Redpill me on this 2

redpill me on this 2

which fails more often?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=aT3-fSqG9hk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

/sqt/ is over there. Also what is Google?

Mine has had a good 6 years of life.
Reported sectors only the other day

My experience has been that Seagate has failed me more times than western digital.

same here, Seagate a shit

2007
>Bought a Seagate 320GB HDD
>Still runs fine to this day
>2017
>Bought a Seagate and WD 2TB each
>Fail within 8 months

These fucking kikes do it on purpose don't they?

Shit's not built like it used to be.
It's all cost cutting and making stuff shitter.

>prefering generals over dedicated threads
at this rate we would only have wt, tpg and other shit only

This. The HDD debate is a legitimate one, and has many different aspects to analyze.
For instance, the 3TB Seagate debacle, and the HGST takeover shitfest.

they failed because they are 2TB. High capacity drives tend to fail more often

Neither are good, but WD is the undisputed king of failing drives.

Ive got a couple 500GiB seagate barracudas that have been running fine for like, 6+ years. I haven't even thought about how old they are, should probably back shit up...

Anyway, they've treated me well. I think has a point, might be why my 500s still do fine.

Any Seagate will fail, WD will fail but green model only stupid head park and spin down killing it quick.

I've had dozens of WD server grade drives in use. The failure rate was so high that I even replaced the ones that didn't fail yet.

Their external passportz are shit though.

I also have a 2TB Seagate that just started showing caution, but mine is the 5900LP that I bought... dunno 2007? 2008?

Failiure rates differ on consumer drives with Seagate generally having much larger failing numbers then WD.

However personal experiences varies I have 16 WD Red Pros in a NAS running 24/7 for the past 2 years and not a single problem came out of them.

I also have 2 WD greens with intellipark disabled that also have been running for the past 4 years on the same regime without failing.

This is what I have to say for 3.5 drives.
As for 2.5's the WD blues tend to fail on laptops/external often just because of their treatment similar drives from seagate have the same failiure rate.

With this being said I recomend both seagate and Western Digital Enterprise drives , it is with some chagrin that I also recomend WD Greens if you disable intellipark on the firmware( since some stores still sell them cheap now that they are discontinued).

However you should avoid all consumer grade Seagate drives on both 2.5 and 3.5 formats and avoid any and all WD blues on the 2.5 format.

The ones that aren't current helium filled drives for 24/7 operation, which both WD and Seagate have.

Of course you still want to use RAID5 or 6 or something. Drives are never *completely* failureproof, suck it up and deal with it with redundancy.

RAID is not a backup.

I shill WD.

buy HITACHI instead, everything else is total GARBAGE

Both are shite, but Seagate is more so.

Hitachi was brought by WD

>RAID5 or 6
Both are memes. RAID10 is the only serious choice.

Who said anything about backups you retard? RAID is for high availability.

I never had WD or Seagate fail. I have a couple of drives from both brands with bad sectors, but it has been like that for past year and they still work.

>someone bought up all the cheap used hitachis in your area

Are you feeling it now

I have WD, Toshiba, Seagate and even old Samsung drives still running. They're all fine, buy the right drive for the job.

I have a Seagate, and it hasn't failed me yet

>RAID10 is the only serious choice.
RAID10 is trash.

Why the would you take the inferior 1 drive safety margin at cost of half of your drives (RAID10) over the superior 2 drives of safety margin at cost of 2 drives (RAID6)?

>RAID6
>Wanting your array to always be degraded and rebuilding

You're literally better off just using Erasure coding at that point.

> always be degraded and rebuilding
What the fuck are you on?

If no drive fails, there's no degradation or rebuild.

If a drive fails, exactly the same happens on RAID6 as on RAID whatever else once you replace it. The replacement drive rebuilds, and unless your setup sucks, it'll rebuild at ~the full speed of the added drive. Once it's rebuilt, problem solved, you're back to full redundancy and speed on the array.

Hey sir, I am not a retard sir!
Nobody said you said something about backup.
But I wrote that RAID ain't no backup, sir!

Just get a drive with a 5 year warranty.

Fuck me, I have a Seagate External HDD. Should I buy another HDD that isn't Seagate?

They both fail at approximately the same rates.
There was a bad batch of 1.5TB drives that was abused by Backblaze that gave seagate a bad reputation, but seagate drives quickly got back to the usual standards.

Besides, you WANT to buy a hard drive you think will fail. Then you'll back that shit up like your mom's ass on my dick.

And not even all of the 1.5T drives were affected. I bought one right around that time and have been using it ever since

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
Device Model: ST31500341AS
[...]
User Capacity: 1,500,301,910,016 bytes [1.50 TB]
[...]
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 114 099 006 Pre-fail Always - 75462879
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 100 092 000 Pre-fail Always - 0
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 098 098 020 Old_age Always - 2984
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail Always - 24
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 081 060 030 Pre-fail Always - 17785443212
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 018 018 000 Old_age Always - 71987
10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always - 9
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 099 099 020 Old_age Always - 1513
[...]


71987 hours is ~8.2 years of powered-on time, and still counting.

Is this good enough?

seagate destroys your data by burning out the read head after a week.
wd destroys your data by programing the head to CLUNK ever CLUNK five CLUNK fucking CLUNK seconds to the point that you want to smash your harddrives yourself.
they call it wear leveling or some shit, you can heat it from accross the room

If you eliminate the horrific failure rate of a specific line of 3TB 7200RPM models several years back, Seagate drives fail less often.

Hard drives are all the same, don't let people meme you.

How about neither.

One that is or isn't Seagate, as long as you have some drive(s) worth of redundancy on your data, it's fine.

mine also starting showing an error a few days ago how bad is this desu? i probably cant get a new drive for a few months but have backed up my data

ALL DISKS FAIL RANDOMLY.
DON'T RELY ON A BRAND.
RELY ON A BACKUP.
RAID IS NOT A BACKUP.

Both are crap. Never store ANY sensitive data on Shitgate or WaltDisney drives.

Seagate drives have always failed me within two years. Meanwhile I have a WD that's been working great for half a decade.

Redpill me on Toshiba drives. Are they better than both WD and Seagate?

I had a seagate that was solid for years and then I used full disk encryption and it failed in a few months. Does disk encryption wear out the drives? Also what about 2.5 vs 3.5 drives?

I've had Barracudas in a RAID 0 array for quite a while. They've never failed me.

Would also like an answer to this even though it's slightly off topic.

That's actually funny, from what I heard it's the newer Seagates that are doing better.

My story:
>late 2013, acquire new laptop to replace old laptop from late 2011/early 2012
>in 6 months, 1TB Seagate HDD fails
>need to salvage WD 500GB HDD from old laptop
>still alive to this day

What amazes me the most is that the WD HDD had a much harsher life; I distro-hopped a lot (still do to a lesser degree), formatted, reformatted and such. The Seagate only had one single OS installed on it during its short life.

5 years and still strong

WD Red drives are very quiet, for HDDs. WD Greens were almost as quiet, but Reds are better in basically every way (except price).

Ive only ever had Two HDDs fail on me. Ever.

One was a Seagate and the other was a Maxtor. Both were 7+ Years Old.
Literally every other drive (~40 total) is still capable to this day. Including this 170MB bad boy.

Ive sacrificed most of my older drives to platter snake (praise be his name) but kept a few old ones. A Quantum Bigfoot in an old Athlon Equity I+, the above WD, and this Seagate.
8.4GB? Shit man what you need all that space for?

heh dank

Im talking about the newer >6tb drives. The all click. reds, golds, blacks, hgst. click click click click. nonstop. every 5 seconds.
youtube.com/watch?v=aT3-fSqG9hk

THERE IS NO RELIABLE DISK JUST A RELIABLE BACKUP STRATEGY.

You have off planet backup?

CONGRATULATIONS ON SURVIVING THE NORMAL CURVE

yes I beam my data to alpha centauri

Never even had a hardrive fail only an SSD (OCZ shit itself in like 3 days)

Had them get slow and stuff and just replaced them. I've found heaps of harddrives and stuff out the garbage (Work at the dump) Currently using 2 WD Blacks from 2012 i found in a NAS someone threw out

Depends on the model.

>Currently using 2 WD Blacks from 2012 i found in a NAS someone threw out

Please tell me you're keeping the sole copy of important documents on these drives. I live for others misery.

Nah Nothing i have is even 'important' documents Can all be redownloaded and the few things that are important are on the cloud

whao, backing up in the same galaxy? we got a risktaker over here.
I back mine up in a parallel universe.

there are other galaxies you didn't need to escalate to parallel universes just yet :(

How many reallocated sectors untill you should get worry about it?

when value goes lower than threshold in SMART.

Says it zero

> rely on a backup
So like rsync?
Also why is RAID not a backup?

> backs it up in parallel universe
> parallel
> same event happens in that universe that fails your drive that also failed in this universe
You better start backing up into alternative realities or tangential universes

> tfw you are happy that your drive is healthy but that nagging feeling in the back of your head making you think "maybe the SMART data isn't working"

that's probably showing raw value.

For "Reallocated_Sector_Ct", "value" is the amount of sectors it has left in its pool of reserved sectors, and "raw value" is the number of sectors that have had to be re-allocated.

Value = Threshold - Raw Value.

rsync is a great program for backing up data, but the program you use to backup data isn't really important. What's important is that you have 2 logically separated drives with an identical copy of data on each, and one of them should be offline unless data is actively being copied to it. Ideally you would then have a third offsite backup of that as well, made at a larger time interval (say, daily for the first backup and weekly for the offsite backup). How deep you go here depends how much you care about your data.

RAID is not a backup because the drives are not logically separated, they're logically one unit of storage. Say you run malware that cryptolocks all your files. With RAID you'll have 1-2 copies (depending on your raid level) of the encrypted data. With a proper logically separated backup, you'll have 1 copy of the encrypted data and 1 copy of the original data which you can use to restore from. Alternatively, if you think hardware failures are more common than software failures and PEBKAC (this is not the case) your SATA controller fucks up and you're not using a filesystem with check-summing, well you'll just write that corrupted data to two disks instead of one.

RAID keeps you online when a disk goes down, but will not protect against catastrophic failure. Backups let you restore what you had after catastrophic failure.

>mfw parallel universe are actually backup in case the main partition fucked up

bought in 2009 still working , no clicking yet

should i be worried?

what if our universe is the backup and that is why we are missing memories and sometimes we freeze like someone hit the pause button? Also when things from the past just randomly change (everything from mandella effect) thats because they ran rsync.

same galaxy is like raid 0
different galaxies is raid 1
multiverse is proper backup

>You better start backing up into alternative realities or tangential universes
yea but I need similar conditions to our earth. too much humidity, em, or anti-matter is bad for drives.

SMART was never meant to be completely precise all the time.

yes it was, thats why they called it smart instead of guess

Been using hard drives since the 1970s (seriously, and yes kids, I'm older and wiser than you). In terms of brand reliability after having not only used thousands of drives in my career of working with computers near daily since 1975 or so and considering that a lot of the original hard drive companies (Maxtor, Quantum, Winchester, and scores of others) are no longer around what I'll list is the reliability in terms of modern age brands that people know and buy, from most reliable at the beginning to worst PERIOD drives PERIOD ever PERIOD.

- Hitachi/HGST (and also the pre-Hitachi sales IBM branded drives years ago) - never ever had one fail on me or customers, EVER, not one, and I even have an original IBM 60GXP "Deathstar" drive that's still functional with 5 bad sectors and it's 18 fucking years old. I've owned dozens upon dozens of Hitachi drives personally and I recommend them and only them to clients and customers

- Seagate - only had 1 of these fail for me personally out of a few hundred owned, only had 5 of them fail for customers since the late 1990s

- Fujitsu - no longer being manufactured but I only had 3 of them die for me personally and a few dozen die for customers

- Maxtor - maybe 7 died on me personally with a bit less than 100 for customers taking a shit

- Samsung - not that many ever used in my experience, none died for me but plenty died for customers, especially their laptop drives

- Western Digital - I used to have a shoebox full of 80GB WD drives with perfectly clean S.M.A.R.T. status but the drives were defective as fuck, I've only had one or two of my personal WD drives NOT fail so far, as for customers good lord, a significant number, about an even split between desktop or laptop drives

- Toshiba - EVERY fucking Toshiba drive I've ever used and the vast majority of them I've worked with in customer machines has failed, every god damned one of them so they are at the fucking bottom of the list absolutely

That's about it.

>yes kids, I'm older and wiser than you
>calls Winchester a manufacturer
>lists Maxtor and Quantum as "original hard drive companies"
drives me to think

>drives me to think
>said in a thread about hard drives
>pic relevant

Quantum is a long dead company that ended up being swallowed up by Maxtor which has been long dead itself, just not as long as Quantum has. Both companies died out before most of you younger pups were even stains on your Mom's insides.

Winchester was a brand name long ago for a very short period of time, I even owned one but it was technically manufactured by IBM and of course you've already done your Google searching and Wiki hounding to find out the info, we all know how you kids do things nowadays: not actually learn anything but instead just spit out something you read 60 seconds ago because after 120 seconds you won't remember it due to your medications.

It's ok, son, don't worry, us older folk are still doing just fine in spite of you young punks destroying things at rapid speed.

Now be predictable and make some "it's past your bedtime Gramps" reference like you and I and everyone else knows you're just itching to do.

>Maxtor
it had crappy frim ware and all the drives where subpar crap always suffered read head motor failure, overheating, headheads just snaping off, scraching disks.
all of them died around 3 years old regradless of model.

that's why kids you should never cheapout on parts.

also mate your only 7 years older than me don't big head.

This shit's too blatant man, you need to be more subtle next time. But I'm bored and want to be autistic so I'll toss out another (You).

Winchester wasn't a brand name, I don't even think IBM used it officially on the 3340, it was just an informal label that gradually became a catch-all for early fixed disks in general. You don't even have to google around to figure this shit out, just read through some old tech magazines on the web archive and look at all the advertisements touting "Winchester" drives in systems clearly not made by IBM or utilizing IBM manufactured drives. They gave the name to tons of systems sporting drives from Seagate, Miniscribe, Micropolis, CD, DEC, you name it.

Quantum and Maxtor were around for the beginning of hard disks in consumer systems but beyond weirdo shit like the Hardcard they weren't really a "household name" until the '90s, I sure as fuck have never seen any early non-SCSI/PATA Quantum or Maxtor drives in any of the number of pre-1990 systems I own, even then until 1995 or so I don't find Quantum drives in anything but Macs and portables. If you can name a system or vendor that frequently used Quantum or Maxtor disks before 1986 I'll believe you.

That bit about Toshiba is 100% accurate

Seagate is shit.
Buy WD.
Or better, buy HGST Deskstar drives.
>b-but those are for NAS
Who cares. Works in my build and has been working for years.

maxtor still works back from 2004 in my Chipped Xbox original

Just buy the cheapest drive you can afford