Seagate vs. WD?

[Blue_Max]

Who's the most reliable these days? I'm fond of the Seagate SSHD hybrid drives but have never had one more than a year to worry about failure rates... anyone have any stories to share - good, bad, or otherwise?

 

[OrionMaster]

According to this
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089...eals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.html

Seagate is no good.
Now, I bet statistically illiterate folks will take out the study and say its crap 'because i bought hitachi once and it failed on me after 3 months'. The numbers dont lie, its all about odds

 

[Cerb]

I tend to have better luck w/ WDs, and too few Hitachi's or Toshibas to say. But, even just last week, one of my own WDs died catastrophically (too little warning to do anything about it). Of those dying, that's been happening enough, with 3.5" drives, that I simply do not trust in any of the post-perpendicular-recording drives to gradually and gracefully fail, like they almost all used to.

Whichever makes it easier to get another drive is the right choice, preferably with the other drive not being of the exact same model/series (to rule out issues of manufacture, or 'synergy' of design and its treatment).

 

[dave_the_nerd]

According to this
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089...eals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.html

Seagate is no good.
Now, I bet statistically illiterate folks will take out the study and say its crap 'because i bought hitachi once and it failed on me after 3 months'. The numbers dont lie, its all about odds

The 1.5TB drives were a bad design - serious 75GXP-type issues. A new Seagate HDD would likely be as reliable as the 4TB drives - so, about as reliable as WD.

It's also worth noting that Backblaze pods are cheap. Consumer drives running 24/7 in hot environments, HDDs are mounted vertically, which Seagate does not recommend, and there's no vibration dampening except a rubber band.

Hitachi (Toshiba) is still obviously better, but Seagate isn't nearly as bad as that graph makes it look.

Anyway - everything is crap. Moving parts break. Drives fail. Have backups.

 

[Concillian]

#1 -- some drives, both WD and Seagate outright don't work in backblaze's application. It was in a different article, I don't remember which one, but I think they were the slower spinning low power drives from both WD and Seagate and Backblaze noted they almost immediately give errors as soon as they're put into use. This tells me the Backblaze data is likely only slightly applicable to a typical home-built computer, as they have some kind of issue with vibration or something that is outside the typical usage of these drives that makes certain drives more prone to failure than others.


#2 -- always build your systems under the assumption that a drive WILL FAIL. Brand X/Y/Z ALL have failures. It's not a matter of if, it's when.

Personally, I buy three identical drives and image them when I first install and periodically refresh those images, because I know that hard drives fail. When one does, I do NOT want them taking my family photos and such with them.

Buy whatever brand is cheaper or suits your needs better. Actual useful data is difficult to come by, as it requires really large sample sizes. You just kinda have to pick one you like and go. Every brand has had a problematic drive line at one point. Right now WD has been the longest since it's had an issue that crippled an entire drive line. 5 years ago, Seagate was that brand and people were all loving Seagate, and the Deskstar "Deathstar" issues were fresh in people's minds...

 

[denis280]

Got better luck with WD.also with the waranty.

 

[bryanl]

It's also worth noting that Backblaze pods are cheap. Consumer drives running 24/7 in hot environments, HDDs are mounted vertically, which Seagate does not recommend, and there's no vibration dampening except a rubber band.

Seagate has always allowed vertical mounting and restricted it somewhat only for its oldest drives:

Can I physically install my drive sideways, upside down or vertically?

Brief statement on drives' physical orientation when installed.
All Seagate and Maxtor-brand hard drives can be fitted sideways or upside down. As long as they are not moved during use and get enough cooling, it is irrelevant in which direction they are mounted.

From the instructions for 40-80MB drives made in the 1980s to early 1990s:

The drive may be mounted horizontally with the PC Board down or on either side. Mounting vertically on either end is a prohibited orientation...

The drive should not be tilted front or back, in any position, by more than 5°

I suspect the prohibition against the front pointing straight down or up was due to those drives using stepper motors instead of servo positioners, and those orientations affected the balance of the arms.

10-20 years ago, Seagate has warned that shock mountings can reduce the head seek rate, probably by increasing oscillations at the completion of each seek.

Are you saying Seagate disk drives were more vulnerable to the running environments used by Back Blaze than other brands?

 

[Dahak]

Are you saying Seagate disk drives were more vulnerable to the running environments used by Back Blaze than other brands?

Well just based on what they report. here is the latest update
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/

But there usage is completely difference than a home use so keep that in mind as well as some of those drives could have been/have been harvest from USB External drives

To get an idea how they are installed in to a pod

 

[f1r3s1d3]

WD >

 

[pauldun170]

Who's the most reliable these days? I'm fond of the Seagate SSHD hybrid drives but have never had one more than a year to worry about failure rates... anyone have any stories to share - good, bad, or otherwise?

What will the drive be used for and where?
Makes a difference.

I've stayed with WD for over a decade and except for two one 1tb blue drive and a an external (WD green inards) bought last year I've stuck with WD black drives.
Every black drive I've purchased still works and gets heavy use.

I think hitachi puts out some nice drives as well.

 

[Blue_Max]

Nice to hear the info... I think a black may outperform the hybrid drives in general, though I'll miss the speedy boot times! Can't argue with the Black's 5yr warranty... almost explains the hefty price premium.

 

[Cerb]

almost explains the hefty price premium.

Completely explains the hefty price premium...

 

[NAC]

Wow. I'm surprised the differences are so extreme between different models. Makes me want to spend more to get Hitachi. Maybe these sample sizes are just not big enough? Also it could be that this test is not random enough - maybe drives closest to the AC last long, and drives farthest away fail much more.

It looks like my Seagate 2tb drive is older than anything on their chart (ST2000DM001),
and is a older cousin to unreliable units. It looks like my Hitachi 2tb drive is a sister of the most reliable drive on their chart (HDS5C3020)

In any case you need backup. Any drive may fail, I'm unwilling to lose my data. And as long as you have good backup, I guess a 8* the failure rate (from very slim to still pretty slim over the time I'll use the drive) doesn't matter too much.

 

[7heBoss]

I hate creating new threads so I am just going to bump this one and ask my question here.

New PC build in progress and I'm trying to increase storage because the 2tb I have is running low. So far I know that I will have an SSD for OS and stuff. I will transfer over my existing 2tb RAID array for pretty much anything i need it for. However the bulk of my storage is in the form of Movies and TV shows so I plan on putting ALL of that on a 4tb HDD. I am trying to figure out what 4tb internal HDD to go with.

Considering it will be pretty much exclusively Movies and TV Shows, logic would argue that performance isn't important. However I will likely be transferring files between the volumes regularly so maybe moderate performance should be considered. I've been debating between WD Green, WD Red, and Seagate Desktop HDD.15 but I'm open to anything.

As a side note, when I watch Movies/TV in VLC I tend to skip through a lot as a form of fast forwarding. With my current setup skipping is instantaneous with no noticeable latency loading frames of the video. I'm not sure if going to a 5400rpm drive would be different. Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[Charlie98]

I hate creating new threads so I am just going to bump this one and ask my question here.

New PC build in progress and I'm trying to increase storage because the 2tb I have is running low. So far I know that I will have an SSD for OS and stuff. I will transfer over my existing 2tb RAID array for pretty much anything i need it for. However the bulk of my storage is in the form of Movies and TV shows so I plan on putting ALL of that on a 4tb HDD. I am trying to figure out what 4tb internal HDD to go with.

Considering it will be pretty much exclusively Movies and TV Shows, logic would argue that performance isn't important. However I will likely be transferring files between the volumes regularly so maybe moderate performance should be considered. I've been debating between WD Green, WD Red, and Seagate Desktop HDD.15 but I'm open to anything.

As a side note, when I watch Movies/TV in VLC I tend to skip through a lot as a form of fast forwarding. With my current setup skipping is instantaneous with no noticeable latency loading frames of the video. I'm not sure if going to a 5400rpm drive would be different. Thanks in advance for any advice.

I have a 7200RPM Seagate (3TB) drive and a 5400RPM (or whatever speed it actually runs at) WD Red (3TB) in my HTPC. They both perform equal with search and playback of stored media. Having said that, I'm not a big fan of 'Green' drives... illogically because the 2 green drives I have in service (a WD Red and a WD Green) have shown no problems. I'm just not sold on the technology yet.

Personally, I would buy whatever is on sale... they all work, they all fail. It's luck of the draw.

As an aside, the only HDD I've ever had to RMA was the new WD Red (2TB) which had bad sectors right out of the box; they replaced it with a recert 3TB drive. The majority of my drives are Seagate, and they have all been solid, including 3 portable USB drives.

 

[corkyg]

I see both WD and Seagate as good. I cannot generally rate one over the other - each has specific drives that can be so rated.