The Great Debate

Toshiba.

ssd

>>57569599
whichever one is cheaper

I use my hard drives in redundant RAID configurations, and I keep backups of the data on those RAID arrays. Worrying about which brand is slightly more reliable is stupid.

>>57569599
Most of my Seagates have either failed or their SMART report is worrisome (like a "failure imminent" message).

All of my WDs have worked fine.

My HDD purchases from 2008 to 2016:

4 Maxtors
8 Seagates
6 WDs
3 Hitachis

Since 2012, I have vowed to never buy another Seagate.

>>57569599
Man, all my pre-2012 wd's have worked flawlessly and still continue to work.

I bought a few 1TB WD blues in 2015 and 4/5 of them failed within a year what the actual FUCK

Maybe that was extremely bad luck but my brother also bought a WD blue and shit fucked up two days into owning it.

What happened to the cheaper WDs quality?

HGST

>>57569599
If you really value your data my recommendation is Hitachi and HGST as internal and samsung as external.

>>57569733
Western digital voids your warranty for striping drives anyways.

>>57570184
>striping
don't use RAID0 anon. there's no reason to with a spinning-disk drive

Hitachi/HGST

WD Re. Easy.

personal experience.
2 seagate hdds, both stopped working without any advise or reason.

4 WD. not a problem. the wd hdd on my laptop is 7-8 years old, sounds like a concrete mixer and the fucker somehow survived a Seagate.

I'll never get another seagate drive. I may get from other brands, but not seagate in my lifetime.

Fuck seagate.

Hitachi

File: 1459800665855.jpg (59KB, 421x500px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 421x500px

i bought seagate recently without any research (i needed any kind of hdd that works, slow data like photos or video games) and then i found somewhere statistics saying that seagate has 25% failure rate

serves me right for buying without research, i guess. although i want to believe, i still have working seagate 40gb from ~2001 somewhere

>>57569599
SSD

>>57570184
Why would they do this?

>>57569599
Firecuda wins

HGST NAS

>>57569599
Caviar blue or hgst.

>>57569599
WD2000FYYZ obviously. The only server grade hdd on the picture.

Samsung Spinpoint. 'Nuff said.

Seagate? More like 40% failure rate!

>>57569599
I will never buy a Seagate again. There is always something wrong with them. Years ago, they acquired Maxtor, which made even shittier hard drives (we had a whole office full of them, then by the end of the year, only 2 had not failed) and apparently the shittiness has rubbed off on them.

>>57569599
Any one will do, they all have a lower than 2% failure rate.
>>57571319
>then i found somewhere statistics saying that seagate has 25% failure rate
That would be backblaze. Those statistics aren't useful for anything because they take consumer drives and put them in racks with poor vibration dampening with many other droves, without regards to what kinds of drives they are. The drives in question were storage drives, much like the WD green series. Those too have a shocking failure rate when used as a main drive.

>>57572912
>they take consumer drives and put them in racks with poor vibration dampening with many other droves

Source?

>>57571546
I wouldn't bother with the server kit unless you're putting it in an array. Even then then it doesn't make much sense for most applications. Slower drives like their Red series are just fine. You want speed you shouldn't even be considering spinning disks.

>>57572912
>without regards to what kinds of drives they are
they clearly state that they don't test certain drives because they fail immediately in their environment, WD Greens included.

>>57569599
We're running 3TB and 4TB WD REs at work and they keep dying left and right, different charges and all. It's pretty annoying.

>>57569599
>tfw bought a WD Green and it doesn't even report S.M.A.R.T
Never again.

File: drive-stats-2016-q1-failure-by-mfg.jpg (83KB, 720x820px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x820px

>>57569599
Hitachi, not even a contest.

>>57570184

bullshet

>>57569599

Seagate Survelliance are bretty good (they're silent and I have seen numerous reports about low failure rates) even if many other models are not.

>>57569599

DAILY REMINDER THAT WESTERN DIGITAL USES SHADY DRM IN THEIR EXTERNAL HARD DRIVES, FORCING YOU TO FORMAT THE DRIVE IF YOU REMOVE IT FROM YOUR ENCLOSUE BEFORE YOU CAN USE IT

SEAGATE DOESN'T APPLY THIS

>>57569599
Get the helium filled ones, they last a while.

>>57573299
Oh nooo! That sucks.

File: chrome_2016-11-18_21-00-16.png (549KB, 722x735px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 722x735px

>>57569599
I feel urged to put this in here and just wait for the (You)s

>>57573180
these shits wont drop in price for black friday would they?
Thinking about getting a canvio basics 3tb

>>57569812
So toshiba then.

>>57573180
>tfw didn't take 2to wd hdd though it was cheaper

>>57572947
Their own website and articles. But nobody actually reads those, they just post the graph with absolutely no context. Seriously, read the FULL article.
>>57572991
>they clearly state that they don't test certain drives because they fail immediately in their environment, WD Greens included.
They've also clearly stated that the round of testing that gave seagate the terrible reputation was during the HDD shortage caused by the flood. The seagate drives came from external hard drives and we're very definitely not meant for the use they put them through.
>>57573180
Oh, hey, there's that graph again. Without context. Again.

>>57573496
I'm really impressed by Toshiba. I didn't even know that they made HDDs

>>57572912
I have WD greens from almost 7 years ago that have been powered on and used daily (as a torrenting drives) that are still going strong.

>>57573180
Source?

>>57573605
>Without context. Again.

Context: the drives are made to run in the same environment and a percentage of them fails, varying by manufacturer. You fucking shill.
What does it matter if the conditions are not optimal, some drives fail observably more often than others. And racks don't vibrate, have you actually ever been to a server room and touched a storage array?

>>57573621
Main HDD best choices are Toshiba, HGST and Seagate, WDC is bad investment.

>>57569599
middle.

>>57569676
fpbp.

File: Into_The_Trash_Landfill_Edition.jpg (189KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1280x852px

>>57573180
>BackBlaze
>Wildly varying sample sizes
>BackBlaze
>Sourced from dumpsters
>BackBlaze
>Chart only
>>>/trash/

>>57573781
>and Seagate

lol no
Show of hands, who here had a Seagate drive that didn't fail?

>>57573932
I owned one until IT finally failed. But what did you expect back in the day?

>>57573932
I have one of those awful 3TB ones that Backblaze says have something like a 66%+ failure rate within two years. Mine's about four years old. SMART checks out fine. It's part of a ZFS array and has never generated checksum errors in a scrub.

>>57572912
Not entirely true. I lost 2 of the exact model Seagate in those Backblaze statistics, both of which I had only for a year, and was using as a drive to store TV shows on.

>>57573932
still rocking one IDE Barracuda 10 and one 500 GB newer one

>>57569599
WD Black if without RAID.

File: 960pro-980x551-1.jpg (53KB, 858x320px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 858x320px

>>57569599
I choose to live in the present.

>>57573932
Still have a 500gb barracuda from 2007 that works fine

>>57569599
Black. Those RE4s are ancient and garbage, and
>seagate with no model number listed
is asking for data loss

>>57573932
I have a barracuda from 2008 or 2009 that run perfectly 24/7 uptime