primexx Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Hi all! I'm looking at replacing my 2 x 500GB HDDs with 2 larger HDDs, 1TB or more. I'm wondering what the most reliable HDD these days are. According to Blackblaze's data, HGST is the clear winner right now by a wide margin. I remember that they used to have the Deathstar reputation. Have they turned around? I'm also curious about their relationship with WD, why are their drives performing so much better than their parent company? Another question I have is the size of the drives. It looks like 6+ TB drives are already in use these days, so I assume 1 to 4 TB drives are now "old news" and well proven. Is this correct? Anything else that I should be mindful of? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindovermaster Moderator Posted June 7, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2015 Will you be RAIDing them? What are you doing with them? Don't worry about "old news". Above 5TB is a higher failure rate. I'd stay with 2 x 3TB. Like BudMan says, all drives fail at one time or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Berry Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I can personally vouch for HGST drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. S. Veteran Posted June 7, 2015 Veteran Share Posted June 7, 2015 It all depends on your needs. If you'll be using RAID, using them for tasks that depend on HDD speed, etc. If you're just storing your files, regular Joe PC user stuff, WD drives are pretty solid all-around and easily available everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted June 7, 2015 MVC Share Posted June 7, 2015 If I buy Spinning drives I buy Western Digital Reds. Andre S. and x-scratch 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe84 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I have a few HDDs: a 300 GB Seagate Barracuda from 2006 (2 partitions XP and files), a 320 GB Hitachi (files) and a 80 GB Seagate Barracuda ATA IV (Linux, multiple installs) from 2007 or 2008, a 1TB Maxtor from 2008 and a 1.3TB Packard Bell Jumbo Disk from 2009, the last two are external drives. I've been using them a lot, they've sustained a lot of punishment and they're still going strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Veteran Posted June 7, 2015 Veteran Share Posted June 7, 2015 WD Black's were always good performance/reliability ratio. Red's are extensively tested but don't know for 100% in comparison to the blacks. Open Minded 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 all brands apart, they all fail, it's not a matter of "do they" but more like "when". having said that, go for the best dollar per GB and invest in a good backup plan. also just because one brand makes a good performance HDD doesn't mean it will do that for all the drives, for ever - i'm looking at you, IBM. so check what are your IOs needs, buy them drives and invest in a good backup plan because those drives will fail, whether it will take months or years, doesn't matter. Anibal P and Mindovermaster 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian M. Veteran Posted June 7, 2015 Veteran Share Posted June 7, 2015 IMO, with the exception of obvious batches/models (the Deathstars you mentioned), there's no manufacturer that's better than any other. For example, I just went over a year without a drive failure, then 2 different drives (a 2 year old 3TB seagate, and a 3 year old Hitachi 500GB 2.5") both died within a day of each other. If it was me, I'd avoid the larger drives, and raid smaller ones - you still need to backup, but it makes it far less of a pain when a drive does eventually fail. For example, when my 3TB drive failed, it was just a case of popping a new one in and letting it rebuild, much easier than having to mess around restoring from backups. Key thing, whatever drives you have, backup, backup, backup. For $60 a year, there is *no* excuse (other than maybe bandwidth) to make regular backups to an online service, and then keep offline backups, just in case anything does happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 IMO, with the exception of obvious batches/models (the Deathstars you mentioned), there's no manufacturer that's better than any other. For example, I just went over a year without a drive failure, then 2 different drives (a 2 year old 3TB seagate, and a 3 year old Hitachi 500GB 2.5") both died within a day of each other. If it was me, I'd avoid the larger drives, and raid smaller ones - you still need to backup, but it makes it far less of a pain when a drive does eventually fail. For example, when my 3TB drive failed, it was just a case of popping a new one in and letting it rebuild, much easier than having to mess around restoring from backups. RAID a big drive is not a problem as long is the correct RAID level. Still RAID is not backup.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindovermaster Moderator Posted June 7, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2015 I have a group 20GB WD and Seagate (PATA) that still run to this day. Yeah, I lost a few WD's and Seagates. All drives die, it isn't matter how reliable a drive is. I even have a 1024MB WD drive. It has a scratch on one of the platters, so it can only use up to 200MB of it. Usable, but a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian M. Veteran Posted June 7, 2015 Veteran Share Posted June 7, 2015 RAID a big drive is not a problem as long is the correct RAID level. Still RAID is not backup.. Yep, that's why I said you need to backup. The biggest benefit of RAID IMO is that it's less hassle when a drive does die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted June 7, 2015 Global Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2015 I agree with Brian and Praetor. I typically stay with WD but I wouldn't have a problem with HGST or Seagate ... I just like the WD Reds (run cool w/ good warranty for my HTPC) and Blacks.(performance/warranty) I think usage (performance), price and warranty should be the biggest factors vs a particular brand. Just for giggles...here is blog post from Backblaze (an online backup business) who release statistics on drives that they've had to replace. As of the end of Q1 2015 we had 44,252 hard drives spinning in our datacenter. If we subtract boot drives and drive models with less than 45 drives from that total, we get 42,749 hard drives remaining spread across 21 drive models. Below are the hard drive reliability statistics for these drives for Q1 2015. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/ They have a table with the stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I agree with Brian and Praetor. I typically stay with WD but I wouldn't have a problem with HGST or Seagate ... I just like the WD Reds (run cool w/ good warranty for my HTPC) and Blacks.(performance/warranty) I think usage (performance), price and warranty should be the biggest factors vs a particular brand. Just for giggles...here is blog post from Backblaze (an online backup business) who release statistics on drives that they've had to replace. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/ They have a table with the stats. the problem with that data is that you don't know the conditions that does drives endured (vibration, temperature, humidity, etc.), just a relative big number of... stuff. while it helps to realise that some specific model or brand is more resiliant than others, one has to think that over time they used different pods and improved vibration and temperature problems. still it's a great data to analyse and to realise that no brand or model is safe from dying; some die faster, others not so fast, but they all die. Mindovermaster 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primexx Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 Will you be RAIDing them? What are you doing with them? Don't worry about "old news". Above 5TB is a higher failure rate. I'd stay with 2 x 3TB. Like BudMan says, all drives fail at one time or another. Good question! I currently have them mirrored with Storage Spaces, which I just find to be easier than RAID. I'll be doing the same with the new drives. I've actually been wondering too, whether I should get two drives from different manufactures with the same specs. Storage Spaces should care about matching drives quite a bit less than traditional RAID, and with same nominal specs there shouldn't be much of a bottleneck. That should guard against batching problems. IMO, with the exception of obvious batches/models (the Deathstars you mentioned), there's no manufacturer that's better than any other. For example, I just went over a year without a drive failure, then 2 different drives (a 2 year old 3TB seagate, and a 3 year old Hitachi 500GB 2.5") both died within a day of each other. If it was me, I'd avoid the larger drives, and raid smaller ones - you still need to backup, but it makes it far less of a pain when a drive does eventually fail. For example, when my 3TB drive failed, it was just a case of popping a new one in and letting it rebuild, much easier than having to mess around restoring from backups. Key thing, whatever drives you have, backup, backup, backup. For $60 a year, there is *no* excuse (other than maybe bandwidth) to make regular backups to an online service, and then keep offline backups, just in case anything does happen. Yup, definitely not a backup. I've got a separate process for backups. I even have a 1024MB WD drive. It has a scratch on one of the platters, so it can only use up to 200MB of it. Usable, but a waste of time. How old is that drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-scratch Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 no problems with wd 4tb red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiranui Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Reliable HDD = oxymoron Praetor 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3X4S Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 So I have to ask... why the question ? People & businesses use all types of HDD all over the world, the smart ones have backup methods, but as far as the drive goes - look @ the MTBF rates of enterprise drives - they are better than el cheapo consumer drives - but - those el cheapo consumer drives can still last many years. In short, just get something decent and quit worrying about a detail you really cant control - and doesnt matter. There is nothing saying that a Seagate will outlast a WD, or a Hitachi will die before a Samsung. Many years ago, when I was a tech, I had some idiot walk into my store and say tell me he had $60 million on his laptop, and needed 1024-bit encryption... Inside I want to kill him, and am puking in my mouth while simultaneously having to keep a straight face. I feel like the thought process behind this thread is "well I have really important stuff and I...." something stupid like that. If not, I apologize. If you are thinking "well I just want to get the most of my money" - STOP - Get a WD Black or Red, maybe even a Seagate Constellation and be done with it. You are wasting your time. Then - get a good backup policy - its all you can do. If this is just a philosophical pondering - look @ the MTBF of hard drives and pick one. Odom 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odom Member Posted June 8, 2015 Member Share Posted June 8, 2015 I agree with T3X4S. The MTBF for the drives is different for each model. On the other hand, even the lowest MTBF is so long that chances are you will have your drive replaced before you reached that date. I would simply look at the following when deciding: - How much space you want - 5400RPM or 7200RPM - $$/GB And that's it. Buy two of them, RAID 1 them as you said and that's it. I also had many drives of different makes and models. I only had two drives fail on me so far, ever since I owned drives. I cannot say that one brand is better than another, as they all performed equally well and one did not fail more often than others. HDD are mechanical and they are all bound to fail sooner or later. Yours could fail the week after you bought it, it could fail 10 years later or never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindovermaster Moderator Posted June 8, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 8, 2015 How old is that drive? That was back from Win 3.4 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 It all depends on your needs. If you'll be using RAID, using them for tasks that depend on HDD speed, etc. If you're just storing your files, regular Joe PC user stuff, WD drives are pretty solid all-around and easily available everywhere. HGST is the old IBM disk-drives group (which was acquired by Hitachi - and became Hitachi Global Storage Technologies - and was later acquired by WD). WD's Caviar Green (EcoGreen) drives weren't knocked for reliability - but performance (especially compared to their Caviar Black relatives (with the larger on-drive cache)) - I have two of them. What's amusing is that neither was sold as a retail drive for PCs; the smaller drive is from the AV series (typically used in STBs and for archived video, such as sourced from security cameras and other such uses) while the larger one is from a MyBook that suffered a PEBKAC goof that fried the external electronics but left the drive itself intact. I have no issue at all recommending the EcoGreen drives for typical desktop use - even as boot drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeprime Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 For performance in a single hard drive WD Black is consistently quite good and durable. In a RAID 0 system WD Red might be better due to it's lower power draw. I'd avoid 4 to 6 TB drives as their longevity is not proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kozukumi Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 For HDD I only go WD or HGST. For SSD I only go Samsung or Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shockz Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Have a 20 year old WD that still works, I've had the worst luck with Seagate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primexx Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 I noticed that WDs have all moved to 7200RPM now, the VelociRaptors are 10k RPM but they appear to be older than the new Colour Models. Seagate's modern drives also are mostly 7200 RPM. Is there a reason for the faster drives not catching on and does it really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts