What are you talking about? Of course it’s relevant.
Hard drives are unreliable, they always have been and they probably always will be.
I’ve personally had three drives fail in the last 12 months - two HDDs and one SSD. And both of those were internal hard drives either in a data center or at least on a desk in a properly climate controlled office. All three of them were from far more reputable manufacturers than WD. I suspect none of those failures were the actual disk by the way pretty sure they were all chipset or firmware failures.
Your solution doesn’t have to be RAID, but it has to be something better than “I’ll just keep this file on a single drive”.
WD should absolutely do better - but at the same time even if they did do better it still wouldn’t be good enough. There shouldn’t be any data loss when (not if) a drive fails.
there are 2 discussions happening: 1 about the product the article is talking about, and another about the tangentially related topic of disk failure in general
i see no problem here… or are we only allowed to discuss the specific points the article mentions now and absolutely under no circumstances are we allowed to have discussions about anything else…?
Second paragraph of the article: “My colleague Vjeran just lost 3TB of video”.
It’s not just the title, the entire article is about data loss. To be honest what really bothers me about the article is the whole thing points fingers at WD for making a mistake, while conveniently ignoring that fact that a Verge employee also made a mistake and I’d argue a worse one by failing to backup their data.
If the article was about “it’s annoying to have to wait for a replacement drive to be sent” then I’d be right on board. But that’s not what the article is about.
No… the company trying to hide the fact that their product is defective is the point here. Lost data or not, people are paying for a product that’s defective. End of story.
> irrelevant to the point of the article
What are you talking about? Of course it’s relevant.
Hard drives are unreliable, they always have been and they probably always will be.
I’ve personally had three drives fail in the last 12 months - two HDDs and one SSD. And both of those were internal hard drives either in a data center or at least on a desk in a properly climate controlled office. All three of them were from far more reputable manufacturers than WD. I suspect none of those failures were the actual disk by the way pretty sure they were all chipset or firmware failures.
Your solution doesn’t have to be RAID, but it has to be something better than “I’ll just keep this file on a single drive”.
WD should absolutely do better - but at the same time even if they did do better it still wouldn’t be good enough. There shouldn’t be any data loss when (not if) a drive fails.
Stop focusing on the title. The lost data isn’t the point. The defect is the point.
there are 2 discussions happening: 1 about the product the article is talking about, and another about the tangentially related topic of disk failure in general
i see no problem here… or are we only allowed to discuss the specific points the article mentions now and absolutely under no circumstances are we allowed to have discussions about anything else…?
Second paragraph of the article: “My colleague Vjeran just lost 3TB of video”.
It’s not just the title, the entire article is about data loss. To be honest what really bothers me about the article is the whole thing points fingers at WD for making a mistake, while conveniently ignoring that fact that a Verge employee also made a mistake and I’d argue a worse one by failing to backup their data.
If the article was about “it’s annoying to have to wait for a replacement drive to be sent” then I’d be right on board. But that’s not what the article is about.
No… the company trying to hide the fact that their product is defective is the point here. Lost data or not, people are paying for a product that’s defective. End of story.