Would a larger hard drive live longer?

Would a hard drive have a longer life span in a DVR if it was of a larger capacity? If you needed only one day of recording and could get that with a 1TB hard drive, would a 4TB hard drive have a longer life? Or does this logic only really apply to an SSD?

Again: would two 1TB hard drives likely last longer than a single 2TB?

And this question is assuming a setup without RAID capabilities.

IMO the simple answer is no. It appears that mechanical hard drives don't have a limited number of write operations, from what I can tell with google. If that's the case, it won't matter if you rewrite the same 200 GB all day of a 1 TB or a 4 TB drive. Even if I'm wrong and HDDs do have a maximum number of writes, it's almost certainly going to fail from a mechanical failure (spin motor or reading arm) or some other electronic failure. And I would still stand by my no answer.

Just for the sake of thoroughness, although SSDs do have a finite number of writes, some recent stress tests I've read tell me that this is an academic fact only and shouldn't impact purchasing decision. The lifespan of an SSD in an even heavy use environment is almost certainly going to outlive your usefulness for it. The failure rate in general of SSDs is significantly lower than HDDs. I personally believe they are the cat's meow and everybody should have one if they can afford it. They are amazing tech and really make a computer feel massively quicker. HDDs need to die.

Having a larger HDD will not increase it's longevity.

The SSD type used to only last around three years but new ones are coming out now that last 5-10 years (Samsung?). They do have a much lower failure rate than any HDD as Digiscan mentioned. I still haven't made up my mind about whether or not using an SSD for surveillance is worth it. I've always had issues justifying the cost versus reward.

It would be wise to wait a while with SSD. Samsung 840(not pro) have big, big troubles at the moment. Play It safe!!!

Drive size has no bearing on drive longevity. Drive construction and operating environment do. There are reasons why some drives are warranted for 5 years while others are only warranted for 3 years. One big difference is type of use: some drives are made for continuous 7/24 operation while others are designed for intermittent use. Drives for Video Surveillance are designed for continuous writing of video streams while general purpose drives are designed to write occasionally while reading more frequently.

Key factors that shorten the life of hard drives are heat and vibration. If you want drives to last longer, pick drives designed specifically for your application and make certain the equipment they are mounted in is solidly built with sufficient cooling to keep the drive temperature well below its rating limits.

Having a larger HDD will not increase it's longevity.

 

The SSD type used to only last around three years but new ones are coming out now that last 5-10 years (Samsung?). They do have a much lower failure rate than any HDD as Digiscan mentioned. I still haven't made up my mind about whether or not using an SSD for surveillance is worth it. I've always had issues justifying the cost versus reward.

I don't see any reason to use SSDs for surveillance. Until SSD prices really drop HDDs are the way to go, unless you really, really, really need the best.

I'm still not sure what is so great with SSDs. I have two (older ones). Neither gave me greased lightening speed improvement. One is a 60gig OCZ Vertex Plus SATA II. I installed Windows three times and three times after a few weeks the blue screen of death welcomed me. The drive now just sits, maybe one day I'll use it for something. The second I bought a few months later (A cheap 62gig ADATA) drive. It's never failed. Both of those SSDs only are slightly faster than the 320gig WD Scorpio drive that came with the laptop.

I wonder what would be better (or easier) for data recovery, a failed HDD or SDD.

Having a larger HDD will not increase it's longevity.

 

The SSD type used to only last around three years but new ones are coming out now that last 5-10 years (Samsung?). They do have a much lower failure rate than any HDD as Digiscan mentioned. I still haven't made up my mind about whether or not using an SSD for surveillance is worth it. I've always had issues justifying the cost versus reward.

 

I don't see any reason to use SSDs for surveillance. Until SSD prices really drop HDDs are the way to go, unless you really, really, really need the best.

 

I'm still not sure what is so great with SSDs. I have two (older ones). Neither gave me greased lightening speed improvement. One is a 60gig OCZ Vertex Plus SATA II. I installed Windows three times and three times after a few weeks the blue screen of death welcomed me. The drive now just sits, maybe one day I'll use it for something. The second I bought a few months later (A cheap 62gig ADATA) drive. It's never failed. Both of those SSDs only are slightly faster than the 320gig WD Scorpio drive that came with the laptop.

 

I wonder what would be better (or easier) for data recovery, a failed HDD or SDD.

For NVR/DVR use there is no benefit..but for use as an OS drive there is a HUGE difference. Boot times are cut to 20 seconds, programs launch instantly and the whole pc is fast...I install ssd's in every office and home pc... in fact i would rather use a core2duo with an ssd that an i7 haswell with a traditional drive for office use...

The problem with your OCZ is that you went cheap...OCZ is junk....they have really high failure rates...

i only use intel, samsung and crucial and have never had a failure...an ssd is the single best upgrade you can make to a pc in terms if direct speed increase results...The difference is VERY noticeable to the point where using traditional drives drives me crazy...