Is Seagate good now?

Is Seagate good now?

Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Nope

isn't this from backblaze?

they use their hard drives in ways that are way outside normal operating conditions. you should expect much lower failure rates than you see there, and possibly differently lower (that is, maybe WD becomes more reliable than toshiba drives if you keep them in normal operating temperatures, but fail much more readily when you stick them in a low grade oven)

in any case, depending on your tolerance for failure rates, any of them would've been fine. the only way you would see 10% failure rates among seagate or any other hard drives over 3 or 5 years would be if you were seriously abusing them.

I needed a new HDD for mass storage on my laptop.
I've never had any Seagate drive (usually Toshiba, WD and one HGST), but bought one because it was the cheapest available by a large margin.

Worst mistake ever. The fucker sounds like a turbine, and makes sounds like it is dying, althoug it has perfect health and has worked perfectly for a while now.

In terms of quality:
HGST > Toshiba > WD > Seagate

In terms of cost/quality comparison:
HGST > WD > Toshiba > Seagate

> he uses a laptop for storage

>not having 4 drives in your laptop

Well, I have owned 2 HGST drives, 2 WD drives, and 2 Seagate drives, here's my experience.

>HSGT
Drive 1 - Purchased 2 years ago
Drive 2 - Purchased 3 years ago
Failure Rate: 0%

>WD
Drive 1 - Purchased 1 year ago
Drive 2 - Purchased 1 year ago
Failure Rate: 50%

>Seagate
Drive 1 - Purchased 5 years ago
Drive 2 - Purchased 4 years ago
Failure Rate: 100%


Admittedly, my test is unfair for Seagate considering I bought those drives quite a while ago. Overall, I'm the most disappointed in WD, because one of my 2 drives failed within 8 months, other is yet to fail.

> Not having a storage server

>wasting money

> not being able to waste money

>spending money on a shitty server instead of kids, cars and a house

There is at least as much variation in failure rates between models from a given manufacturer than there is between manufacturers. I've bought many hundreds of drives from various manufacturers, enterprise and consumer grade, and have found no consistent pattern in failure rates based on brand (though I haven't used HGST). I just buy whichever is cheapest when it's time to get drives. I currently run a 1PB Hadoop cluster with mostly Seagate drives, and before that I ran a cluster with a mix of WD and Seagate drives. I haven't had a serious string of early drive failures since Quantum Fireballs were a thing back in 2000.

The bottom line is that hard drives are extremely precise mechanical devices with a limited lifespan. You should expect any drive to fail within 4-5 years, and if your data matters you should design your storage system to accommodate that. You may get much longer (I have one drive that's been in service for about 12 years-- Seagate even), but that's the exception rather than the rule. I don't understand why so many people don't get this, but plan for drive failures because they will inevitably happen.

1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 119 100 006 Pre-fail Always - 219958847
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 096 095 000 Pre-fail Always - 0
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 098 098 020 Old_age Always - 3070
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail Always - 0
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 045 040 030 Pre-fail Always - 26156542010966
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 097 097 000 Old_age Always - 3443
10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always - 0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 097 097 020 Old_age Always - 3149
187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0
189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 060 054 045 Old_age Always - 40 (Min/Max 20/40)
194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 040 046 000 Old_age Always - 40 (0 19 0 0 0)
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 063 060 000 Old_age Always - 2931551
197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x003e 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 0
202 Data_Address_Mark_Errs 0x0032 100 253 000 Old_age Always - 0
test

shitty seagate drive still spinnin

> implying i would buy a server first

How many times has this image been posted? I mean, has no one else done a comparison of drive manufacturers?

backblaze a shit
I have a 1997 Seagate drive that still works, while an 8 year old WD drive already has bad sectors.

Just buy whichever is cheapest, since they're all susceptible to mechanical failure.

THANK YOU BASED HGST

You don't have 500 bucks for a server?
Feels bad man

>2016
>buying HDDs
I bet your car has a steam engine

I'll buy SSDs once they don't cost as much as my fucking house, thank you very much.

>implying steam engines aren't more reliable than gas engines

You gotta consider Price/Storage

$300 gets you:
1 TB of storage if you go SSD
~9 TB of storage it you go HDD

See the issue?

What happened to WD? They used to be the best. Sup Forums shilled for them all the time.

WD is fine overall. What happened is the quality and pricing of their different "colors" (models) started to vary quite a lot.

Now, people buy the cheapest thing they can find (a blue) which is doomed to fail eventually. (inb4 "hurr durr I've had a blue for 96 years and it still works you fucking HGST shill") .

If you continue to buy their nicer models, WD is just fine. I've had WD blues fail on me before, but I've never had an issue with blacks or golds (the only other colors I've bought).

Also, blacks are barely more expensive than blues, I purchased a 1tb blue for $60 a while back (which failed), but my 1tb black for $70 is doing just fine.


>tl;dr people buy the cheapest shit they can then complain when it has issues

even Sup Forums passes would be better use of money than that.