 |
 |
Hard Drive Lifespan cut?
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, so today one of my drives started to fail on me. One of the partitions of this drive is my OS X scratch disk. With all of OS X's disc thrashing, I had to begin to wonder if OS X's disc thrashing accelerated the end of my hard drives life. Could this be a possibility and if so, what is apple going to do about it?
Nick
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by godzookie2k:
<STRONG>Ok, so today one of my drives started to fail on me. One of the partitions of this drive is my OS X scratch disk. With all of OS X's disc thrashing, I had to begin to wonder if OS X's disc thrashing accelerated the end of my hard drives life. Could this be a possibility and if so, what is apple going to do about it?
Nick</STRONG>
It sounds like you need more memory. What's your system config?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Heh, I'm on a Dual G4 with 512 MB's of ram with 84 gigs of HD space separated between two IDE drives (one of which is the acting wonky one) and one SCSI.
OS X runs pretty ok for me (note "ok" not "good") which I think is about as good as it gets from what I hear. Its not a performance issue, but even with ram out the wazoo, OSx *does* do alot of thrashing from what I hear.
Not to say that I'm blaming OS X on *my* HD failure, but could it accelerate the failure of say, my mom's imac with the minimum 128 megs? Say I was going to be an evil son and install it for her, OS X might thrash out the life of her poor imac. OR am I wrong? Hardware specialist out there?
Nick
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
To my knowledge it is the motor that turns the platter not the moving of the read-write heads that wears out. This being the case, the platter spins around just as much not reading-writing as it does reading and writing... Sooo, I think that an increase of read-write activity on the HD wouldn't necessarily wear it out any faster. Also... with 192 megs of ram in my iMac I don't think that it thrashes the drive too much... then again I haven't used 9 on this one in forever and I don't use classic (which inspires LOTS of VM use/paging)
-chas
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status:
Offline
|
|
With 512MB on both my TiBook and Cube I get very little thrashing; certainly not enough that it slows me down. I am typically running CPU Monitor, Clock, Mail, IE5, Terminal, Sherlock (all OS X apps) plus PhotoShop, Word and Excel (Classic apps). If 10.1 is as fast as rumored, then I'll be one happy camper.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: ireland
Status:
Offline
|
|
the only app that thrashes my hard drive continually is [the love of my life] mail.crapp.
i've been wondering the same as you. touch wood, my drive seems fine so far but every time mail.crapp starts thrashing away there i can't help thinking "this can't be doing the disc any good?"
|
the original madra - airbrushed out of history in a stalinist manner!
madrasite - crap, junk and drivel
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top