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 16 of 19 last Next
  • by PlotinusVeritas,

    PlotinusVeritas PlotinusVeritas May 13, 2014 5:01 PM in response to OGELTHORPE
    Level 6 (14,806 points)
    May 13, 2014 5:01 PM in response to OGELTHORPE

     

    OGELTHORPE wrote:

     

    PlotinusVeritas wrote:

    OGELTHORPE wrote:

    These 15.2mm HDD's will not fit inside a MBP.

     

    Well, I know that, the point is theyre small and portable 2TB drives

     

    Never mentioned macbooks. 

     

    I believe that this is the Macbook Pro forum.  MBP = Mackbook Pro

     

    You yourself said:

    The largest 2.5" SATA HDD available today is 1.5 TB in capacity

     

    Which isnt correct, but thats no matter.

    OGELTHORPE wrote:

    As for the rest of your opinions

     

    Hard drive longevity is no opinion.      Their nature is a known entity

    Nobody here is advocating "either HD or DVD"

     

    The communications error is likely found in the fact that some folk take data longevity very seriously, others dont.

    There are 2 aspects of protection:

    1. redundancy  ( you mentioned earlier)

    2. longevity

     

    Redundancy is primary, but longevity is its conjugate supremacy.

     

    Peoples 2000 years ago didn't carve stuff in STONE because its was "easier" or more fun than using paper / papyrus.

    They did it because they wanted it to LAST.

     

    HD, I forward rightly, is paper,   DVD are "stone"

  • by MrJavaDeveloper,

    MrJavaDeveloper MrJavaDeveloper May 13, 2014 5:12 PM in response to OGELTHORPE
    Level 1 (64 points)
    May 13, 2014 5:12 PM in response to OGELTHORPE

    For what it's worth, I'm not a lover of optical media, and on this site I think I once wrote something to the effect that Steve Jobs was doing everyone a favor by getting rid of optical drives. However, I have about 10G of ancient source code that I'd like to move off my drive and store somewhere where I can get to it if I need it. Putting it on a reliable optical media makes sense to me. Even I have to make multiple copies of it just to be sure.

     

    I suppose I could transfer all the information to a hard drive and then store the drive, but what guarantee is there that 10 or 15 years from now it will be working. It could, after all get bumped and jarred while in storage and I'd have to believe the media itself may start failing as time goes.

     

    Not trying to pick a fight with anyone, just trying to explain my rationale.

  • by clintonfrombirmingham,

    clintonfrombirmingham clintonfrombirmingham May 13, 2014 5:51 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 7 (30,009 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 13, 2014 5:51 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

    MrJavaDeveloper,

     

    For what it's worth...

     

    I went from Syquest drives to Iomega Zip Drives to optical discs. I've documents, etc., going back to 1986 or so. Love letters to my ex-wife, code that I actually made money on in the 1980's, etc. Stuff I never want to lose.

     

    I'm not trying to convince anyone to use optical discs but I know that, for me, they're an integral part of my archiving system and if you've 'important' stuff that you actually want to "archive" you just can't beat optical.

     

    My 2¢...

     

    Clinton

  • by OGELTHORPE,

    OGELTHORPE OGELTHORPE May 14, 2014 4:12 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 9 (52,511 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 14, 2014 4:12 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

    MrJavaDeveloper wrote:

     

    I suppose I could transfer all the information to a hard drive and then store the drive, but what guarantee is there that 10 or 15 years from now it will be working. It could, after all get bumped and jarred while in storage and I'd have to believe the media itself may start failing as time goes.

     

    Certainly there are no guarantees in life but indirectly you raise a point that has not been squarely addressed in this discussion.  There is agreement that all HDDs will eventually fail, but, what is the shelf life of a HDD?  If one does not use it constantly, does it follow that it will last longer as opposed to one that is in constant use.  I suggest yes, certainly based on large numbers.

     

    Now if the data you wish to archive is of great importance, you have a duplicate HDD (or perhaps even more than one duplicate) if in the rare circumstance one should fail prematurely.  Though not perfect, even from a failed HDD, data can often be retrieved, thus a HDD failure by definition does not necessarily equate to a total loss of data.

     

    Packaged and stored correctly, it may have a shelf life longer than ones own life expectancy.  If one incorporates a periodic maintenance program, there is no reason why one cannot have a solid and reliable backup strategy using HDDs  (Perhaps SSDs may prove to be even more reliable).  If one chooses to use DVDs for backups, that it a singular choice but is one that keeps one in the 'middle ages' of technology.

     

    Ciao.

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 May 14, 2014 4:24 AM in response to OGELTHORPE
    Level 9 (50,806 points)
    Desktops
    May 14, 2014 4:24 AM in response to OGELTHORPE

    I agree wholeheartedly with Ogle, backup in depth (I go 4 layers deep) and rotate hard drives containg archives regularly (hard drives are cheap and fast), that way they have an unmilited lifespan.

     

    Never have only one (or two) copies of anything, it's not enough.

  • by clintonfrombirmingham,

    clintonfrombirmingham clintonfrombirmingham May 14, 2014 4:37 AM in response to OGELTHORPE
    Level 7 (30,009 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 14, 2014 4:37 AM in response to OGELTHORPE

    OGELTHORPE,

     

    So what should I have done with my archives when all of the data was stored on SCSI drives stored in my bank vault? I'm really not trying to convince or evangelize for DVD use, but they really do work well for archival purposes.

     

    Just my 2¢ (again!)...

     

    Clinton

  • by OGELTHORPE,

    OGELTHORPE OGELTHORPE May 14, 2014 5:03 AM in response to clintonfrombirmingham
    Level 9 (52,511 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 14, 2014 5:03 AM in response to clintonfrombirmingham

    clintonfrombirmingham wrote:

     

    I'm really not trying to convince or evangelize for DVD use, but they really do work well for archival purposes.

    If it works for you and you are satisfied, then that is all that matters for you and I do not take issue with that. 

     

    I have already made my arguments why I prefer the HDD approach vs DVDs.  I do not accept the premise that archival storage on HDDs is a high risk proposition and I have covered that point as well.

     

    Up to about 5 years ago, I backed up some of my data on DVDs and I still have them.  When I realized the amount of room they take and work involved, I determined that redundant HDD storage was a better option, at least for me.

     

    Clearly on this subject we have different preferences as persons may have on a wide variety of issues.  I accept that and I suspect that you do as well.

     

    That is my 5 cents worth (inflattion)

     

    Ciao.

  • by MrJavaDeveloper,

    MrJavaDeveloper MrJavaDeveloper May 14, 2014 6:39 AM in response to OGELTHORPE
    Level 1 (64 points)
    May 14, 2014 6:39 AM in response to OGELTHORPE

    The material I'm interested in keeping has been "floating" from drive to drive for decades. I now keep the data in a backup on one drive, on the currently active drive, and a clone of each of my active volumes, all on different drives.

     

    It probably sounds paranoid, but I haven't lost a byte of data in decades.

     

    The problem I have, is that I want to take some of it off the drives to free up space and not need to even worry about it.

  • by OGELTHORPE,

    OGELTHORPE OGELTHORPE May 14, 2014 6:52 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 9 (52,511 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 14, 2014 6:52 AM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

    MrJavaDeveloper wrote:

     

    The problem I have, is that I want to take some of it off the drives to free up space and not need to even worry about it.

    There are multiple ways of backing up ones data.  If you find that space is becoming tight, the simplest solution is to get a HDD with more capacity and clone the data to it.  If there is data that is no longer relevant, by all means delete it.

     

    I am not in a vocational situation so I take a simple but prudent approach for data backups.  I use Time Machine on one HDD which in effect store historical data, up to a point.  Once the TM disk has been filled, oldest data will be deleted and you must know that.  On a separate HDD I use Carbon Copy Cloner which maintains a duplicate of the Internal HDD of my primary MBP.

     

    If you are in a vocational situation, then you should consider additional redundancy.  There are several options to consider.

     

    Ciao.

  • by ZV137,

    ZV137 ZV137 May 14, 2014 12:01 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper
    Level 1 (54 points)
    May 14, 2014 12:01 PM in response to MrJavaDeveloper

    My question a few days ago was essentially "what proof is there that the OD's will last 100 years." The correct answer is "There isn't any."

     

    I was hoping that the long-life OD's at least met some "super spec" and was backep up by published tests to confirm their longevity. I don't see any evidence of this.

     

    That said I may consider buying some of the ODs just because they don't cost much and it might be worthwhile, if only as an experiment, to see how they hold up to other ODs. If they don't hold up, then ODs will, IMHO, be viewed as non-viable long term storage media forever.

     

    The backup strategies are all opinions, meaning no one is right or wrong. There's obviously risk associated with everything.

  • by OGELTHORPE,

    OGELTHORPE OGELTHORPE May 14, 2014 12:03 PM in response to ZV137
    Level 9 (52,511 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 14, 2014 12:03 PM in response to ZV137

    ZV137 wrote:

     

    There's obviously risk associated with everything.

    Risk cannot be eliminated but it can be minimized.

     

    Ciao.

  • by PlotinusVeritas,

    PlotinusVeritas PlotinusVeritas May 14, 2014 9:19 PM in response to OGELTHORPE
    Level 6 (14,806 points)
    May 14, 2014 9:19 PM in response to OGELTHORPE

     

    OGELTHORPE wrote:

     

    Risk cannot be eliminated but it can be minimized.

     

    Ciao.

     

     

    I can assure you 10,000%, it CANNOT be 'minimized' using hard drives.

     

    Clinton was / is trying to spell it out, but youre not differentiating what a "backup" is VS. an "archive".

     

    OGELTHORPE wrote:

    I have already made my arguments why I prefer the HDD approach vs DVDs.

     

    You still dont fundamentally understand.

     

    Its not "HD vs. DVD" ...........its  "HD are HIGHLY HIGHLY corruptible.......archival DVD are NOT"

     

    Its "both"  not  "either or"


    OGELTHORPE wrote:


    Now if the data you wish to archive is of great importance, you have a duplicate HDD

     

     

    You dont understand.

     

    I can duplicate my data , lets say its 2TB, on to 10, 20 , 100, 1000  2TB drives.

     

    duplication on HIGHLY corruptible storage media =  duplication on trash.

     


    OGELTHORPE wrote:

    There is agreement that all HDDs will eventually fail, but, what is the shelf life of a HDD?

     

     

    HD  = 5-8 years

    Archival DVD 50-100 years (or more).

     

     

    HD are cheap as dirt

    DVD are cheaper than dirt.

     

    HD are for data backups and redundancies

    DVD are for archives of VERY important data you "dont dare lose" , data you spent a LOT of time on.

     

     

     

     

    OGELTHORPE wrote:

    Up to about 5 years ago, I backed up some of my data on DVDs and I still have them.  When I realized the amount of room they take and work involved, I determined that redundant HDD storage was a better option

     

    Better, no.   EASY, FAST,  yes.

     

    Fast and easy does not = Better.   It = fast and easy.  Nothing more, nothing less.

     

     

    Some folks dont care about the "room"

     

    and 100 stack of DVD do NOT take up much room. 

  • by PlotinusVeritas,

    PlotinusVeritas PlotinusVeritas May 14, 2014 9:28 PM in response to ZV137
    Level 6 (14,806 points)
    May 14, 2014 9:28 PM in response to ZV137

     

    ZV137 wrote:

    My question a few days ago was essentially "what proof is there that the OD's will last 100 years." The correct answer is "There isn't any."

     

    I was hoping that the long-life OD's at least met some "super spec" and was backep up by published tests to confirm their longevity. I don't see any evidence of this.

     

     

     

    You want evidence?  

     

    MILLIONS of Archival DVD are going STRONG 21+ years old.

    MILLIONS of archival CDs are going strong 25+ years old.

     

    NOT A SINGLE HD will you find written to then stored away with data retention at 12+ years.

     

     

    The giant 800 pound gorilla in the room you are missing is that if a 100+ year archival DVD , stored correctly dies at say, 40 years.

    thats 7X the average of your typical hard drive.

     

     

    The big picture, .....youre missing it completely. 

    90% or more of HD will have failed for data retention at 8+ years.

     

     

     

    this discussion, so to say, has nothing to do with "DVD vs. HD",

    it has to do with wisdom, common sense, and the LOGIC of protecting in longevity, important data on optical storage media. (professional grade as meant)

  • by Csound1,

    Csound1 Csound1 May 15, 2014 12:49 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 9 (50,806 points)
    Desktops
    May 15, 2014 12:49 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    More estimation and opinion, subtle use of color though.

  • by OGELTHORPE,

    OGELTHORPE OGELTHORPE May 15, 2014 9:03 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas
    Level 9 (52,511 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 15, 2014 9:03 AM in response to PlotinusVeritas

    Let me make this abundantly clear, there is nothing 'wrong' with DVD backups and archiving, it is just that there are more negatives associated with it when compared to alternatives.  Many roads lead to Rome but I get the sense that you feel yours is the only one.

     

    You have now tried to rebut my position several times.  It seems to me that in your zealotry, you take my arguments as a personal affront.  That simply is not the case for I have restricted my comments to a strictly technical nature.  It has always been my observation that quantity does not necessarily trump quality, though sadly there are instances where it does. 

     

    I have tried using disks as backup storage devices to a limited degree and I have found that strategy wanting.  I probably have about 100 disks which I have not accessed in about 5 years!  I performed a quick inventory of my data and I find that on my primary MBP, I have 900GB of data.  On external HDDs, I have 1995 GB+ of data on 5 separate HDDs.  All of this is backed up on other HDDs.  Assuming that the data would fit neatly on a DVD (100% usage) that would be an equivalent of 617 disks (minimum).  Add another set of disks for backup, we are dealing with over 1200 disks.  The maintenance and storage issues become overwhelming.

     

    I am not here to make choices for others but present to them options that they make select or reject.  I recognize that there are limitations using HDDs and I have addressed that.  You seem to suggest that DVD storage is fool proof and I reject that proposition.  My doing so seems to elicit from you responses that are indicative of a degree of hostility on your part.   I find that most unfortunate. 

     

    I am more than willing to allow the third party reader formulate their opinion as to what strategy affords their needs the best.  That is their choice, not yours or mine.  It is of no consequence to me since my primary concern is my data, not that of others thus I do not have any vested interest.

     

    There may very well come along a storage/backup strategy that will displace both options that have been discussed and one might think that this argument would become moot.  I eagerly await and am willing to embrace such a change assuming it will withstand tests of less inherent risk and added flexibility of data management.  I wonder if that will be the case with you.

     

    Ciao.

first Previous Page 16 of 19 last Next