There's a word for someone who trusts valuable data to an old hard drive.
Lying, as always. I dont ever do anything like that.
ANYTHING THAT CANT BE READILY
REPLACED IS ALWAYS FULLY BACKED UP.
Pathological liar.
Even when one makes backups, they're
not doing it after every single document
Wrong, as always. That is done with
every single document that matters.
nor safeguarding against system downtime...
System downtime doesnt matter a damn with most personal
desktop systems with the sorts of failure rates actually seen
with hard drives that are over 4 years old.
If system downtime is crucial, anyone with a clue
uses a config which has no system downtime.
unless of course they'd other precautions too, but just
as these other precautions are another safeguard, so is
retiring drives instead of gambling on how long they'll last.
No gamble what so ever involved in ensuring that anything
that matters is ALWAYS backed up and having whatever is
needed to adequately cover system downtime requirements.
Don't need to, your argument for "full backups" are
only as good as the moment the backup was made
Wrong again, most obviously with mirroring.
and doesn't counter everything,
Yes it does, even countering the house burning down etc.
not when it's being contrasting with retiring a
drive worth $10 (if that) to rotate in newer drive.
No point in bothering to do that when the system has been
adequately configured to ensure that nothing can ever be lost.
Sure, that's yet another safeguard, but not enough reason
to use 4-5+ year old drives till the moment they fail.
Wrong, as always with the failure rates of drives that old seen.
So now we (I mean you), are only considering personal desktop systems.
Another lie, that's what the OP was asking about.
Ok, but what's that vastly different economic involved?
Most obviously you dont need some highly paid
monkey to show up and swap out a failed drive.
One can get a 160GB HDD for about $40 after
rebate, if it lasts 10 years that's $10 per year.
Irrelevant to the reason that those operations that swap out drives
in a calenda basis do that. They dont get those drives for anything
like that, and there is the tiny matter of the highly paid monkey that
has to be paid to show up and swap out a failed drive etc.
Those supposed RAID arrays you propose, as
well as the "full backup" will cost more than that
And provide one hell of a better protection for the data.
And mirroring to extra capacity on other drives on the lan with
drives that are bought larger than they would otherwise be
have even better economics than what you just waved around.
AND you have just plucked that 4 years out of your arse anyway.
You dont have a shred of rigorous statistical evidence for
swapping the drive after 4 years instead of say 2 years or 6.
so it is not I that propose something going against
your late proposal for "different economics".
Nothing late about it, child, anyone with a clue realises
that what can make sense with commerical operations
that have to pay highly paid monkeys to swap out hard
drives has NOTHING to do with what make sense with
the personal desktop systems being discussed.
Go right on using 'em till they fail Rod,
I will, and I dont need your permission to do that thanks, child.
if it makes you feel special.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
I do that because I've got enough of a clue to realise that
the only thing that makes any sense is to have full backups
of anything that matters and that the failure rate of modern
hard drives used properly is so low that it makes no sense
whatever to be swapping drives out that are 4 years old
and that you have just plucked that 4 years from your arse,
the same place you always get your mindless silly shit from.
