Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Apple Products
Other Hardware and Peripherals
Portable vs desktop hard drives
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pigoo3" data-source="post: 1713969" data-attributes="member: 56379"><p>Great question Dave. I did some "Googling" as well to try to find something to link…but not much showing up (other than opinions on various forums).</p><p></p><p>With SSD's and the like being the much more "sexier" topic for the past few years…recent info on HD durability is not so common.</p><p></p><p>For what it's worth…I've read that many "server farms" use 2.5" drives. The goal here could be lower energy consumption or more gigabytes/terabytes per unit area compared to 3.5" HD's (rather than pure durability being the goal).</p><p></p><p>3.5" drives used to be less expensive as well…so at one time they would be the lower cost choice. But the price gap may be closing (OP mentioned only $5.00 difference between the drives they were looking at).</p><p></p><p>I've also trusted that if Apple was using 3.5" drives in the Time Capsule (even the newest version)…that was for a reason other than just cost. I still feel (gut-feeling) that 3.5" drives are more durable long term. </p><p></p><p>Finally I've also heard of some "server-class" 2.5" HD's…versus "consumer-class" 2.5" HD's. So these "server-class" 2.5" HD's may be the way to go (but maybe they are also more expensive than "server-class" 3.5" HD's).</p><p></p><p>Maybe the better answer is…the cost (lower) and availability (easier) of a server-class 3.5" HD is better than server class 2.5" HD's.</p><p></p><p>- Nick</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pigoo3, post: 1713969, member: 56379"] Great question Dave. I did some "Googling" as well to try to find something to link…but not much showing up (other than opinions on various forums). With SSD's and the like being the much more "sexier" topic for the past few years…recent info on HD durability is not so common. For what it's worth…I've read that many "server farms" use 2.5" drives. The goal here could be lower energy consumption or more gigabytes/terabytes per unit area compared to 3.5" HD's (rather than pure durability being the goal). 3.5" drives used to be less expensive as well…so at one time they would be the lower cost choice. But the price gap may be closing (OP mentioned only $5.00 difference between the drives they were looking at). I've also trusted that if Apple was using 3.5" drives in the Time Capsule (even the newest version)…that was for a reason other than just cost. I still feel (gut-feeling) that 3.5" drives are more durable long term. Finally I've also heard of some "server-class" 2.5" HD's…versus "consumer-class" 2.5" HD's. So these "server-class" 2.5" HD's may be the way to go (but maybe they are also more expensive than "server-class" 3.5" HD's). Maybe the better answer is…the cost (lower) and availability (easier) of a server-class 3.5" HD is better than server class 2.5" HD's. - Nick [/QUOTE]
Verification
Name this item 🌈
Post reply
Forums
Other Apple Products
Other Hardware and Peripherals
Portable vs desktop hard drives
Top