>there are still people buying WD over Hitachi >i-it's

>>57918213
HGST is WD now.

>Using hdd

>>57918253
It says so right in the picture, but the specs on HGST drives are still different from those on WD models.

>muh Blue/Black/Red/Green/Purple

>>57918213
Tfw using wd 1tb blacked version for like 8 years no issues

File: XEf9PTk[1].png (325KB, 732x624px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 732x624px

>>57918299
Failure rates seem to go up with capacity, so most 'I'll just throw a 1TB HDD in there for storage I guess" builds should be fine.

>>57918285
Not all of us can afford $1000 SSDs.

File: 5Xhy4WO[1].png (159KB, 708x747px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 708x747px

>222.77%

>>57918536
How the do the fuck can they even get those numbers, did the drives failed before they were even shipped?

Seriously, buy anything but Seagate.

>>57918253
No

>>57918363
It says the opposite.

>>57918213
I was about to say because they're significantly more expensive but I just checked the price and they've dropped substantially. Shit, guess I'm gonna buy some backup and redundancy drives.

>>57918363
High capacity HGSTs are not more beneficial than other brands, and not many people are up for hooking up 3x2TB drives just to scrape off a random dice roll.

>>57918721
DOA I'm guessing.

>Hitachi
>HGST

Are they the same?

>>57918721
Backblazes numbers are completely useless. They don't adjust totals after they get new drives are rotate old ones out, so percentage failure rates aren't isolated by drive age or serial number. They compare six year old drives against brand new ones and vice versa.

Backblazes numbers are coming are completely useless to the consumer.

>>57918936
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies

>>57918960
Pretty much this. A good failure rate would account for drives that survive past "infancy" or 3 months.

>>57918213
>there are still people using those retarded graphs which compare HGST with WD Blues and generic Seagates

>>57918960
Not to mention none of these faggots are going to buy any of these HGST sku's

>tfw have everything running fine on a WD Blue for four years now
SSDs are a scam.

>>57918213
It says a western digital company below HGST

when doesnt HGST share stuff with the parent company?

>>57919222
Iops are a scam?

Used to buy hitachi all the time then WD bought them, rebranded them enterprise drives and raised the prices accordingly. Cunts

>>57919248
HGST is a separate, independent company owned by WD, which stole the new Gold line from HGST.

>>57918213
All 9 Seagates that I have bought in my life have gone bad -- some of them within 1 year, most within 4 years.

All 7 WDs that I have bought in my life are still working -- all of them over 3 years old now.

If you think I've ever buying a Seagate again, you're insane.

>i-it's fine as long as it's not Seagate, r-right?

You got that exactly right. Except next time, say it without the fucking attitude.

HGST might be better than WD, I couldn't say. If I ever have a WD drive fail on me, I might check out HGST. Until then, I'm gonna continue to save money by buying WD.

File: wd-blue-green-ssd[1].jpg (149KB, 750x318px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 750x318px

>>57919222

>>57919273
They didn't rebrand shit besides the Gold line.

>>57919248
I think they try to position HGST as a premium server brand, and WD as a consumer brand.

It might also be risk management to have two completely different models.
So if one model fails, people can switch to the equivalent model also owned by the WD parent company.

>>57918213
Chart doesn't show lifetime versus price

Seagate is still the most cost-effective hard drive manufacturer there is. If you're running dozens of drives, you WILL experience failures.

Question is how often does a hard drive fail versus how costly is that failure. And it turns out that seagate fails more often but the drivers are cheap enough to replace that it's still better in the long run.

>>57918213
Thanks OP. Just for mentioning this.

Feel like a retard always suggesting HGST.

>hurr durr WD RED RELIABLE
>hurr durr WD RED BEST
>PLS FIX ROUTING, MY DRIVES CAN'T BE THE BOTTLENECK
>HURR DURR WD

>>57919222
>tfw have everything running fine on a 8800 GT for years now
GPUs are a scam

File: km.png (21KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1600x1000px

>>57919355
>>57919069
>>57918960
Here's a more useful presentation of the drive data

This one normalizes for drive age and right-censoring by aligning them on a KM graph

>tfw no 15000RPM 128MB cache SAS jet engine Hitachi RAID

>>57919360
Funny, because I bought a refurbished gt720 because my 8800 was useless

>>57919374
>when you drop your mixtape on a Seag8

>>57918287
Actually a lot of WD drives are literally same as HGST or with very minor differences. WD Gold 4TB is almost identical to the HGST Ultrastar 7K6000 and same goes for the 10TB models which are identical to Ultrastar HE10 and 8TB models that are identical to HE8.

I mean does HGST even sell consumer hard drives beside mobile ones anymore? It'd be pretty fucking unfair to compare an Ultrastar to a WD Blue.

>>57919412
Yes, the deskstar line. All those drivers you mentioned are HGST designs. WD is the one that is pillaging designs. HGST and WD drives are totally different. You pay for what you get. Look up the MTBF and bit error on HGST vs WD drives, even the wd "enterprise" lines.

At this point I'd like to encourage everyone to look into the BackBlaze Blog and go through the Hard Drive Stats articles.

You're smart, you can use search engines, no links here.

Friendly reminder to never buy greens

>>57919412
Years of of studies by google etc. have increasingly pointed towards the conclusion that there's no lifespan difference between “enterprise” and “consumer” drives, and also that the reliability numbers are lying whores

http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/googles-disk-failure-experience/
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-long-do-disk-drives-last/

I have a 60k+ hours and running WD BLACKED.

>>57919540
Friendly remember you can flash the firmware and turn it into a Blue if you are gud

>>57919563
You can just disable the parking bullshit. The driver is still shit after all.

>>57919470
WD is pillaging designs from themselves? HGST is owned by WD. Anyway I have a WD Gold, a WD Red and a WD Blue all in the same computer running 24/7. I'm sure none of them is gonna break any time soon.
The WD Blue maybe, but it has about 6 years more power on hours than both the Gold and Red.

>>57919582
HGST is still a independent division of WD. WD needed HGST and their superior engineering skills.

>>57919654
In the process of a merge with WD. They are absolutely not independent anymore. I don't remember when the merge was supposed to finish, but I think it was 2017.

China was cockblocking the merger, which is why it has taken this long and why HGST continued to exist almost independently. China is no longer doing that. I don't know what will happen to the HGST brand, whether WD will get rid of it or continue selling products under it, but they are certainly going to merge and the products of WD will be identical to the products of HGST. As you can already see with the Gold lineup.

>>57919582
> owned by WD
> not same drives as WD

Why are people still that retarded.

File: 1478650986386.jpg (22KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 720x540px

>>57918213
>256gb seagate from 2006

And it still works

>>57919558
Its from 2007 and they studied SATA and PATA drives not SCSI. You can still have enterprise SATA drives. I understand the MTBF issues but if one has 1 million hours, and the other 2 million, the second choice would last longer, no? Also like to point out Google's and Backblazes pods are somewhat irrelevant way to study deaktop users.

>>57919785
You are retarded.

>>57919654
>>57919780
Just to add to this, WD is not legally obliged to keep the HGST brand around after 2017. I haven't bothered to look up the exact date when they are no longer required to do that, but as far as legality is concerned HGST must exist until some time in 2017, after that they can just disappear. The OK was given to the merger in 2015.

>>57919821
same here

>>57919780
If you buy a WD drive today, it was designed and manufactured to WD's specs, same with HGST. Faggots like to point out that"WD owns HGST, therefore the drives are all the same thing, no difference" or something similar, which is false.

>>57919323
>WD Green still not out
They will go full retard and price it as a mid end SSD like they did with WD Blue SSD and it wont sell too.

>>57919926
WD Gold = HGST. All future models of WD and HGST drives will also be the same. They have been in the process of a complete merge since 2015.

What you say is true if you look at older products, but it will no longer be true in the future. And just for the record, I'm not saying that all the drives are the same. They will be, though. That I will guarantee you with 100% certainty.

Are WD Blacks and Reds actually faster or louder than Blues or is it just about reliability and the quality of components used?

>>57919966
WD Black and Blue are the same speed but blacks have better reliability.

>>57919966
Reds are not louder or faster, blacks are WAY louder.

>>57919917
They would be crazy to do that, but whatever. Ill just go full ssd rather than support the company that killed off HGST name and products. I only have hgst 4k enterprise drives, I wouldn't buy a seagate or WD ever.

>>57920015
Even if they don't do that, they'll be selling the same products under both brands and the same people get the money you spend on your hard drives. So it's not like there's much of a difference aside from what is printed on the label.

>>57918213
How is Toshiba?

>>57920055
Toshiba 3.5 inch division is built upon former Hitachi assets. They are.. average I guess?

>>57920048
Ehh all I know is I want 3 4tb 7k6000 hgst drives and not a rebranded Red drive. Hopefully I can achieve this before all I can buy is Reds with a different label.

>>57919325
On scan I don't see any hitachi drives outside of the enterprise and NAS lines and all cost over £100 now.
Fucks me off, I liked hitachi before they were cool - used them as we used at my work in machines that went onto steelworks and foundries and the fuckers never died, even when coated in metallic dust for 10 years.

>>57919562
>>57919582
My Samsung greens started failing after about 50k hours of operation, respectively

WD black and WD blue both still going strong (60k hours), but I rotated them out because the capacity is too low for me to waste a hard drive slot on

>>57919849
>I understand the MTBF issues but if one has 1 million hours, and the other 2 million, the second choice would last longer, no?
No. There's basically no correlation.

>>57919849
>Also like to point out Google's and Backblazes pods are somewhat irrelevant way to study deaktop users.
Their studies also show that failure time is virtually independent of access pattern and average load/utilization. in other words: there's no difference between “desktop load” and “server load” when it comes to hard drive reliability

>>57919917
WD would be stupid to kill off the HGST brand simply because people are already prepared to pay extra for the HGST label, because they know it means quality.

>>57920244
Yeah, they are more of a premium or enterprise company now. Lord knows you can't make $$$ selling $50 drives to consumers. I got my 2tb 7k4000 drives cheaper because they are an older version. 7k6000 is the newer model I believe.

Hitachi only got bought out as every man and his faggot were all buying WD and fucking shitgate

>>57920303
So I should look at the bit error stats?

>>57920242
The Ultrastar 7k6000 are analogous to WD Gold not Red. Reds are totally different and also in a different price category. Way way cheaper. Even WD Red Pro is cheaper afaik. Funny thing is that I think WD Gold is also actually cheaper than 7k6000, even though it's the same drive.

>>57920295
I have two hitachi deathstars at around 56k power on hours, but I also rotated them out because they were 500GB. The WD Blue with 6 years of power on hours I have is 1TB and I use it for backups.
Makes perfect sense.

>>57920376
Look at the checksum errors. Once your drive starts throwing checksum errors on a regular basis, replace it. That's my rule of thumb.

>>57918213
I've been computing since about 1986. My first computer was an 286 sx epson. It had a 20MB hard drive.

I bought a "clone" sometime in the mid 90s... and then I've built quite a few systems since then.

Currently... I have a NAS loaded up with 5 drives about about 15TB or so. All of my current systems have solid states for local storage.

I've not ONCE... NOT ONCE... had a hard drive fail. I still have every drive I've ever owned, and every last one of the fuckers work.

Pretty based if you asked me.

>>57921131
wow man you're pretty lucky

it would be a real shame if all your data would die overnight, wouldn't it?

>>57919821
i have one 128 gb , one 256, and one 300 something , all are 9+ years old and from other peoples old computers.

>>57921230
Considering I still have all the pr0n I painstaking downloaded over a dial up modem, yes... yes it would. lol...

>>57921308
stay safe anon ;)

>>57918213
What's with these numbers? It looks like WD isn't actually selling shit.

>>57921518
The people who publish those statistics don't buy WD hard drives.

File: 1473741761477.png (390KB, 507x438px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 507x438px

>>57918308
>gamertards will buy ANYTHING if we cover it in meme branding!
maybe AMD really has been playing 9-dimensional chess this whole time

File: 61wUl0HmBAL._SL1221_[1].jpg (79KB, 1221x860px)

79KB, 1221x860px

>>57922089

>>57922224
That's a great drive tho

>>57918536
I have one of those barracuda 7200.11 1.5tb drives. I used to have four, three died quickly and one remains although it's showed smart warnings for years. 25k power on hours so far and 24 reallocated sectors.

Seriously don't fall for shitty WD color scheme it's a fucking ripoff. I fell for 4x4tb wd reds. Looking back they were, and still are overpriced and slow. For £77 I can get a fast 7200rpm toshiba 3tb drive while a shitty 5400rpm wd blue is £92.

As far as I know wd reds are just blue/green with firmware changes. All this NAS hype is fucking with prices.

File: oi vey.jpg (175KB, 900x1350px)

175KB, 900x1350px

>>57923895
>As far as I know wd reds are just blue/green with firmware changes.
People are literally paying more just cause the red drive comes preconfigured from the factory to not do any head parking, something that takes less than 5min to reconfigure on a blue or a green.

>>57924121
head parking is just a wd green anti-feature

you're thinking about the part where they use variable speed or something for their platters, which adjusts the rotational speed (afaik)

the reds disable that so they all run at exactly the same speed, it's better for RAID

Don't WD Blacks have a fucking 5 year warranty? If they fail after that then you already got what you paid for.

>>57924213
i thought blues also head parked now, anyways thanks for that second piece of info anon

>>57924236
They are also very expensive, it's the least they could fucking do.

>>57918213
>backblaze
nice meme chart

>>57924248
Some "Blues" are rebranded Greens. Some are not.

>>57919977
Blue 2TB+ only runs at 5400RPM, whereas Black is always 7200RPM

My WD Black is starting to fail. Files either can't open and are corrupted or entire folders would just lock up. My five year warranty also came to an end over the summer

>>57926560
Those are rebranded greens, just so you know what you'd be getting if you bought a non 7200 rpm blue.

>>57926673
>Files either can't open and are corrupted or entire folders would just lock up.
Holy hell that sounds terrifying

This is why I use a checksumming and self-healing FS

>>57926726
Luckily, I constantly backup my files onto another HDD, a USB stick and an external so the only things I lost were a few images and some albums.

Definitely spooky stuff regardless

>>57926745
Y-You should start using ZFS too, anon

It will automatically detect and repair any corruption and warn you about it well ahead of time; as well as automatically replacing failed or failing disks by hot spares and resilvering using redundant copies.

It will also prevent you from accidental deletes because of frequent snapshots (I make a snapshot every 15 minutes) which allow you to rollback any changes.

Finally, it makes it easy to make either full or incremental backups by just sending replication stream to any old block device, or by having a sister pool that you keep in sync on a regular basis.

if you're a hard-core data hoarder like me and care about data+backup integrity, everything else just pales in comparison

>>57918253
WD may own HGST but HGST still has better HDDs than WD.

Does Backblaze still store all their drives in poorly ventilated vibrating cubes

>>57927091
All storage companies do

>>57927037

>When you're so brand loyal you get brain damaged.

HGST in australia cost fuck tons more, which pushes more on WD's side - or for slightly more expensive, toshiba

how likely is an actual hard drive failure?

i'm becoming a data hoarder and it frightens me that i'm going to end up with 100 drives just for sufficient redundancy and storage.

>>57927545
It's like saying Volkswagen owns Bugatti so a Passat is no different from a Veyron

>>57918213
>>57918253
>>57918287

Hitachi sold their HDDs to Western Digital but Toshiba got the 3.5" line due to Japanese regulatory oversight interference.

These threads are always too funny

2x 250GB Seagates from 2006 running fine.
2x 500GB Seagates from 2007 running fine.
2x 4TB Seagates for 6 months running fine.

500GB models have the suicidal firmware too and haven't exploded in 30k+ hours.

All hate for seagate must be
a) shills
b) Reddit from blackblaze stats on 1.5tb / 2tb shit drives which were suspiciously cheap to begin with in 2012-13.

>>57918363
Those are only WD Reds.

File: fAu8Pg[1].png (229KB, 800x774px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 800x774px

>>57928728

80GB WD Caviar, fine for more than 10 years
200GB Seagate, dead after about 10 years
250GB WD Caviar, ran OK for 8 years then became incredibly slow, like 5MB per second. Replaced it with an SSD
640GB WD Caviar, been running fine for 10 years
1.5TB Seagate Barracuda, died after only about 3-4 years
2TB Seagate, fine for about 3 years
2TB WD Green, fine for about 2 years

>>57928728
some seagate drives are ""different""
I've got a 160GB seagate from ~2008 and it has been running 24/7 for around 3 last years.
and it works.
However, I've had ~5 WD drives fail in the last 2 years.
they were used for ~7 hours a day.

>>57919374
>tfw i have an ST3000DM001 right now with no backups
Kinda scary but im a seagate shill so oh well

>>57921353
Oh look, still have my data.

>>57926781
I'll check it out. Thanks mate

>>57927765
Does that mean you should buy toshiba? or does that mean 3.5 hgst is toshiba

I have been running 8x4TB Seagate drives 24/7 for 4 years. No failures yet. My guess is it's because of low power cycle/start stop count. smartctl says 23 in the 4 years I have been running them.

im a fucking retard. in a nas, is it actually better to use a nas specific hdd or will a regular ol' desktop hdd work just as well. ive been kinda paranoid about leaving it on 24/7.

WD green VS black.
No Hitachi external prebuilt BS.
The WD graph is a combination of the good with the bad (A-D grade) while Hitachi is most likely only A-B grade.
Always look into the individual object you're looking to buy and not bundle graphs.

>>57931762
HGST has nothing to do with Toshiba. Toshiba got 3.5 inch manufacturing and 3.5 inch HDD product line from Hitachi.

Before Hitachi got bought by WD, their 3.5 inch drives weren't known for being anything other than mediocre.

>>57918213
not me. Samsung/Hitachi 4lyfe
>>57918253
Hitachi still has their plant

>>57932560
>Before Hitachi got bought by WD, their 3.5 inch drives weren't known for being anything other than mediocre.
bnonsense. Hitachi was a good brand long before it got bought

>>57932826
Nah. They were mediocre. Performance was mediocre, reliability was mediocre... nothing interesting. Unless you're talking about Ultrastars. Good brand for enterprise maybe.

>>57932371
>WD green
You mean WD Blue. They're all Blues now.

>>57933440
Those graphs probably, no, not probably - certainly contain WD Greens branded as WD Greens.

I have never had a WD drive die on me except for a little 60GB that must've been over 10 years old that could have been dropped.

>>57918372
I got 2 512gb SSDs for $230.

>>57918213
who knew the most succefull hdd company will have the big failure rates...

>>57919821
Seagate went shit AFTER they bought Maxtor in 2006.

>>57919821
big deal. post its lifetime

>>57926722
Are 1TB Blues also rebranded greens then? 1TB and below blues are the only ones that run at 7200RPM

>>57931963
It's arguably easier on the drives to leave them on 24/7 than a shitload of start/stop sequences.

buy whatever you want, its luck of the draw regardless

>>57918213
i have no problem with my WD Blue harddisk switched on for 3 years 1 month 29 days

The HDD market definitely needs a shakeup. SSDs haven't even really forced conventional HDD manufacturers to make their products more competitive, bar those shitty hybrid HDDs. The high prices of SSDs has left the HDD market untouched, you have the choice of either very high performance or much higher capacity.

On the other hand, is it simply because your average pleb doesn't need more than a 1tb drive?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-hdd-shortage-nand-market,news-54328.html

This makes it even worse, prices aren't just stagnating, theyre going to increase.

>>57918213
>backblaze
>ever

>>57936142
True. Startup is where most failures are noticed.
Time was "stiction" (the tackyness of disk surface lubricant holding the heads to the disk) was the big issue but now it seems to be other, unspecified failures.

>>57936829
>disk surface lubricant

uwot I thought those fuckers float on a pocket of air created by the spinning disks at ridiculously small distances?

>>57936954
Used to have lubricant. Not anymore.

>>57937351
Did they used to physically touch?