It does not matter how many you will order, this will always be a DoA

It does not matter how many you will order, this will always be a DoA.

thats a fucking nice looking drive

why is it DoA user

A challenger appears

>10TB Seagate
I dread the day we get one of those fuckers broken in work.

man why do 10TB drives get such amazing designs

At some point in history manufacturers stopped making drives look cool.

This. HGST is Seagate's biggest competitor, both are similarly priced and both have great lineups. Hitachi doesn't make high capacity drives and WD is too expensive.

This is why RAID exists. Who the fuck would store important data without backup and/or redundancy?

HGST stands for Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, or at least did.

Isn't HGST a division of WD while HITACHI is a division of Toshiba? I forgot, maybe it changed.

Hitachi's hard drive subdivision rebranded itself HGST when WD bought it from Hitachi

No idea, but likely considering DT01ACAs use the same firmware as HT CLAs.

Hitachi itself is a company-state

>In March 2011, Hitachi agreed to sell its hard disk drive subsidiary, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, to Western Digital for a combination of cash and shares worth US$4.3 billion.[15] Due to concerns of a duopoly of WD and Seagate by the EU Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, Hitachi's 3.5" HDD division was sold to Toshiba. The transaction was completed in March 2012.[16]

HGST offsets its price difference by how much money you are going to save in the long run due to needing to replace drives significantly less often

not posting RAPTOR X

...

HGST is owned by WD.

How is that relevant whatsoever to my post?

This.
Shit was so cash, I remember seeing it in PC magazines and wishing I had the cash for one.

If only I knew I would have SSDs so much faster than that shit, it would have saved me many hours gazing at hardware mags.

They are still the most aesthetic HDDs.

>If only I knew I would have SSDs so much faster than that shit, it would have saved me many hours gazing at hardware mags.
I'm sure in 10-20 years' time we'll be sayin the same about those 60 TB SSDs

These two are Helium drives
They need to have completely sealed casings to prevent any Helium from leaking out and any moisture from coming in. You current hard drive have tiny vent holes covered by white stickers to stop dust from getting in there. That's why they look awkward and ungainly from the top view, because the manufacturer's label needs to fit around these strategically placed vents.

I remember when they made everything windowed, even PSUs. The problem with those hard drives was that the plastic window would warp and crack over time, leading to platter death by particulates from that plastic that chipped off.

/thread
Holy fuck was maxtor fucking shit.
ten years ago i used to work at frys and every fucking harddrive return was a maxtor, we'd get like 3 returned a day because of DOAs.

i also remember when seagate was amazing back in 05, now its pretty much you either go hitachi, WD, or samsung or dont go at all.

these where practically the "gaming" harddrives of the mid-00's

Maxtor is back. They're selling rebranded Samsung external hard drives with Seagate 1-6TB drives.

My dick!

>$720

What's the point? It's cheaper to build a full-blown NAS with RAID out of 1tb drives.

And pretty much guaranteeing raid failure and losing everything

RAID is made to not lose anything, you idiot.

Do you even know how raids work dummy? Stop while you're ahead

>doesn't even know what RAID stands for

>Seagate Barracuda

The early 2000s were nice!

No no, please, tell me how you would build a raid with ten 1tb drives cheaper than $720 without making it a time bomb or having to spend $1200+. Stupid gamer ass, stop trying to act like you know anything.

12 cheapest 1Tb WD greens in RAID 5 in a cheap NAS box.

Keep replacing drives when they fail after a while, no information lost, the speed will exceed any 10tb shitbox.

You don't even know what raid is for, do you?

Petty sure 1tb drives aren't the lowest $/gb

bhahaha I fucking knew you were going to say raid 5 with cheap home drives. Thank you for proving me right good sir. Congratulations you just built a fucking time bomb.
>10TB raid 5 of non enterprise 7200rpm drives suicide
>fake/shit tier raid card
>1 drive fails
>rebuild taking 2 fucking weeks in this setup
>99% chance of a URE during that time
>poof bye data

Guys... to match a 10TB hard disk in a RAID setup you'd need 20 or 30TB of storage.....

Yup.
5x 2TB drives a sata port replicator and the cables would run you like $250

There is no need to be upset.
Maybe when you grow up they will teach you about raid in school, son.

You don't have to be mirroring the drives. You actually just need 13,333TB to store 10TB.

Pretty much. I ended up getting a bunch of 4tb drives, but that's because I wanted to maintain a little density.

It's ok man, everyone starts somewhere. No one uses fucking raid 5 anymore, epically with 10 fucking TB holy shit lol. But keep teaching yourself , it sounds like you have a good start. Raid 10 Is the only acceptable answer. Thanks for playing though

Someone was talking about redundancy tho

Might as well do a raid 0

Distributed parity, m8. It only tolerates 1 HDD failing at a time, but that's more than enough.

It's not for you.

Sure it does, and then you have a degraded array for 2 weeks and during that time everything runs at a crawl and the smallest disk error makes you lose everything. You don't even have to lose a second drive. That big of a raid you do raid 10, MAYBE 6 if you feel ballsy, and that's with enterprise grade drives. A 10tb raid 5 rebuild is Russian roulette , kills the point of a raid

That's funny. I have like 5 old IDE Maxtor HDDs all they all work.

If you know absolutely nothing about what you're saying, can you just keep your mouth shut?

You're right, a 10tb raid 5 Is not for me. I actually know what redundancy means.

seagate shills in full force

How does calling someone out on b.s. Make him a Seagate shill?

Of course! because Seagate is a piece crap and sh¡t. Lowest lifespan, is unreliable.

Nice try changing the subject after realizing you made a fool of yourself

Kind of on topic, my 1tb WD Black is finally failing (shows a high number of relocated sectors), I'm not sure what brand to go with, Hitachi or another WD drive (maybe a different color)?

HGST or WD black,
Or if you're poor, WD blue is good

I'm barely accepting of 4TB HDDs. It's clear the more platters you add the higher the risk of failure, but also the greater the temperature of the drive. SDD capacity has already surpassed HDD, but it's too expensive at the moment. I would love to load up my case with 16 16TB SDDs and swim in a bed of 16TB SDDs.

k

Data is important

>There is no need to be upset.
>Maybe when you grow up they will teach you about raid in school, son.
He's right though. With today's drive capacities a rebuild takes so long and is so demanding that drive failures during rebuild are pretty common. In such a case you are fucked with RAID5 and loose everything.

Seagate is crap tier, I miss the old Western Digital's and the Maxtor's drives, those were reliable. Seagate is just an NSA backdoor.

>maxtor
>reliable
are you even trying?

literally the only drives that have ever failed me in fucking 20 years of IT carrer were FUCKING maxtor.

There's a reason they don't exist anymore.

They were bought out by Seagate.

>Ultrastar HE

>backblaze
FUCK OFF.

I have bought like 40 seagate drives in the last 4 years, only 3 remain alive

I've only had 2 hard drive failures in my ~18 years of computer use. First was 80GB Maxtor in 2002, second was a 300GB Maxtor in 2006. Would not buy again.

My windowed PSU is like a decade old and still powers my server :)

LOL clearly you've never actually had to rely on a maxtor drive beofre

srsly

I have 2 500GB 2 1TB and 1 2TB Seagate Barracudas. Out of these only 1 1TB drive is still working. I don't buy Seagate drives anymore. I'm not fully trusting of WD either, so I've bought some HGST as well. So far none of them have died including 2 2TB WD Greens which are supposed to be high failure.

>Sure it does, and then you have a degraded array for 2 weeks
RAIDs dont take that long to rebuild. It took me less than 2 days to change the stripe size on a 8x 4tb raid 6 which is essentially the same thing as a rebuild as it has to rewrite the entire array and recompute parity for it.

>That big of a raid you do raid 10, MAYBE 6 if you feel ballsy
RAID 10 can't always withstand a two disk failure, RAID 6 can. Think before you speak next time noraid

Dead on arrival. As in you get it in the mail and it doesn't work.

DESIGNING A HARD DRIVE WITH A WINDOW IS NOT AN EASY TASK

>RAID 5
Only one parity disk for 11 fucking drives, my god whats going on .......
>Keep replacing drives when they fail after a while

How is doing a restripe essentially the same as a rebuild on an online raid? Big Raid 6 rebuilds can easily take a week , plus I'm sure your two day rebuild was not some cheap raid card. Big Raid 6 write speeds are freaking floppy disk esque. Saying 6 Is safer than
10 is moot since your raid is basically USELESS during that nice long rebuild, while a 10 Is a simple copy, no parity to recalc. So what's really safer?

He didn't ask what it meant, he asked why would it be DOA.

No, there is only one vent hole and it is clearly labeled. They are ugly because they are hyperoptimized for cost.

Rip my 300GB external Maxtor from the same time period.

Slap a RAIDz2 across that shite with ZFS for an 8TB array and give it a 512G NAND cache.
Alternatively make it a RAID 10 using ZFS for maximum safety netting at the loss of 3TB.

>comparing an Enterprise HDD to a Desktop drive

>backblaze data

Also, your warranty is meant to cover this. WD, HGST, and Seagate all offer models with 5 year warranties.

Then why do you have it setup in RAID0?

>10TB drive
>Still uses SATA 6Gb/s

>implying an HDD for high density storage is capable of saturating a SATA III port
I don't think any HDD can

How is backblaze data not valid? They list the model number and amount of drives they're using. Do you think they're out to get certain companies?

Protip: Maxtor IS Seagate, they were aquired by Seagate back in the early 2000's, shortly thereafter, for whatever mysterious reason, Seagate's drive quality tanked to shit.

>helium

iirc there was something about them using used drives and keeping the drives in poor conditions, no clue if it's true or not.

>BarraCuda Pro
That's not a regular consumer drive

What?

>acquired

It's helium-sealed. In case of a leakage you lose ALL your data.
Unreliable piece of shit. Abort it

> 10- 20

> only 50 TB and not GeoBytes

poor people

I know it's helium sealed, I was assuming from your post that you did not.
>In case of a leakage you lose ALL your data.
Have you really gone 18+ years without ever finding out what a backup is?

>10tb raid 5
This is just hilarious. But sad.

>12 disks
>12 fucking disks
>in RAID5
my sides

At least you're only using 1TB drives, which makes this slightly better than if you were actually RAID5ing 4TB drives or something.

Anyway, somebody clearly hasn't done much research on RAID before deploying his destitute nigger setup. I sincerely hope you get rekt by bit flips, write holes and multi-drive failures and suffer catastrophic data loss. At least you will learn something.

Don't listen to him. Out in the real world there is a simple answer to the question of raid levels:

Go with mirrored copies. Always. Whether you're using mdraid RAID10, zfs mirror, or even something custom like CephOS, there's one thing that stays constant: Every successful deployment uses mirrors.

The reasons are simple:

1. It's significantly safer. RAID5 is basically asking for data loss even with relatively small drives.

2. The risk goes up as your drive capacity increases (because rebuilds take longer); a RAID6 with today's drives is essentially equivalent to RAID5 in the past (and “avoid RAID5 like the plague” has pretty much always been true), so you *really* want to be going for at least 3 parities (think raidz3) if you're using modern HDDs (e.g. 3-4 TB).

3. IOPS. A mirror doubles your IOPS, a stripe doesn't. IOPS is more important than bandwidth for 99% of use cases, so even RAID1 JBOD (e.g. zfs pool or LVM) can be better than RAID10.

4. Large pools are bad. You don't want to stripe together 20 fucking disks, you want to split them up into smaller device groups for IOPS and better rebuild performance, unless you enjoy your pool being cripplingly slow.

5. Parity rebuilds are a pain in the ass. They will be slow, costly and severely degrade your pool's performance during the rebuild.

6. Flexibility, Pooling mirrors lets you make decisions, upgrades, and investments on a 2-disk basis. With a raidz3, at least if you want to gain any amount of efficiency over a raid10 of equivalent size, you'd need to stripe together many disks at the same time. This makes future upgrades harder and raises the number of disks (i.e. points of failure) you have to be using.

If you put together all of the benefits, there is absolutely no way they don't outweight the minor storage benefit you would get from a large raidz3 parity raid.

These reasons have not changed over the years, and even the greediest of companies *all* use RAID10.