Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iMac HDD fail rate?

A

AR86

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 7, 2014
66
1
On the whole Fusion vs SSD debate people constantly mention HDD's having a higher tendency to fail but honestly speaking i've never had or known any friends or family to have experienced a HDD failiure granted none have been on macs, some of them have used their PC's/Laptops for 5+ years easily and never had such problems.

Are the HDD's in iMacs different? ie prone to failiure or is it just a general point that people make as to point out the benefits of SSD without necessarily implying HDD on iMacs have some crazy fail rate? Just wanted a bit of clarification as i've been totally cool with the idea of getting a Fusion Drive but I constantly see people mention 'no moving parts so it won't fail like the HDD' so it's got worried iMacs are packed with dud HDD's
 
I cannot speak for fusion drives but I had a 2009 refurb 21.5" iMac hard drive die within two months of purchase. My 2010 21.5" HDD is still chugging away 4.5 years on.

Outside of that, I can't remember a hard drive failure in all the other iMacs I've owned. I've never owned a fusion or SSD Mac.

I know you're asking about newer models, but thought I would post anyway.
 
The HDD's in iMac's, all Mac's, are the same type you'll find in anything else; Western Digital, Toshiba, Hitachi, Seagate etc... They're no different.

HDD's fail because of the heat, friction and vibration of the spinning platters. They break down due to physics like any other mechanical device will over time.

That doesn't mean all are duds. If you get many years of service out of them then you're doing well. Sometimes they fail sooner than others. I've had a few hard drives fail in my PC's before and several in high-end enterprise servers too. It happens.

SSD's have the advantage of no moving parts and reduced heat. But they won't last forever either.

At the end of the day, there isn't anything to worry about when using either, especially if you have a good backup plan that is executed regularly.
 
To answer your question : this is just a "general" thing about HDD and not any Mac in particular.

And on a tech forum these kind of "potential defects" seem to be way more prevalent than they really are.

But yes, mecanical problems are always a possibility, like a car, even the most reliable ones.

It's like old iPods that were little HDD. In theory you should not move a HDD for the same reasons, that they are mecanical and thus can break, however it wasn't an huge problem overall.

---

But to summarize HDD and SSD reliability :

HDD : They probably will last a long time, but you never know and it is always possible, even if improbable, that it will fail tomorrow.

SSD : They will fail eventually, because after a certain number of uses the bits become unreliable. It will be in years under normal usage and you know it won't happen tomorrow.

But in any case, having good backups is always a good thing.
 
Cheers for the replies, so am I correct in assuming that extended apple care will have me covered if my HDD went poof within the first 3 years of me having it?
 
AR86 said:
Cheers for the replies, so am I correct in assuming that extended apple care will have me covered if my HDD went poof within the first 3 years of me having it?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you have Apple Care coverage, they should take care of you properly. :)
 
SandboxGeneral said:
Yes, if you have Apple Care coverage, they should take care of you properly. :)
Click to expand...

Definitely going to be buying it, i'm not one to normally pay extra for extended insurance etc. on electronics ie phones/cameras etc. but for a close to £2000 iMac I just think it makes sense especially since it's reasonably priced.
 
AR86 said:
Definitely going to be buying it, i'm not one to normally pay extra for extended insurance etc. on electronics ie phones/cameras etc. but for a close to £2000 iMac I just think it makes sense especially since it's reasonably priced.
Click to expand...

Oh, you don't already have it? I think if you don't buy the additional coverage before the original 1 year warranty is up, you can't buy it.

But, call them and ask, you never know.
 
AR86 said:
On the whole Fusion vs SSD debate people constantly mention HDD's having a higher tendency to fail...i've been totally cool with the idea of getting a Fusion Drive but I constantly see people mention 'no moving parts so it won't fail like the HDD'...
Click to expand...

While generally more reliable, SSDs can fail just like HDDs. When SSDs fail you usually have no notice. By contrast many HDD failures start with errors, giving you time to salvage data.

However with Fusion Drive, if either SSD or HDD portion fails, the drive fails. So it's logically like a two-drive RAID0 set. Mac Performance Guide gave a balanced perspective of this:

http://macperformanceguide.com/fusion-complexity.html

"How much less reliable is this approach? With good engineering, perhaps still far beyond the concern of most users. Over time, the relative reliability of a two drive Fusion volume will emerge."

Various discussions of SSD reliability and risk:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/30/are-ssds-reliable/
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...might-be-the-only-reliable-drive-manufacturer
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...o-die--as-linus-torvalds-just-discovered.html
http://hardware-beta.slashdot.org/s...d-annual-failure-rates-around-15-hdds-about-5
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.c...sd-vs.-hdd-performance-and-reliability-1.html
 
SandboxGeneral said:
Oh, you don't already have it? I think if you don't buy the additional coverage before the original 1 year warranty is up, you can't buy it.

But, call them and ask, you never know.
Click to expand...

I havn't bought my iMac yet no so not a worry just yet.

joema2 said:
While generally more reliable, SSDs can fail just like HDDs. When SSDs fail you usually have no notice. By contrast many HDD failures start with errors, giving you time to salvage data.

However with Fusion Drive, if either SSD or HDD portion fails, the drive fails. So it's logically like a two-drive RAID0 set. Mac Performance Guide gave a balanced perspective of this:

http://macperformanceguide.com/fusion-complexity.html

"How much less reliable is this approach? With good engineering, perhaps still far beyond the concern of most users. Over time, the relative reliability of a two drive Fusion volume will emerge."

Various discussions of SSD reliability and risk:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/30/are-ssds-reliable/
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...might-be-the-only-reliable-drive-manufacturer
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...o-die--as-linus-torvalds-just-discovered.html
http://hardware-beta.slashdot.org/s...d-annual-failure-rates-around-15-hdds-about-5
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.c...sd-vs.-hdd-performance-and-reliability-1.html
Click to expand...

Going to have a read of this now
 
Very interesting reading those articles, honestly i'm still leaning towards a 1tb fusion drive but i'm still open to the idea of a 256 or even 512gb SSD setup (512 maybe a little out of reach), think it's a tricky decision.
 
AR86 said:
Very interesting reading those articles, honestly i'm still leaning towards a 1tb fusion drive but i'm still open to the idea of a 256 or even 512gb SSD setup (512 maybe a little out of reach), think it's a tricky decision.
Click to expand...

The thing is, whether you get all SSD or the fusion, you should periodically back it up to an external. So you're covered for 3 years with Applecare regardless whichever drive you get. It's really a matter of whether or not you're going to stay within the 512gb SSD comfortably over the three year period; that's what I really weighed into my decision.

Personally, I was OK with the fusion at this time, but I would say in a few years time that a 1 TB SSD will be much more affordable if not standard.
 
AR86 said:
Very interesting reading those articles, honestly i'm still leaning towards a 1tb fusion drive but i'm still open to the idea of a 256 or even 512gb SSD setup (512 maybe a little out of reach), think it's a tricky decision.
Click to expand...

If cost is a concern, then the fusion drive arrangement would be a great compromise and savings over an SSD. It will run very fast and provide you with adequate storage space.
 
AFAIK they have different failure rates,

>>The HDD's in iMac's, all Mac's, are the same type you'll find in anything else; Western Digital, Toshiba, >>Hitachi, Seagate etc... They're no different.

I often find Hitachi HDDs in apple's, and Hitachi has the best failure rate,
at least it is often said in reports. The second point is that Hitachi is not the cheapest one, however in case of one HDD difference in a few bucks does not make a weather.
 
Last edited:
SandboxGeneral said:
If cost is a concern, then the fusion drive arrangement would be a great compromise and savings over an SSD. It will run very fast and provide you with adequate storage space.
Click to expand...

in my experience fusion drive does not give much performance over regular HDD, might be it depends on tasks.
 
My late 2012 3Tb fusion drive died this week - after approx 14 months' daily use.

Total failure with some warning in the weeks before with freezing and ball-of-death episodes. Thank goodness I have the lot backuped with Time Machine. Cost approx $500 to replace...
 
William Auld said:
in my experience fusion drive does not give much performance over regular HDD, might be it depends on tasks.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the difference between HDD and FD at boot and when you're launching your favourite apps, your FD has a problem ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back