLE3.exe or hdparm (every startup) for ST
  
• Buy 3.6TB or less
  
• HDs should have adequate cooling and stored horizontally
  
• Check SMART data regularly (weekly/daily)
• Have a backup or risk mitigation plan
• Handle HDs with care

 

Last edited: Aug 10, 2015

shirley you must be joking.... ? oh sorry for calling you shirley man..

are we seeing political correctness run amok here??
for even the most innocuous level of sarcasm?

to the topic

Check online, HItachi (woops) hard drives I have seen get the highest ratings for reliability.
Yes have had a 3TB WD external fail on me, the worst part is the hard drive controller can
fail then you are left trying to access a hardware encrypted drive, apparently you have
to find a matching controller for that drive to access your data

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089...eals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.html

Did try a Seagate before too, and it failed far sooner than any other external I have had.
The article reflects highest failure rate for Seagate drives as well.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2015

good stuff:
http://www.g-technology.com/products

 

pricey stuff ... but no problem for a petroleum sheikh

 

No, not really. It's flawed by design. As you say, it's due to excessive head parking and if that leads to a premature hdd death the last person to blame for that is the user.
Requiring the user to disable a distinctive design feature (this head parking functionality is why wd attributes those drives as "green" after all) to prevent the device from permanent failure is a major design flaw. Not to mention we're talking about a consumer-oriented product line which makes this design choice even worse.

So no, wd green is not to be recommended.

What reduces usability as a backup medium more than capacity is longevity, or to be more precise, the lack of longevity. Disc rot is a problem and as I stated earlier there is a possible solution: m-disc.
Instead of spending thousands on a lto drive, users may prefer spreading a backup over several discs.

Interesting recommendations. How do you come to your conclusions? It can't be personal experience since you don't run a hdd larger than 2.7, according to your data.
The sheer mass of data the good folks at backblaze suggests that hgst 4 tb is the most reliable option to choose.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/

 

http://www.seagate.com/au/en/products/enterprise-servers-storage/nearline-storage/archive-hdd/ < these HDs from 4.5TB upwards use SMR, which makes them slower on some rewrites.

It's not clear http://www.seagate.com/au/en/internal-hard-drives/desktop-hard-drives/desktop-hdd/#specs whether these use SMR or not, but they might.
'
RE M-Disc [ http://www.mdisc.com/ ]. Do you really need all/some your archive data to last decades/centuries long? What's important you usually keep on cost-effective HDs, I've written many CDs over the years full of software, and I've found much of that is deprecated now. Fro that stuff I do want back, I would've got some of it back myself, or from the intertubes.

 

Last edited: Aug 11, 2015

I wish I knew WTF you all are talking about and I wish I had one technological bone in my body.