The Great Debate

Hitachi

>>57751814
is single drive nas a bad idea?

im getting one since its cheap
just storing movies, pirated games and applications, porn

i mean does it warn me before it dies like the smart thingy

>>57751814
i mean WD has the lower failure rates but desu its all just a gamble anyways. you might buy a 600 dollar ultra-low failure rate server drive that could last for 2 weeks or a cheap 60 dollar drive that you can give to your grandchildren.

>>57751814
>no Toshiba

why.jpg

samusongoruh esu esu esudee

>>57751868
>>57751939
eaten by western digital

>>57752059
RIP

>using clunky ancient mechanical hard drives in 2016
So is this a poverty general?

>>57752163
SSDs are a meme

>>57752192
Your entire life is a meme

>>57752059
I'm pretty sure that HGST still uses the plant that made Hitachi drives, instead of merely rebadging Western Digital drives. Hitachi was known for their reliability, why would Western Digital want to screw that up?

>>57752059
They still have their own plant and division.

File: seagate-firecuda-1_674_9bbbe.jpg (71KB, 1000x403px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1000x403px

I'm going to raid 0 two of these.
Best setup for the price ever.

>>57751814
>wd
>ever
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q2-2016/

>>57752379
i'd still stick to WD rather than Seagate

File: examplenotmine.jpg (1MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4096x2304px

I needed a two bay NAS so I bought a WD Mycloud ex something or another. Things were fine for a few days, I had just finished offloading all of my media into it when I go to sleep only to wake up to hear the thing spinning. I go to check it out and that shit's fucking HOT. Been cooling off for a day now and I'm afraid to turn it back on to even move my files off. I just wanted a simple 2 bay that won't have any problems. I just want to be able to leave it on and forgot about it. I don't want this.

Picture is some other person's 1 bay nas without a heatsink on the processor that basically hugs the hard drive.

i have some 10 year old wd drives in a raid0 and they still work perfectly fine, yet all the seagate drives i've owned failed within a few years.

>>57752826
Personal anecdotes don't count for much, buddy. What you really want to look at are the statistics server companies put out for the hard drives they decommission on a large scale. There's a possibility someone else has 10 year old Seagate drives with tens of thousands of hours of uptime working fine and all their WD drives fail in a few years. It's all about failure rate in a large scale.

>>57752059
WD bought Hitachi. I don't understand why the purchase of a company makes people think the company is gone when the reality is that companies get purchased all of the time without you noticing.

>>57753097
Samsung got Seagate's shit tho. i have lots of Samsung drives and those who are post Seagate's taking have a different casing so god knows what the fuck they did to them

File: 1457290863395-2.jpg (34KB, 557x604px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 557x604px

>>57752059
Still the best, though i'm ok with seagate and in the past i found maxtor reliable too. Maybe i'm a lucky guy.

>>57752669
>wasting money on a POS MyCloud rather than building your own NAS from spares and tape
I bought a dual-core Celeron mini-PC (the thin-as-fuck one with no expansion slots) for $50 and connected it to a USB-to-SATA dock I bought new for $20. It's hooked up to an old 4TB Seagate that I took out of a dead computer. I bet it's still cheaper than that POS "NAS" that WD makes.

>>57754270
i returned it.
anon, i've got a quick question. would i be able to use a pi that i have sitting around to the same effect? if so, would it be a terrible idea? i've almost no no-how with computers. all i can do is put them together. i just need reliable storage.

>>57754414
pi for NAS is not only a good idea. it's recommended due to its low power usage
lots of seedboxes run on pi

>>57754526
Does the Pi even support SATA?

>>57754540
you'd have to turn your HDD into an external one and use SATA -> USB adaptor

>>57754581
That's pretty crusty. He's probably better off with a really cheap ITX PC so he has at least some expandability.

>>57752308
>I want to lost my data: The Post
Sea gate with no redundancy. You dun goofed

>>57754594
there are always alternatives to pi like Cubieboard
this stuff does save lots of power
but yeah, it's not easily expandable

>>57754594
He could buy an Alix or APU2 board and use mSATA-to-SATA adapters to run up to three hard drives off of the board.
Or add a SATA-to-eSATA cable and hook it up to one of these
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1DS0DA1577

>>57754621
not only no redundancy but he also slices all the data in half

>>57754657
None of those ARM SBCs can handle decent amounts of IO throughput. A low-power Celeron will consume a few more watts and let you move files at acceptable speeds.

>>57752163
until SSDs match HDDs in $/gb, the latter will be best for storage

>>57752192

I can't tell if these posts are serious or not anymore.

Is 3tb=kill still true or is this now an ancient meme?

I have had both WD and Seagate drives.
I have also had both of these brands of drives fail.

Every one of my Seagate drives that failed did so suddenly out of nowhere and the data was left irrecoverable.

The WD drives that failed on me did so slowly allowing me to realize that the drive was not functioning as it should. This gave me the time to back up my data before I had to lay it to rest.

This is why I choose WD: Because of my personal experience with them.

Everyone's experience is different, however.

File: 2015-LTO-7-Roadmap-Gen-3-thru-10.png (359KB, 2945x1657px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 2945x1657px

>>57755033
You mean tape?

>>57751814
Not really a great debate.
Seagate => Cheap, you get what you pay for.
WD => Slighly more expensive, little more reliable.
I generally go with WD since the price difference on consumer drives is negligible anyway.

>>57751905
Yes, it is. SMART does not always warn you on time.
Having your data on one drive without any back-up is not a good idea unless you don't mind losing the data. Also; RAID is not back-up, so instead of a two drive NAS you could just get two external hard drives.

>>57751983
Samsung drives are Seagate.

>>57755677
I would rather do SSD recoveries than tape recoveries. The horror.

File: 1478898270581.gif (446KB, 180x135px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 180x135px

>>57754526
>>57754594
>>57754657
>>57754773
>>57755005
hello its me with the 2 bay, thank you all for your advice. i will shop around for a small-medium itx to put together. probably going to be a long time before i take that route though. for the time being i will read more into setting up my pi to move and store these files. i appreciate you wonderful anons.

>>57755695
>what is redundancy

>>57755815
> RAID is not a backup (It is high availability)!
> Replication (constant syncing of folders) is not a backup!
> Backups that sync X folder on your computer to X folder on your NAS once per night are called batch replication and are not real backups too!
> Anything that you don't know how to restore is not a backup!
Point is, having a back-up is more important than mirroring your drives. Redundancy wont help you much if one of your drives corrupts your data, if it gets hit by lightning, etc.

>>57755695
I've heard a couple years back from a friend who worked in a datacenter (yeah it's as shady and unreliable as it sounds, no hard data) that Seagate is good for single platter performance, although they die like flies (even on server grade stuff) while HGST is the better deal for longevity. (This was before the backblaze benchs, so he probably didn't just read them there).

I still go with WD myself, it seems like the perfect middle ground between performance and reliability.
I'm also extremely lucky, the only drives that ever died on me were Maxtor craps (plus and Hitachi one from a laptop). Hell, my desktop is still running a WD 320GB drive that I acquired in late 2005!

>>57751814
Seagate hasn't acquired an SSD company yet, let alone one of some renown. Plus, their 600 series of SSD uses a controller which is owned by Hynix, which is LinkAMedia. Hynix will not let anyone develop SSDs with LAM tech anymore.

Seagate is losing options, and their SSD division might get shoved into obscurity.

>>57756192
will not let anyone else develop*

what's your oldest, still working and still used drive?
i have a 250GB Samsung that has 53992 hours behind and not a single problem in S.M.A.R.T.

>>57756205
I have a Seagate 750GB hard drive from around 2009. Running about 18/7.

They're all shit

>>57756205
30334 hours on a Hitachi Deskstar being used heavily every day.

Zero issues.

I don't give a shit, I buy whichever one is cheapest.

if a single drive dying would cause you to lose data you've done something very wrong

>>57756205
Despite the fact I fucking hate Seagate, the one that came in my DELL machine has lasted 11 years.
In that time, I have had 3 Seagate drives fail on me. 4 actually. All newer drives, most importantly.

My mind is full of fuck.

Grinding to a slow halt. Probably going to snuff it soon.

File: sun-microsystems-sparcstation-5-pn-600-4046-01-115ed26e6d58c2be70ddf928419843b0.jpg (11KB, 500x268px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 500x268px

>>57751814

4.3GB Seagate SCSI drive in a 70MHz SPARCstation 5, running since 1995.

>>57756205
A 1.5TB Seagate BarraCuda from Dec of 08. It's been a backup drive for a few years since I switched over to SSDs. It will lose that role soon as I bought a new external on Monday. Will keep it til it dies in thanks for the many years of service.

>>57756205
30MB full-height drive in the 286 in my closet. Dates from 1985 or so.

it isn't useful for much but I power it on once a year or so and play Zork or something.

>>57756205
"oldest" as in power-on time. i didn't made myself clear

>>57756205
I still have my Seagate 1TB 7200RPM HDD, been in active use (OS drive) for over 6½ years. Not a single bad sector or any malfunctions, although I don't know if I just got really fucking lucky with this unit.

>>57756694
...also I don't know the power-on time because HDTune won't show it to me for whatever reason.

>>57756694
you no longer see bad blocks with modern drives. The drive firmware notices them and remaps them to spare area. If you do see them it means the drive can't spare out sectors anymore, and is probably on its last legs

>>57756728
I see. Thanks for pointing that out for me, buddy.

>>57756727
speccy, crystaldisk, victoria, mhdd...

>>57756205

A 250GB Seagate a little over 27.000 hours. I think it is nearing the end of its life though.

Oldest I have is a portable Western digital passport 500gb. It's about 6 years old I think, accidentally got thrown in the garbage one time and the garbage man was bro enough to return it.

Still works great and I use it weekly now as a FLAC storage device mainly. I have another 500gb wester digital in another caddy that's for movies. It's about 4 years old. Maybe more.

I've always had good luck with hard drives, only have had 2 drives go bad. A Seagate 750gb that my daughter dropped one time. And a 320gb Hitachi that I'm not sure why it failed. Just made weird clicking sounds and got really slow.

western digital is a normie meme and you cucks actually fell for it

>>57756801
Speccy told me that I have a software RAID going on with my other HDD. Maybe that's why it doesn't wanna show it...? I don't get it.

Got a WD from 2006 that still runs although I don't use it anymore. Another WD from 2009 that's my master drive and a slave Seagate that's only three years old and it started to sound like a fucking popcorn maker lately. Just picked up two WDs on Black Friday in preparation for it's demise.

>>57751814
>The Great Debate

There's no debate.

Most of my Seagates have failed. None of my WDs have failed. Over the past 12 years, I have purchased 8 Seagates and 7 WDs.

Every article I have read comparing Seagate versus WD shows that WD is more reliable.

It's time to put this silly "debate" meme to rest. Seagate is for people who like to gamble that a cheaper drive might not go bad. WD is for people who understand that sometimes you have to pay more if you want better reliability. Neither is the "right" or "wrong" choice. And the market has room enough for both. Both companies have staked out their position in the market, and both are "correct" for having done so.

To be honest, if I was buying hard disks by the hundreds, I might just wonder if Seagate is the better overall value, assuming that I have full confidence in my RAID setup to guarantee my SLA uptime obligations when the Seagates inevitably go bad.

But as a simple desktop user who just wants a cheap place to store a bunch of movies -- one reliable WD is a lot cheaper than two flaky Seagates mirrored with RAID-1. So it's WD for me.

>>57756875
i have a hdd connected to some cheap pci raid controller and speccy is the only one who can read smart of it

>>57752308
I got one of these yesterday to replace a failed WD Black that was my game drive. I'm really looking forward to it even if it only has a 3 year warranty.

I also got a MLC SSD that should outlive my rig as a whole.

Toshiba, the Best.

>>57752669
>I'm afraid to turn it back on to even move my files off

You can't. It is probably using encryption, you gotta find a way to extract the keys from the board.

>>57757357
You are just full of bullshit, lil' buddy.

>>57757357
Could you elaborate?

Here it writes about the encryption, it is transparent to the OS as long as you are using the hdd with its box.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/20/western_digital_bad_hard_drive_encryption/


By the way, I did not know that it was implemented insecurely.

>>57755053
Its an ancient meme and also the meme of the future.

>>57754138
>in the past i found maxtor reliable too. Maybe i'm a lucky guy.

You have to be extremely fucking lucky to get a reliable Maxtor drive. Back when I used to test drives, Maxtor drives used to have 3-4x the amount of ECC errors on average compared to fucking Seagate (Samsung had near zero), and I knew several retailers who just stopped carrying Matrox drives because they broke down left and right.

Samsung used to make god tier drives, then they had a huge bad batch with the F1 series (half of those were DOA). They sort of recuperated with the F3 and F4 but not completely.

>>57756363
>4.3GB
>1995

good joke man.

File: samsung 48000 hours.png (111KB, 652x827px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 652x827px

>>57756205
I had a Samsung F1 at 48k hours but it started getting errors after that.

My current drives max at between 30k-40k, but I have them set to turn off when idle, so they aren't getting too many hours in them. I'm sure that they'd be over 50k if they would.

>>57758042
C5 doesn't necessarily mean that drive is bad. in a lot of cases a simple zeroing does the trick and it even clears the S.M.A.R.T.

>>57752308
>8gb of fucking cache
Fucking lel
>that pricetag

Niggah you're fucking retarded. The give away is the disgusting gaymer marketing shit on the product page.

>>57759840
>Niggah
Oof, embarrassing.

It's not much of a debate when WD is objectively better.

>>57759984
It's alright lad one day you might learn not to be scared of words

>>57760118
Who's scared of words? It's just everyone who ever spelled it that way turned out to a be a bitch nigga.
>lad
Kys lime.