Has Seagate redeemed themselves? Pic related. Hard drive failure

>>57690608

Who cares. HGST/Hitachi is still king.

>>57691078
I know too much about hitachi to recommend them.

also that chart is only usable for backblaze purposes and shouldn't be used as a general reliability metric.

>>57690608
No, backblaze jus stopped using the 3tb shitty ones

>>57690608
>Seagate drives fail the most
>Lets double our inventory of them
>HGST fail the least
>Lets reduce our inventory of them
And yet another reason why BackBlaze is retarded.

>>57691147
>that chart is only usable for backblaze purposes and shouldn't be used as a general reliability metric.

This, a million times this. It's refreshing to see someone not taking those graphs as the ultimate truth.

>>57691277

They spend less replacing cheap drives than buying more reliable but disproportionately more expensive drives. I'm sure they're the retarded ones, not you.

>>57691078

>tfw can't find a HGST anywhere in Australia

>>57690608
The Backblaze charts were heavily skewed because of the money saving tactics the company used after the Thailand floods of 2011. The CEO had a post on the Backblaze website for a while explaining it all, although it's now gone. They basically bought the cheapest hard drives they could find, many of them being ripped out of external hard drive enclosures-- the type of drives that are expected to run very infrequently, and as such have limited lifespans. Part of the reason you see the failure rate dropping so low is that a huge majority of the drives purchased in the year or so following the floods have all failed by now and are being replaced with new drives that aren't shit to begin with. The remainder of that reason is that the number of drives from 2014 to 2015 roughly doubled, so that failure rate is actually closer to 7%, technically, which is right in line with WD, but it's really hard to tell since Backblaze releases their stats in this fashion instead of failure rates for individual batches of drives.

Backblaze is an awful source for determining which brand has good HDDs. You have to look at part numbers for specific drives to find out if that batch is good or bad.

>>57690608
Still using a Blackblaze chart?
I mean are you for real?

This shit was debunked the day it came out.

What about Maxtor 1Tb?
It's quite cheap.

>>57692665
>>57691147
Their relative failure is still valid for home use. The failures might not be as high but the Seagates will still fail more often.

>>57696644
It is not.
Those are standard drives for external home use, their failure rate rises if their ambient tempreture is above 45°C, not even mentioning the hightend amount of vibrations they got to compensate.
Now they are doing extremly fine for those environments with those failure rates.
Especially if you know that the HGST drives they are compared to are enterprise ones, which are made for those environments, not even mentioning that their comparission batch of those is much smaller.

>>57692769
Lots of them were refurbs, too.

>Hitachi, Toshiba
>Japanese
>reliable

>WD, Seagate
>pigfat merishit
>breaks down all the time

Just a coincidence, right?

File: blog_q3_2016_stats_table_4-1.jpg (503KB, 720x621px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 720x621px

>>57690608

>>57690608
The reason the others are so low is because nobody fucking buys them