Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: npvr.db3 journal file constantly created and destroyed

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    78
    Nice one sub.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    453
    Thanks, sub.

    I still might move my data directory from the SSD to my recording drive (standard HDD) since I didn't consider all the log file writes before...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    West Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    97
    Why would you not want to use the SSD? These drives are not only faster, but based on some of what I've read from Maximum PC and TEKHD, they can handle 100gb a day writes for 30 years.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakesty View Post
    ...based on some of what I've read from Maximum PC and TEKHD, they can handle 100gb a day writes for 30 years.
    Just gotta love claims like that (not aimed at you Jakesty but at people who make the claims).

    I've played with electronics since I was about age 10 (we still used valve technology for some things back then ) and seen things change a great deal. My favourite 'spec' for devices is MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures). I've seen times of >50,000 hours and >100,000 hours (and more) for hardware and still had to return devices after only a few weeks when basically they just stopped working.

    SSDs have improved over time but I personally don't trust them 100% and they have a track record in the same way as other solid-state devices such as SD cards, USB thumb drives etc.

    If somebody can show me an entire test bed of SSDs which have been running since 1982 constantly having had 100GB a day written to them I might believe such claims, but the technology didn't exist back then so it comes down to extrapolated statistics.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    West Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    97
    Oh yeah, I do agree. But given what they quote like 2million hrs MTBF, even some small percentage of that, the numbers are quite high. A good HD is warranteed for 5 years and I know they often do last much longer, or they're dead soon after you put them into use (isn't that usually how it is?). But even if your SSD lasts similar in time to what an HD does, why not get the benefit of the higher speed. And in 5 years when it "wears" out, will you really want to be using small, slow or old capacity drives? I've got several drives in the 60gb range (even 200gb), they're not worth the bother any longer or the power to spin the drives.

    Just one of the links I referred to, TekZilla Link

    But even without this info, the push for SSD's is coming, capacity is the only thing holding them back and once that is overcome, it's good bye spinning HD's.

    I'd also find it hard to find a "test bed" of spinning HD's since even just 2002 that just about haven't all failed or most likely their 10, 20 or 30 gb drives been retired long ago.

    I too don't trust anything. SSD or HD or Me. One of us will do something to try and lose data. I RAID1 the most important stuff, back up to DVD and perform Acronis clones or NTBackups. I've been burned in the past, you can never have enough backups.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia - Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    243
    This was an interesting paper on disk failure rates by Google.
    http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/go...re-experience/

    Pre-SSDs of course.
    NPVR 2.6.2;Windows 7 Enterprise SP1;i5 750; 8GB mem;Geforce 210;Winfast DTV100 S, Winfast DTV Dongle Gold; 2 x Winfast DTV2000DS

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •