dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
283

Dustyn
Premium Member
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
·Carry Telecom
·TekSavvy Cable
Asus GT-AX11000
Technicolor TC4400

1 recommendation

Dustyn

Premium Member

Hitachi and Seagate most and least reliable, respectively

The data is based on more than 25,000 units in active service from 15 different consumer-grade hard drives from Seagate, Hitachi, and Western Digital.
»blog.backblaze.com/2014/ ··· d-i-buy/

I have to say that I have also not had much luck with Seagate hard disk drives. Some work perfectly in the beginning and then decide to fail after 1-2 months use which is rather scary to trust your data with. I've been plenty fortunate with the "6" Hitachi brand drives, with no failures to date to report. I've also had success with Western Digital, with the exception of a failure or two in years past. Failures are to be expected with any drive, I've simply had more success with Hitachi and Western Digital.

aurgathor
join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA

1 recommendation

aurgathor

Member

quote:
Seagate Barracuda Green
(ST1500DL003) 1.5TB 51 0.8 120.0%
Ugh oh.... 120%, no less!!

I actually have a 1.5TB Barracuda Green (need to look up the model # though) -- it was a retail purchase from Fry's, and the first one would not complete *full* format, so I returned it for an exchange. The second one works fine ever since. (~ 2 years or so)

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to Dustyn

Premium Member

to Dustyn
This is interesting, because I've had 1 Hitachi drive and it failed within a year, and a few Seagates without failures, and a couple of WDs fail on me (although it would be more likely due to my having mostly WDs so I lose on the math there)

alg
Passionately apathetic
Premium Member
join:2001-04-10
Houston, TX

alg to Dustyn

Premium Member

to Dustyn
I've had good luck with my Seagate that was in two or three systems and now lives on in an external enclosure as a backup of a backup. I'd estimate that it's probably ten years old now, if not more.

Hard drives are one thing that I have NEVER had fail on any system and I routinely get ten years out of them and tend to only retire them when they prove to be too small to be useful for anything. What are people doing to their drives to cause so many failures?
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

Up until 2 or 3 years ago, I'd agree with you... disks were basically reliable (and Seagate made very reliable disks).

But in the systems I have built since then, I've had several failures, and in desktop systems that live a fairly peaceful existence in the same locations that the previous reliable disks occupied.

I conclude (ok, 'guess') it's due to one of two things:

1. Increased density, leading to lower margins of error and fancier bit-reading algorithms.

2. Race-to-the-bottom pricing.
Thordrune
Premium Member
join:2005-08-03
Lakeport, CA

Thordrune to Dustyn

Premium Member

to Dustyn
One thing I find interesting about that report is that they are still running a bunch of 1.5 TB Barracuda 7200.11 drives - the ones with the infamous firmware issues. They've had a 25.4% failure rate with them. I'm curious if they updated the firmware on any of them. I worked on a PC that had four of the 500 GB version in RAID 5. I did a firmware update on the other three once the first one died, but it didn't seem to do much good. That PC is now decommissioned, but only one of the four drives survived until then.