What hard drive should I get /g/?

>>52640405
upload your data to the cloud and enjoy the freeeeedom

Costco has a Seagate 5TB external for something like $120.

>2 year warranty
>googling indicates shelling it might not work

Backblaze only has data on Hitachi 5TBs so dunno there. Given the short warranty though, I wouldn't use it for anything but backing up entertainment media.

>>52640487
>external
I'm looking for internal drives only. It's for my home server.

>>52640533

Externals can be "shelled"--removed from the plastic housing. Generally, they're just 2.5/3.5 drives inside. That 5TB might be an exception, though.

>>52640533

Given that nobody else is responding, go google Backblaze's HDD reliability data--I think 3Q 2015 is the lastest available. That will give you at least something to consider as criteria.

>>52640721
what do I have to look at if i want a really quiet hard drive?

>>52640754

Hmm, couldn't really say there. Been awhile since I've even noticed my HDDs running. Normally I just noticed when they spin down at shutdown.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/Recommended_Hard_Drives

That's at least some info on the subject.

>>52640609
>Externals can be "shelled"--removed from the plastic housing. Generally, they're just 2.5/3.5 drives inside.
Generally, but I've seen a lot of USB 3.0 laptop externals that aren't SATA, the internal drive has the 3.0 connection

>>52640847

Yeah, seems to be a thing now. My guess is that Seagate's MBAs predicted that they could unload early MTBF drives onto Costco grandmas but instead got bargain hunters popping the shell back together and RMAing them. Can't have that now so it's probably cheaper to spend more to change the interface than to not make junk drives in the first place.

Recommended hard drive: Western Digital.
Not recommended: Everything else.

>>52640936

Dunno, those Hitachi/Toshiba 3.5s have some low fail rates backing them up.

>>52640405
RAMAC 305

>>52640936
HGST has lower failure rates than WD

>>52640721
>Backblaze
>intothetrash.jpg

>>52640980

Aww now, you're just being contrarian. If there's a better cache of data to consider for consumer drives, I haven't seen it.

No one study could account for every case scenario. Still, if a manufacturer can't make a drive to beat a competitor's to MTBF under continuous use with environment being a common factor, that's a valid criticism and Backblaze's data is essentially that.

File: Opinion_Discarded.jpg (7KB, 268x188px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 268x188px

>>52641025
>Consumer drives
Yeah too bad they test in an enterprise environment
>No one study can account for every case scenario
Actually they can if they weren't crooked bastards
>With environment being a common factor
You mean a fucking server rack right? Not a desktop or laptop.

>Backblaze
>valid criticism
Pic related

>>52641250

>You mean a fucking server rack right? Not a desktop or laptop.

Yes, a custom rack. However, all of the drives are subjected to the same treatment and temperatures so essentially the data being gathered is which OEM's consumer drive will fail first under adverse--but certainly not impossible to replicate--conditions.

Curiously, you've not provided a superior reference of data. Surely someone who is so certain of his superior knowledge would have such data to hand?

>>52640980
>>52641250

>ask for better data
>crickets

Yes, I've run into this ilk of /g/entoomen before. These unfriendly fedora wearers live to find what they believe to be weaknesses in any argument and then launch diatribes against it without offering anything better in response.

I'm sure you gentlemen are clever, intelligent, pleasant-smelling beings.

Toshiba 5tb from amazon