are seagate failures just a meme?

Still on a 2010 Seagate drive I got secondhand.

>>59372867
Avoid 2 and 3TB models and you'll be fine.

>>59372935
>Source : my ass.

File: HDDFailures-BB1.jpg (44KB, 629x687px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 629x687px

>>59372977

>>59373030
>.jpg
How convenient to hide the paint job.

Hard drives are, with few exceptions, pretty much down purely to luck and personal experience. Ask one guy and all his Seagates died a year in but once he bought a WD it still works fine to this day. Ask another guy and he'll tell you about how his WD drive literally caught fire and the replacement had a head crash, but when he bought a Seagate drive it worked so well he's still using it. HGST will flaunt results compiled by a single company that was already known to present results in misleading ways, but you'll get as many people talking about strings of failures and problems as with any other brand.

I buy drives at a place a couple blocks away because they cost the same as newegg and I can have em installed not 15 minutes after I decide to buy one. I actually go through a lot of droves, and after I confimed that I was getting a 7.2kRPM no-eco-bullshit desktop drive and he asked what brand I want, I once told the guy behind the counter to surprise me. He was hesitant, must have been scared about picking out the product for me and then having it fail which I could come back and possibly blame him for it; told him to just give me a WD Blue and fuck it. I haven't had particularly good or bad luck with any brands so whatever.

>>59372867
Maybe, but WD Green failures are not

>>59373097
What a fucking nigger. Do Seagate have you on payroll?

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/

>>59373189
Why are you showing me your website?

File: 1489043814699.jpg (51KB, 661x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 661x720px

>>59372867
I use a Seagate 2tb Barracuda for about a year and a half and it has been working fine without errors. So from personal experience, Seagate failures are a meme.

>>59373030
>disproportionate sample sizes: the image

I've had two drives fail. Both are Seagate.

>>59373214
Thanks for visiting my site, pajeet.

>>59372867
My 1TB and 1,5TB HDDs are fine

File: file.png (261KB, 720x770px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 720x770px

>>59373318
Nope

>>59372867
Whenever we have one fail at my workplace we replace it with a WD

File: 1462872853849.png (337KB, 681x1270px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 681x1270px

>>59373030
>>59373097
>>59373318
>>59373375

File: drive.png (77KB, 696x582px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 696x582px

>never buy seagate

Always do the opposite of what /g/ says.

File: 1426179438225_waifu2x_art_noise1_scale_tta_1.png (974KB, 1684x992px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 1684x992px

>>59372867
Yes
There was a spike in failures during the Thailand hard drive crisis but now seagate's fail rates are slightly lower than Western Digital. Toshiba drives are close to HGST in reliability and cheap as Seagates so i would get those if i was you.

>>59373468
>[citation needed]

>>59372977
>>59373097
>>59373182
>>59373359
>>59373520

Seagate shills are working really hard tonight.

>>59372925
>seagate
>secondhand
just asking for trouble

you DO NOT buy secondhand drives regardless of brand unless you don't care about data you're going to store on them
speaking from experience

Well I had two infamous 7200.12 3TB drives fail on me after 3 years or so.
Never buying this shit again.

>>59373536

Only idiots buy seacrap anyway.

File: 1479161725261.png (227KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 640x360px

When seagate was maxtor the failure meme was real. I replaced a fuck load of those drives back in the day.

I had a Seagate 500gb die on me without any warning, was only like 2 years old. Yet I have some travelstar 40gb sata drive from 2004 that's been running for 7 years.

>>59373375
>>59373418
there are 20,000 4tb seagates alone, so maybe you should rethink your comment

No.
Also remember when they flooded the market.

File: 1463574044178.jpg (72KB, 1180x479px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1180x479px

>>59373783
No comment was made by me

File: Untitled.png (628KB, 1002x840px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1002x840px

>>59372867
Their 2TB and 3TB were terrible for a couple years post-flood, as was their old 1.5TB.
The ST1003DM001 is fantastic.

>>59373464
>10k hours
It's a baby!
This is my main seed drive.

File: 5347123.jpg (292KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1280x720px

>>59372867

Apparently 3TB drives are the worst offenders, wish I knew that before I invested in 4 of them back in 2012.

Of those 4 only 1 is still surviving, so for me it's more than a meme.

Not sure what their latest offerings are like, but from their track record I think I'll keep away from them.

>>59372867
I have an old one in my closet that i don't use anymore. It runs hot like a toaster. If you leave it running more than a few hours it gets noticebly hot.

File: Capture.png (717KB, 1006x692px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1006x692px

>>59373934
WD is shit thread?

Can't complain since I got the PC for $175.

>>59373375
>>59373418
>Backblaze

Ahahahahahaha

File: Untitled1.jpg (198KB, 688x838px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 688x838px

h-help!

File: Untitled23.jpg (238KB, 689x838px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 689x838px

>>59374145
p-pls!

>>59372867

Personally, I only had a WD 1TB portable and a desktop drive fail on me. I have 3 Seagates that still run fine after 3 years.

>>59374145
>>59374155
It looks bad but as long as the hard drive is aware of bad sectors it should be fine, stuff saved where the bad sectors are might be corrupted

File: Capture.png (38KB, 489x407px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 489x407px

>>59373934
>>59373994
Jokes on you, my WD Green doesn't even support S.M.A.R.T

>>59374214
how important/dangerous c5 is?

>>59374296
Mine's been running over a year just fine like this and the number's actually dropped
>>59373994

>>59373536
>Suggest Toshiba over Seagate
>Seagate shill XD

Neck yourself.