安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
I've never had one that broke. And all the people that I gave computers to, all replaced their computers before the hard disc drives even broke.
I still have all the old garbage in use, because its not broken yet.
All you need to know is they do fail. Any sort of average is going to vary from model/age/amount of use. But there's no concrete number to tell you. Someone with bad luck has had a drive fail in five days. And someone with good luck has been using the same model drive for 15 years.
In 25 years I've had one HDD fail properly, and one SSD fail. But I typically build a new machine every five years and that usually entails new drives and the old drives don't see much use after that.
I don't know how up to date this info is, but back in the day a lot of failures came from the drives parking/spinning down too often, but you can control that on the operating system level if need be.
Backblaze keeps drive failure rates if you're interested in statistics: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q3-2023/ (but that's for a server environment, YMMV).
mobo/cpu often fail sooner
bad caps, from hardware around 2005 killed off alot of hardware
I would recommend getting a backup drive of your backup and loading stuff on there and don't touch it until your first backup fails
OP, kind of sounds like what I experienced when my BIOS was out of date
But it could also be the storage
It is a decent resource if you understand what it is. If you are not familiar with Backblaze it is important to note how they use drives. They use a custom built chassis to “top-load” disks into. They primarily use consumer disks, but they have a variety of disk models they will use. The important things to keep in mind is consumer disks are not rated for a 24/7/365 duty cycle like enterprise and data center disks are; and their chassis slots the disks in vertically without securing them in place so they may experience higher rotational vibration than they are rated for when the spindles spin up or down.
In other words it is not a good resource to look at “failure rate for this specific model or brand”, but it is a good resource to look at in aggregate for general mechanical disk failure rates, and how well (or not) some smart attributes may predict potential failure.
I'd say after 5 years or normal wear and tear is pretty good, but if its on 24/7, I'd probably replace them sooner than 5 years, would also have multiple drives of the same content if its irreplaceable data, even a cloud save or some off site back up just in case.
In all the PC's I have had, which is a lot, only one HDD has failed. Whereas I have had about five SSD's fail. So the answer is, in reality they are a lot more reliable than SSD's!
I disagree, portable SSD being tossed around will have a far better chance than an HDD being tossed around, I've have yet to see a failed SSD and I work on many computers.
in a desktop, hdd will outlast any ssd
I no longer use mechanical disks because they make zero sense when seek time causes a large performance loss even on it's own.
Some of my Toshibas are over 12 years old and still spin, but I don't use for data storage. Only getting old photos off.
EDIT: Also my SSDs are 12 years too and have no failed, so ...
its not as fast as ssd, but its more than fast enough for older sp linear games, music, videos, documents and other long term storage
unless its a 5400rpm or slower hdd
but they are spinning rust, if it starts getting bad sectors backup and replace it asap
the corrosion spreads quickly once it starts forming