HuntsMan75

Q: Hard Drive

I have a 2007 MacBook Pro. I never had prooblems with it until recently. While running i'd get delays and Spinning beach balls. Never having had to deal with this or for that matter Apple support, I just took it in to Apple. For a price they diagnosed it as a bad drive.

 

Repairing it through them will cost almost as much as some of these units are selling for used. I want to do this myself. I'd also like to be able to test this thing in the future myself so I don't get stuck with this problem.

 

I'm looking for advice on a) drives for this system, b)repair instructions or online guides, c) test/evaluation software.

 

Thanks.

Posted on Oct 5, 2013 12:16 PM

Close

Q: Hard Drive

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

first Previous Page 8 of 19 last Next
  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Mar 25, 2014 1:02 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 9 (51,382 points)
    Desktops
    Mar 25, 2014 1:02 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    PlotinusVeritas wrote:

     

     

    Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

     

     

    Drive latency is a BIG DEAL.

     

    Depends on the HD and who youre asking

     

     

     

    Toshiba recently came out with a 15,000 RPM hard drive.

    So what, old technology is still old technology, and 15K drives are old.

     

    (So old that I wonder what took Toshiba so long)

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Mar 25, 2014 1:09 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 9 (51,382 points)
    Desktops
    Mar 25, 2014 1:09 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    PlotinusVeritas wrote:

     

     

    OGELTHORPE wrote:

    create less heat than a conventional HHD.

     

     

     

    Hitachi already solved that problem last year,     HELIUM FILLED HARD DRIVES.

     

     

    low friction, low heat.

    HGST have finally released 1 Helium filled drive, 6TB and quite expensive. It's further from the mainstream than an SSD, as well as being an unknown quantity as far as longevity and reliability goes.

  • by MrJavaDeveloper,

    MrJavaDeveloper MrJavaDeveloper Mar 25, 2014 1:37 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (64 points)
    Mar 25, 2014 1:37 AM in response to Csound1

    I don't think a technology is obsolete unless it's more or less useless. Hard drives still offer much higher capacity at much lower prices, hence they aren't useless. I can go out and buy a 500GB HD for the cost of going out one night, but I can't say the same for an equivalent SSD (more like the cost of rent for a month.)

     

    SSDs clearly have benefits with respect to speed and power, but cost, definitely not. I don't see that changing for years. Additionally, although SSDs can be subjected to more of a physical beating than an SSD, the computer system as a whole can't (unless you're fond of cracked displays, screwed up I/O ports, etc.) so I don't know if I'd really consider that a huge issue for normal computers.

     

    I also don't consider the speed of an SSD that much of a game changer once the OS and apps are loaded. WIth a "barebones" system now having 4GB, and Mavericks new kernel using memory compression, plus the fact that the apps are essentially pre-cached, stuff seems to load almost instantly anyway. The only people that will really notice the differences constantly will be those that are subjecting their systems to lots of reads and writes, like someone doing a lot of video conversion. Such people will also be using up the write cycles more rapidly, so it may not be in their favor.

     

    The real test of SSDs will be how long they actually last in use. This is an unknown, as far as I'm concerned.

  • by PlotinusVeritas,

    PlotinusVeritas PlotinusVeritas Mar 25, 2014 2:18 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 6 (14,806 points)
    Mar 25, 2014 2:18 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

     

    MrJavaDeveloper wrote:

    (in response to Csound1)

     

    I don't think a technology is obsolete unless it's more or less useless. Hard drives still offer much higher capacity at much lower prices, hence they aren't useless. I can go out and buy a 500GB HD for the cost of going out one night, but I can't say the same for an equivalent SSD (more like the cost of rent for a month.)

     

     

    Its fine, you are correct on these points you make, and the person you refer is operating on less than the facts at hand.

     

     

    Few years ago it was predicted that HD would go the way of the dinosaur when SSD came out, .....well just the opposite has happened, and conventional HD are selling at increasing record numbers.

     

    why?

    1. people storing massive data on a personal level has skyrocketed and SSD can do absolutely nothing at ALL with this problem.

     

    2. HD sizes are getting smaller, storage is getting bigger, reliability is increasing and new storage technologies in HD are coming out, recently shingled data writing, helium HD, and superthin drives in the 4.9mm thickness, as thin as any SSD is.

     

    3. SSD are reaching fast theoretical density limits where you cant write to a SSD without disturbing adjacent data.

     

    But this doesnt really matter since no computer IS or SHOULD be considered a data storage device, ever.

     

     

    As for SSD taking a beating, thats actually an extremely important point and one long desired by military and govt. and others that need / want a notebook with no moving parts.

     

    Right now there are only fans in Apple notebooks that are moving.     However given that processors such as Haswell drastically reduce the heat footprint............. (........)   I will let you fill in the blank there regarding any computer laptop / notebooks going forward.

     

     

     

    SSD or HD longevity isnt any issue NOW or in the future, theyre both to be considered 100% unreliable as a single entity, period.

     

    its all about multiple redundancies on multiple platforms (optical, online, HD clones, and multiple HD redundancies) and optical storage of low-volume data (texts, pictures etc.).

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Mar 25, 2014 2:28 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 9 (51,382 points)
    Desktops
    Mar 25, 2014 2:28 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    PlotinusVeritas wrote:

     

     

    MrJavaDeveloper wrote:

    (in response to Csound1)

     

    I don't think a technology is obsolete unless it's more or less useless. Hard drives still offer much higher capacity at much lower prices, hence they aren't useless. I can go out and buy a 500GB HD for the cost of going out one night, but I can't say the same for an equivalent SSD (more like the cost of rent for a month.)

     

     

    Its fine, you are correct on these points you make, and the person you refer is operating on less than the facts at hand.

    Stop putting words (especially yours) in my mouth.

     

    I also think that HDD's are not obsolete, where did I say otherwise? (you know how to link)

     

     

    Few years ago it was predicted that HD would go the way of the dinosaur when SSD came out, .....well just the opposite has happened, and conventional HD are selling at increasing record numbers.

     

    why?

    1. blah

     

    2. blah

     

    3. blah

     

    more blah

     

    irelevant blah

     

    and so on

  • by MrJavaDeveloper,

    MrJavaDeveloper MrJavaDeveloper Mar 25, 2014 3:18 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (64 points)
    Mar 25, 2014 3:18 AM in response to Csound1

    I'm not sure he's referring to you. If you go back there's  an "(and now they're obsolete)" comment, not from you.

     

    Let's not throw rocks at one another. What's to be accomplished?

     

    Now for a real question. Like I said before, I built a Fusion with a SanDisk SSD and an Hitachi HD. The Hitachi HD was the original drive in the unit. It's been in use for 4 years. The SanDisk is a 64GB unit and I got it for kicks, and basically to experiment with it (yes, I know, it's a mental health issue.) But which one will outlast the other.

     

    I actually took the HD out of the unit and put it into an external enclosure that has a drive activity light. If I redundantly do reads and writes of a specific file to the Fusion, initially the external drive light was inactive, telling me the SSD was being used, but after a few seconds it becomes clear the Fusion setup has relocated the file to the HD as it flashes constantly. It's pretty slick, actually.

     

    In any case, I'm starting to see a few threads on SSDs in MacBook Air's needing replacement after only 2 years. I've got an old PowerBook with a Seagate in it that's been in use for almost 10 years. S.M.A.R.T. checks on the drive indicate an "about to fail any minute now" with TechTools Pro, and it's been reporting that now for about 4 years. It just keeps chugging along.

     

    The longevity, the real longevity of SSDs is yet to be determined. They just haven't been around that long. The statistical base simply hasn't been established.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Mar 25, 2014 3:24 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 9 (51,382 points)
    Desktops
    Mar 25, 2014 3:24 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

    MrJavaDeveloper wrote:

     

    I'm not sure he's referring to you.

    It was in the reply to me.

     

     

    The longevity, the real longevity of SSDs is yet to be determined. They just haven't been around that long. The statistical base simply hasn't been established.

    And that is the real point, HDD's have a long history from which to extrapolate life expectancy in comparison to SSD's

     

    All that can be guaranteed (assuming proper compatibilty and configuration) is more speed, reliabilty and longevity are currently unknowns.

  • by PlotinusVeritas,

    PlotinusVeritas PlotinusVeritas Mar 25, 2014 3:33 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 6 (14,806 points)
    Mar 25, 2014 3:33 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

    The statistical sampling of SSD life doesn't matter.  redundancies must always be in place for data protection.

     

     

    Even with well established HD , nobody can tell you how long it will last,  anyone who says they can is lying to you, ...period

     

    If a HD survives a few months it typically lasts several years and climbs sharply at roughly 4 years and most are dead at 6 to 8

     

    With exceptions, though sparse.

     

    Only last week I had a new HD completely die with less than 3 hours use, complete mechanical failure. 

     

    Trying to determine SSD or HD life is futile and has no worth or value, neither are archival, .. neither one are singularly reliable for data protection, as any pro will inform you.

     

     

    There's only 3 things to know in data protection.   1 Redundancy. 2 Redundancy. 3 And cross-platform population.

  • by R.K.Orion,

    R.K.Orion R.K.Orion Mar 27, 2014 11:30 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 1 (14 points)
    Mar 27, 2014 11:30 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    OK guy, so you say you've got this wonderful, odd name brand optical media that will last a ka-billion years. That still doesn't really address the unreliability of the drives. Something that lasts only a few thousand hours isn't something that lasts very long. What are you supposed to do? Start recording start/stop times for optical recording and then when you get to a certain point, pull the drive and toss it?

  • by PlotinusVeritas,

    PlotinusVeritas PlotinusVeritas Mar 27, 2014 11:44 AM in response to R.K.Orion
    Level 6 (14,806 points)
    Mar 27, 2014 11:44 AM in response to R.K.Orion

     

    R.K.Orion wrote:

     

    1. That still doesn't really address the unreliability of the drives.

     

    2. Something that lasts only a few thousand hours isn't something that lasts very long.

     

    3. What are you supposed to do?

     

    4. pull the drive and toss it?

     

    1. Redundancy addresses everything, and across multiple platforms.  A: buy the highest quality HD  B: copy said data to other redundant drives stored and updated in safe places (fireboxes, etc).

     

    2. HD can die within a day, or typically 3-6+ years.    Again, its redundancy, then redundancy and more of it.  I had a new drive last week die after only 3 hours of use. Complete and total failure, doesnt matter, have multiple redundant copies of that data.

     

    3. Propagate your data to multiple platforms like a squirrel hiding acorns in multiple trees.

     

    4.  Nothing is tossed until its dead, and whatever HD/media dies/is corrupted SHOULD and MUST have at least one (preferably far more) redundant copy.

     

     

     

    Problem solved permanently. All worry removed.

    Redundancy transcends any and all issues of HD crashes, reliability, house fires, etc.

     

    Cost for hard drives are cheap as dirt, ....there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to have serious data redundancy. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    screenshot_565.jpg

    screenshot_566.jpg

     

     

    hard drive moving parts

    harddrive.jpg

     

    Some of the common reasons for hard drives to fail:

    Infant mortality (due to mfg. defect / build tolerances)

    Bad parking   (head impact)

    Sudden impact   (hard drive jarred during operation, heads can bounce)

    Electrical surge   (fries the controller board, possibly also causing heads to write the wrong data)

    Bearing / Motor failure   (spindle bearings or motors wear during any and all use, eventually leading to HD failure)

    Board failure   (controller board failure on bottom of HD)

    Bad Sectors   (magnetic areas of the platter may become faulty)

     

    Hard drives aren't prone to failure…hard drives are guaranteed to fail (the very same is true of SSD). Hard drives dont die when aged, hard drives die at any age, and peak in death when young and slowly increase in risk as they age.

     

    Never practice at any time for any reason the false premise and unreal sense of security in thinking your data is safe on any single external hard drive. This is never the case and has proven to be the single most common horrible tragedy of data loss that exists.

     

     

     

     

     

    Data redundancy begins at...

     

    1. All data on the computer is just that, your data.

    2. All data on the first external HD is your backup.

    3. Only the second external HD is your first safe data redundancy.

     

    Protected data redundancy begins at the second external copy due to:

     

    1. It not being connected. Any drive connected, backup or otherwise, is not to be considered a safe data redundancy.

    2. Being the backup failsafe to the first external HD, not to the data on the computer which never should be counted in terms of data protection as "a copy".

    3. External drives will invariably fail, and since most people falsely believe their external HD is their "safety", this error of perspective must be countered by yet another external copy of ones data.

     

     

    When even a second external HD copy of your data is "still just not good enough"


    As I have personally witnessed on more than one occasion, someone has two exact copies on two external HD of their priceless data. The drives are both maybe a couple or few years old. No worries, there are two independent copies; still not good enough. 

     

    One of the two drives fails or crashes, so the person goes to copy/clone the first drive, and without realizing it, the last remaining 'good' HD copy hasn't necessarily failed but is seriously corrupt and just as good as dead/useless. In which case, two independent copies of ones data is still just "not good enough". All hope is lost, even with 2 external copies!

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Mar 27, 2014 12:29 PM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 9 (51,382 points)
    Desktops
    Mar 27, 2014 12:29 PM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    How many copies do you suggest as a minimum?

  • by MrJavaDeveloper,

    MrJavaDeveloper MrJavaDeveloper Mar 29, 2014 11:58 AM in response to Csound1
    Level 1 (64 points)
    Mar 29, 2014 11:58 AM in response to Csound1

    That's an exccellent question. I never really gave as much thought to backups as I am now, so this thread has been valuable. There's some stuff I can afford to lose (like an XCode development kit, because they can be downloaded any time) and then there are other things that I can't afford to lose. Tax returns, and some online receipts and bank info come to mind. I suippose others would have rare or only-one-copy things like photos or music or whatever.

     

    As a note about hard drive life, about 10 years ago I had a 15G HD in a system and the yanked it for an 80G HD. The 15G drive was working perfectly, I just needed more space. I put it in a box and stored it thinking it would be working fine whenever I turned it on next. A few weeks ago I was putting  a new external drive in an enclosure and thought I'd bring the old drive out just to test it. I was actually thinking I could review what was on it, recopy stuff if needed, and see if it could be updated with more stuff to store.

     

    No such luck. That drive was functionally dead. It spun up and sounded and acted like a good drive, but Disk Utility refused to have anything to do with it. I have no idea what happened to it. I wonder if the lack of use allowed some type of buildup to occur on the platters. The thing was in a corner of a closet, and I know it didn't get hit or dropped. I know HDs aren't sealed and wonder if something got by the filter.

     

    I have another HD that's almost as old as that, but it works. It's in an old system and I use it once in a while, so it does get some exercise.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Mar 29, 2014 12:13 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 9 (51,382 points)
    Desktops
    Mar 29, 2014 12:13 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

    I maintain a minimum of 3 backups, 1 clone and 1 Time Machine, both run daily and are kept onsite, plus 1 (data only) that is offsite (online)

     

    Drives are replaced every couple of years and reused for some other task, or thrown away if they exhibit any unusual signs in use.

  • by PlotinusVeritas,

    PlotinusVeritas PlotinusVeritas Mar 29, 2014 12:56 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 6 (14,806 points)
    Mar 29, 2014 12:56 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

     

     

    MrJavaDeveloper wrote:

    1. A few weeks ago I was putting  a new external drive in an enclosure and thought I'd bring the old drive out just to test it. I was actually thinking I could review what was on it, recopy stuff if needed, and see if it could be updated with more stuff to store.

    No such luck. That drive was functionally dead.

     

    2. That's an exccellent question, how many backups. I never really gave as much thought to backups as I am now, so this thread has been valuable. There's some stuff I can afford to lose

     

    1.  Given the second law of thermodynamics, any and all current mfg. HD will, under perfect storage conditions tend themselves to depolarization and a point will be reached, even if the HD mechanism is perfect, that the ferromagnetic read/write surface of the platter inside the HD will entropy to the point of no viable return for data extraction. HD life varies, but barring mechanical failure, 3-8 years typically.

     

     

    2. You mean data redundancies.  You need to backup your system constantly (or clone it preferably / also).

    "afford to lose" doesnt carry any weight considering HD are cheap as dirt.

     

    As to "how many redundant copies" is less of a question as to HOW MANY, than to HOW MANY PLATFORMS.

     

    online servers (in case of fire), most important files to archival DVDs.

     

     

    My main work of 20+ years which is 400+GB has at least 20 redundant copies, in fire boxes, on servers around the globe, on multiple platforms, since:

     

    # 1. never trust 1 , 2, 3 HD as enough.

    # 2. after #1, never trust hard drives, park your data onto optical (as much important as you can) and online servers.

     

     

    If you have a house fire and you can still say "my data is fine"  ... then youre going good.

     

    If you can say  "2 copies of important data crashed / lost/ ruined,   but ill grab my redundant copy of that in the firebox / safe" .....then youre doing good.

     

     

    The B.A.R. “rule” (backup-archive-redundancy)

    Backup: Active data emergency restore. Backups are moved from backups to archives; or from backups to the computer for restore or data retrieval.

     

    Archive: Active and static data protection with the highest level of redundancy. Archives are only moved from itself to itself (archived copies). Generally a “long-term retention” nexus.

     

    Redundancy: A fail-safe off-site or protected and “frozen” copy of your vital data and foolproof protection against magnetic degradation and HD mechanical failure. A likewise failsafe from theft, house fire, etc.

     

    Redundancy has two points of premise:

    A: redundancy (copies) of data archives.

    B: redundancy of data on different platforms (optical, online, magneto-optical, HD).

     

    Send your backups to your archives (as often as possible), and your archives to self-same redundancies.

     

    *When referring to backups and archives here, this is in reference to your data saved/ created/ working on,... not your OS, your applications, and your system information / settings,...which is the idealized premise for use of Time Machine as a system-backup after internal data corruption or HD-failure.

     

    Here we are referring to data backups and archives, not system-backups for restoring your OS-system.

     

    If your data on your hard drive is the cash in your wallet, a backup is your bank account/debit card, and an archive is a locked safety deposit box.

     

    Its easy to get your wallet emptied (corrupted) or stolen, your backup checking account is somewhat easy to get corrupted/drained or damaged, but your bunker security is in the lockbox inside the vault, where your vital data and archives reside. In the premise of preventing data loss, you want as often and as much as possible one-way transfers from your “wallet” to your safety deposit box archives; and further still a minimum of two copies of those archives.

     

    Highest priority (archives) requires highest redundancy.  In the premise of often copying data from backups to archives, backup redundancy plays a minor role.

     

    Long-term active file backups (a book, a major time-involved video creation etc.) requires double-active redundancies, preferably a minimum of Time Machine and an autonomous external formatted HD, so there are at least three copies of this data: internal drive, Time Machine, and secondary non-TM HD backup.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    System (OS) Hub – Data Hub

     

    System (OS) Hub

    Your HD/SSD contents, meaning your computers OS, its applications, bookmarks, desktop personalization, history and systems preference settings etc. Though stored on physical hardware, either HD or SSD, your system hub should be considered autonomous to the computer and its processing hardware whose sole task is moving around your system data OS and your personal stored data files. A system hub is always active.

     

    Data Hub

    Your HD/SSD (or externally stored) data. If you saved it, made it, collected it, worked on it, regardless of what ‘it’ is, that should be part of your data hub archive. Important files, passwords, financial information, in essence anything you don’t dare lose and/or you have invested any or a great deal of time in getting, creating, or working on.


    Though stored on physical hardware, either HD or SSD, your data hub should be considered autonomous to the computers hardware, and additionally autonomous to the system hub backup (on TM or HD clone).  A data hub (if large) is mostly passive, and partially active.

     

    Your data hub needs to be compartmentalized and separate from your system hub (OS) for primarily two reasons.

     

    A: You need at the very least 2 copies (preferably a 3rd offsite & online) of your vital data you’ve spent years collecting and working on.

     

    B: A HD clone of your internal drive is not large enough in most instances, nor is it reasonable to try, to keep both your entire OS and its applications in addition to your large and growing data collection on any single clone to use in case of a crash of your internal drive.

     

    In compartmentalizing as separate, your computer hub, your system (OS) hub, and your data hub, you can fully recovery from a total failure of either your HD, or your computer and HD faster than anyone, faster than you dare hope for; removing stress, data loss, confusion, and needless waste of time and effort almost completely!

     

    Compartmentalize your internal HD data contents for simplicity

     

    Keeping all created data on your mac in just a few places

    A very easy methodology used by many is to keep one or two files on the desktop where all their active data, files, and personal pics, documents, and created work is stored rather than it being haphazardly scattered about various folders and subfolders throughout the internal HD. When it comes to quick archiving of your ever-changing data creation and files, dragging one or two folders to an awaiting HD archive or DVD burn is extremely simplex and hunting down valuable data in countless locations on the internal HD is eliminated.

     

    As stated before, professionals and prosumers cannot use Time Machine as a single source backup even if they have autonomous archives, since data is quickly expanded in size well past the internal drive, which likewise, even if the TM backup drive is twice, or three times the size as the internal HD, is also very quickly outpaced to backup the contents of same. The idea of, even if multiple archived copies are made, or the conception of “an entire backup (of everything)” is both unrealistic and ill advised.

    screenshot_366.jpg

    Keeping virtually all of ones data off the internal HD unless immanently necessary simplifies the HD clone premise, and makes data vs. system OS compartmentalization very simplex. Additionally to the clone, this cuts down immensely on an ever-bloating Time Machine backup which should, as ones data is concerned, be centered around active data, and eliminating most if not all static data from being copied or ever directed to Time Machine. Time Machine’s 90% premise is the backup of your system, its updates, new and deleted APPS, and immanent data creation which is either active or very active. 

     

    Those countless many who are using or inclined to view Time Machine as a central (or at the very worse ‘only’) data ‘backup’ are not only putting valuable work in a choke point of failure, but are also creating a ‘growing giant’ where Time Machine can very easily outgrow its HD capacity with the bloat of big data files the likes of which include pics, video, music, PDF and likewise.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 Mar 29, 2014 1:01 PM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 9 (51,382 points)
    Desktops
    Mar 29, 2014 1:01 PM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    1.  Given the second law of thermodynamics, any and all current mfg. HD will, under perfect storage conditions tend themselves to depolarization and a point will be reached, even if the HD mechanism is perfect, that the ferromagnetic read/write surface of the platter inside the HD will entropy to the point of no viable return for data extraction. HD life varies, but barring mechanical failure, 3-8 years typically.

    We should also consider that some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.

     

    So back it up

first Previous Page 8 of 19 last Next