Is there any reason not to buy a Seagate 10TB BarraCuda Pro?

It will fail before you use up that much space

>>57844087
my laptop only has 750gb...

File: 1276759880194.gif (2MB, 320x269px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x269px

>>57844087
>Is there any reason not to buy a Seagate 10tb BarraCuda Pro?
>489$
>489$
>489$
>489$
>489$
>489$

>>57844087
putting too many eggs in one basket

>>57844087
Yes

higher capacity = more data lost when it fails within the same time as a 250GB

>>57844087
Because the HGST 10TB drive exists, and Seagate is a meme for poor people.

>>57844087
>Seagate

>>57844087
you dont need to spend your hard earned money for unneeded items

...especially when you can install solus for just 10gb

>>57844087
there's a reason why we call 'em "Shitgates" at work.

>>57844136
20 cents per GB ain't bad

So whats the best size of hard drive to get if having moar terabytes makes it easier to fail?

>>57844136
>>57844146
/thread

>>57844102
This isn't a meme. I had 6 in raid and 2 failed in a year. Unless there is good evidence that Seagate has cleaned up their act since about 2 years ago avoid at all costs.

>>57844121
Mine only has a 250GB SSD. Seems more than enough for me.

>>57844625
Based on number of platters versus price per gigabyte.
2 > 4 > 1 > 6 > .5 > .25 > 5 > 3 > 8 > 10 >>> 1.5

>>57844625
If space is no constraint then maybe 10 100GB hard drives in RAID 5 is the best alternative to a single 1TB HDD to minimize data loss.

Seagate is awesome my 3tb still running strong no bad sectors

>>57844156
when a hard drive fails its usually a slow prosess
it usually gets to the point where access time gets to say half hour to open a document
then at the end it just gives you error cannot access disk a month after the slow downs

if your that dumb not to notice the signs then that is your fault not the campany
also you can use disk checker to check the health of your disk

also a defrag also show you errors etc like bad sectors.

You have to be blind ot ignorant not to notice.


meanwhile a SSD will just fail with out giving you warning outside of S.M.A.R.T checking.

>not buying HGST

Enjoy your shit failure drive!

>>57844087
The easiest and most realistic measure of whether a drive is worth purchasing (if the objective is storage) is price per gigabyte. You can get 4 5tb external drives (5 with a decent sale/coupons) for the price of that one drive, so it fails.

>>57844136
Th-that's not a lot though for the space.

File: a45b7e76-435e-4c7c-b737-4dfe297e3bca..jpg (78KB, 784x643px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 784x643px

>>57844572
Keviiiiiiin!

>>57844873
The raw statistics put WD first, and Seagate second by a substantial margin. However, Seagate wins on price, so if you want to have backups of every drive anyway, it wins. I have 5 5TB drives plugged in right now, and each one gets backed up every couple of months to another 5TB drive.

And bull shit, HD failure is a slow process. I have had a drive take the slow route, one die halfway through exporting it's data despite same day diagnosis and recognition of its imminent failure, and two just plain quit without warning.

>>57844743

you might think that, but i had 12 250GB drives in a RaidZ array, half were dead in a year, luckily i was able to salvage everything

>>57845207
Is there no software that notifies you once one of the drives craps out?

>>57845219

of course there was, as pools died I copied them to a much larger backup hard drive, 3 pools total the death was over a year.

But I tossed all of the drives after that the price/GB has come down so much since then. My next server will have 8 3TB in one large pool

I'm planning to buy a new HDD, which company is the best?

>>57844087
...Because why the fuck do you need 10tb?

>>57844087
Because for that price you can buy 2 much cheaper and much more reliable drives. Albeit less capacity. 6TB HGST drives go for around $240 now. 4TB drives from every reputable manufacturer go for around $130. Unless drive mounting space is an issue, then by all means go ahead and buy the 10TB. Just make sure you buy 2 for backing up your data.

Personally I don't feel drives above the 8TB range have matured enough for me to truly trust my data on it. I bought 4x4TB Toshiba X300 drives for $100 a piece when they were on sale. Have been serving me well for almost a year now in my file server which is always on.

>>57845364
Anything above 2TB avoid seagate and WD. HGST is top tier. Toshiba drives are also great. Their P300 is their consumer line and their X300 is the pro line. X300 drives have more cache than their P series counter parts and a longer warranty if I'm not mistaken.

If 2TB or lower, pretty much every company is reliable. I have a 2TB WD blue and 2x1TB Seagate drives that have all seen extensive and heavy use for years. All still reporting with healthy status.

File: eyJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2kuaW1ndXIuY29tL01kNVdOS1MuZ2lmIn0.gif (1MB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 380x380px

>>57844087
>Buying 1 hugefuck disk
>Not an array of several disks for extra speed and redundancy in freeenas

>>57845429
I see, I almost fell for these new pull HDD that are on sale here in my city, good thing I researched about them before buying them
I will probably go for toshiba or WD, just have enough money for 1 or 2 tb

>>57845364
Internal or external? Do you want the best price or the best reliability? Storage or speed? Media storage or program files?

>>57845429
>anecdotes!
That's nice anon.

File: 1472429396922.jpg (223KB, 600x532px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 600x532px

>>57845429

> mfw I bought a couple 2TB HGST datacenter refurb drives for $30 a piece a while back

I normally wouldn't touch refurb hard drives with a ten foot pole, and these both had around 18k hours of usage, but the price was dirt cheap so I use them for non-critical storage and it's worked out pretty well so far.

>>57845557
storage, mostly for my manga collection

>>57844087
>Seagate.

The only reasons not to would be
>money
>the fact that it's a seagate drive

Otherwise, kys for making threads of such low quality and not making decisions by yourself.
Congratulations, you are the cancer that has killed /g/

File: blog-q2-failure-rates.jpg (614KB, 704x750px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 704x750px

>>57845183
Stats you mean backblaze?
>>>/trash/
Sea gates are more common and there is more at backblaze than WD's

also that have the 000's these are faulty and seagate doesn't sell them or make them any more.
they are also cheap
The reason was that flood back in 2001 and then the controller fuck up after that.
backblaze is paied by WD to keep the old shit in and make seagate look bad.

I can't feel sorry for you really you should of had backups and so forth and check the health of your HDD's even more so if your into big file transfers.

>>57844087

Costs a ton to get your data recovered once you get hit with Seagate™ Quality®

File: IMG_1388.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>57844121
Mine only has 40

>>57844087
What do you need a 10TB hard drive for right now?

>>57844087
There are better uses of helium than putting it in overprised hard drives.

>>57844087

never buy seagate

>>57846171
I've had a seagate external for like 2-3 years now, what's with the hate for them?

test

>>57845829
I have never looked at backblaze, though I didn't check where the 4 articles I've read over the past 2 years on the topic got their data.

That said, I agree. Any data you care one iota about should be backed up as a matter of standard practice since any drive can shit itself, or be accidentally exposed to conditions that would cause any drive to quit, so I stopped giving a fuck who the manufacturer was years ago. Longevity doesn't matter since I'll probably go through another round up upgrades in 3 years anyway.

>>57846209
Meme(tm) sprinkled with a dash of truth.

>>57844087
Statistically speaking, it will fail before you can even write 10TB onto it. The extra space is literally wasted because it's almost guaranteed to die before you can fill it up.

>>57846209
Seagate had a bad 1.5TB drive a while back, and backblaze threw a bunch of reconditioned consumer tier seagates into shitty racks at a server-level intensity and had a high failure rate, one year.
Backblaze's newer stats have seagate's failures WAY down- at about the same level as other brands.

>Seagate
>Spinning disk
>SATA
>$489

File: image[1].png (41KB, 374x260px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 374x260px

>>57844087

Yeah, it's using SMR technology (shingled magnetic recording).

Think of it like roof shingles. It rewrites your data everytime you move something from or to it. It degrades performance, and most importantly of all, you support this shady technology by buying hard drives with SMR technology.

>>57846965

and by rewriting, i mean that it rewrites unrelated data that you didn't even touch, because it needs to remove both shingled layers to access just one layer

Scary stuff.

>>57846990

Why is it scary? Do you not understand how it worsk?

It moves the data that's being overwritten first, it will shuffle data around as much as needed to make room, you don't lose data with every new write.

>>57847019
It makes write speeds ridiculously slow.

File: IMG_0793.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>57844087
heres 3 good reasons

>>57847033

fucking this

>buy 5TB Seagate SMR external hard drive
>try to full disk encrypt it
>ETA: 14 days
>try to copy over more than 200GB of data
>shit hangs and speeds cap at 2MB/s

CrystalDiskInfo didn't show any retarded S.M.A.R.T. results either

>>57844087
10TB isn't actually that much

>>57844136

>tfw you'll never go down on Gina and look up to see that smile

>>57844087
You don't need 10tb space

>>57844087
Fails after you power it on

That I barely have 300GB to store?

Storage density in a redundant system. Wouldn't use it without RAID for sure.

>>57844087
Yes.

I don't have the money.

>>57844651
There is evidence, someone posted a year by year diagram. I don't know where he got it from, he could be a literal shill. But there is cause to look into it one more time.

>>57844121
450gb reporting in