dsrich@engr.uky.edu (Dave Richardson) (10/04/87)
</\/\+/\/\+/\/\> <--barbed wire for line-eater digestion. Okay, I've heard a lot about hard drive lifespan, but nobody has mentioned whether how the PC is mounted effects the disk drive, so I'll ask: Does the position of the drive (i.e. whether the PC is horizontal as on a desktop, or vertical as in a stand on the floor) effect the lifespan of the drive? It stands to some limited reason that if the drive can wear a second divot in the bearing point (I've never had one apart) then standing the PC on its edge would put more stress on the bearing point, and consquently wear the second divot faster. Any comments? Thanks.
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (10/05/87)
In article <1623@ukecc.engr.uky.edu>, dsrich@engr.uky.edu (Dave Richardson) writes: > > Does the position of the drive (i.e. whether the PC is horizontal as on a > desktop, or vertical as in a stand on the floor) effect the lifespan of the > drive? An EE friend (and business associate) of mine was concerned about this when he was putting together an industrialized PC-compatible. He found, somewhat to his surprise, that just about all of the possible positions in which the drive was at various 90-degree rotations were approved EXCEPT those with the face plate facing directly UP and DOWN. He never found out if this was just because it hadn't been tested or if there was a real problem. This was for a Seagate 225, there is a possibility that other drives would have somewhat different characteristics. Also, it's possible that some positions would have some minor effect on drive life and still be approved. Bruce C. Wright
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (10/06/87)
In article <1766@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: >An EE friend ... found, somewhat >to his surprise, that just about all of the possible positions in which the >drive was at various 90-degree rotations were approved EXCEPT those with the >face plate facing directly UP and DOWN. >This was for a Seagate 225 ... I believe the reason for this is that the head positioning mechanism is designed to work without gravity pulling at the heads in either direction. Imagine what it would take to make the drive work horizontally AND vertically. Keep drives mounted flat or on the side, not faceplate up or down. (Reminds me of my favorite street sign: Do Not Park Vertical.) -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet
mlinar@poisson.usc.edu (Mitch Mlinar) (10/06/87)
In article <1623@ukecc.engr.uky.edu> dsrich@engr.uky.edu (Dave Richardson) writes: > ></\/\+/\/\+/\/\> <--barbed wire for line-eater digestion. > >Okay, I've heard a lot about hard drive lifespan, but nobody has mentioned >whether how the PC is mounted effects the disk drive, so I'll ask: > >Does the position of the drive (i.e. whether the PC is horizontal as on a >desktop, or vertical as in a stand on the floor) effect the lifespan of the >drive? It stands to some limited reason that if the drive can wear a second >divot in the bearing point (I've never had one apart) then standing the PC >on its edge would put more stress on the bearing point, and consquently wear >the second divot faster. Any comments? > > Thanks. Based upon the hundreds of drives I have tested over the years, I don't recall any preference in lifetime to a given position. Flat appears to be more common than vertical for desktop machines and vice versa for deskside machines due solely to engineering. However, there IS one thing to know which is very trivial and everyone probably knows it already: once a drive is up and running in a given position for awhile, do *NOT* change the position. Not only was drive wear increased after the mounting position was changed, but the head rides differently in each of the three positions (flat, vertical left, vertical right) and data loss was noted. (This was done as part of a deliberate test). Although your wear increases, the data problem is resolved by reformatting the entire drive and restoring from the backup made prior to the change. As has been pointed out by many users regarding the torque of the hard drive mounting screws, drives are very sensitive to the mounting environment! -Mitch
bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified]) (10/07/87)
dsrich@engr.uky.edu (Dave Richardson) writes: > >drive? It stands to some limited reason that if the drive can wear a second >divot in the bearing point (I've never had one apart) then standing the PC >on its edge would put more stress on the bearing point, and consquently wear >the second divot faster. Any comments? Some alternative reasoning: When the platter is horizontal, all its weight is on the bearings on the lower end of the spindle. When the drive is on edge, the platter is vertical and the spindle is horizontal, so the weight of the platter is divided between the bearings on each end of the spindle. Thus the wear might be expected to be half as much, on each end.
guest@vu-vlsi.UUCP (visitors) (10/11/87)
In article <1766@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: >In article <1623@ukecc.engr.uky.edu>, dsrich@engr.uky.edu (Dave Richardson) writes: >> >> Does the position of the drive (i.e. whether the PC is horizontal as on a >> desktop, or vertical as in a stand on the floor) effect the lifespan of the >> drive? > >An EE friend (and business associate) of mine was concerned about this when >he was putting together an industrialized PC-compatible. He found, somewhat >to his surprise, that just about all of the possible positions in which the >drive was at various 90-degree rotations were approved EXCEPT those with the >face plate facing directly UP and DOWN. He never found out if this was just >because it hadn't been tested or if there was a real problem. >[...] I would think that the hard drive could be put in any orientation that did not have the heads moving perpendicular to the horizon so that gravitational effects on the positioning of the heads would be non-existent, otherwise, the drives would have to be calibrated in the factory in this type of orientation. If the heads move perpendicular to the face-plate, this would make sense. Of course, this is just some idle speculation. **Sigh** just a thought... ============================================================================== | Mark Schaffer | BITNET: 164485913@vuvaxcom | | Villanova University | UUCP: ...{ihnp4!psuvax1,burdvax,cbmvax,pyrnj,bpa} | | (Go Wildcats!) | !vu-vlsi!excalibur!164485913 | ============================================================================== please respond/reply to the above addresses and not to guest@vu-vlsi.UUCP