120 > 75

it seems to be a bit of a lottery with the 75 GXP, (class action law suit) I have one and it worked fine for over 18 months even though cooling was not optimal and I did not prepare it using DFT as instructed by IBM. However it was not able to use the full data volume out of the box which indicates quality control issues to me. It freaked on me recently but is back in full swing after I lost a minimal amount of data.

The later 60GXP series are allegedly better than this. IBM reckon their 120GXP pixie dust drives are even better, I have one and I can only hope they are right.

There are no drives on the market which are 100% reliable; and all I have seen suggests that the later GXP series are being undeservedly tarred with the same brush as the 75.

The recent "The Inquirer µ" article mentioned in a post below is aghast at IBM suggesting that their drives are not suitable for servers I must say its a little worrying but I think that µ are just shaking the tree to see what falls out. These drives are advertised as desktop computer drives. The lawsuit above is about IBM being sued for representing the 75 drives as more reliable than they are, which hinges practically around the suitability for desktop vs server applications. IBM are therefore currently representing the drives as not suitable for servers as a response to this lawsuit.