|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 2, 2015 18:31:02 GMT -6
... they were simply Hitachi drives in the past, but the reviewer was forced to brand them as HGST by WD.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 2, 2015 18:53:26 GMT -6
Several people are reporting using cheaper drives and making several (2 or more) backups. I try to save space and get the WD-BlackEnt. Maybe either would work.
I do avoid the Seagates for several years now, though they and the Maxtor used to be good. I also used the regular black, both 32 & 64 MB cahche, without a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jun 3, 2015 0:57:44 GMT -6
read that link i posted when you can.
|
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Jun 3, 2015 10:30:51 GMT -6
I just upgraded my work drives to 3 2TB 7200 RPM Baracuda raided 0 with an 8TB 5400RPM Seagate BU drive. I'm using the Raid set for speed, but have to handle the nightly backups myself because of the nature of dealing with Raid 0. As far as read/write speeds go on the RAID set I saw a near 75% increase in speed. So far PT hasn't given me any issues. AD hey bro, don't buy SADgate drives (see the graphs and that article I linked) I was about to thank you for that chart, LOL. I think my next HD purchase will take that into account. I hope these at least last me a year and a half. AD PS-thank you for the chart.  |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Jun 3, 2015 10:55:18 GMT -6
This is great. I looked through the links and can surmise that the 1.5 TB seagate is either faulty or they had a really bad batch because that annual failure rate is obscene. Saddly, I couldn't glean any info from the 2TB drive from Seagate (the ones I have) as they only had 81 in use in the 2015 sample which compared to the rest of the manufacturers is too small a sample to get excited over its 0% annual fail rate for 2015. I do agree that it's never a bad idea for all of us to keep tabs on the SMART stats on our drives, and invest in a spare cheap PC with an empty drive bay to run Spinrite (it works on NTFS, but it has to be run on a PC). AD |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 3, 2015 10:57:25 GMT -6
How things change!
I remember when Seagate was best, Samsung was the absolute worst and WD was mediocre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 13:09:12 GMT -6
That changed radically, really. Just lost a Seagate few weeks ago. With no essential data...lucky me.
WD red and black here.(Man, i always have to look up the colors, lol...)
|
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Jun 4, 2015 11:23:02 GMT -6
How things change! I remember when Seagate was best, Samsung was the absolute worst and WD was mediocre. I don't know, a lot of the drives that the server farm was using that had high marks get really poor marks elsewhere and vice versa. I think that the data provided was wonderful, it's just not 100% scientific. It's just data that was collected by the server farm and released without bias. Digging into the numbers reveals why this may not be so cut and dry. Like I mentioned above, keeping it to Q1 2015 there were only 252 seagate 1.5TB drives which had a 36%fail rate. Compared to the 4,664 HGST Deskstar drive with a fail rate of 1.66% isn't a fair test. Not to knock the 7200 2TC HGST, but comparing it to 252 Seagate 1.5 TB drives is not scientific. Nor would it be fair to say that the 2TB Seagate Barracuda's 0% fail rate based on only 81 devices is fair. The data's good, but there isn't any firm interpretation apart from anecdotal inferences you could draw from it. Still the best thing to do is to keep an eye on your drive's SMART status and back up frequently. AD |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 4, 2015 11:48:00 GMT -6
How things change! I remember when Seagate was best, Samsung was the absolute worst and WD was mediocre. I don't know, a lot of the drives that the server farm was using that had high marks get really poor marks elsewhere and vice versa. I think that the data provided was wonderful, it's just not 100% scientific. It's just data that was collected by the server farm and released without bias. Digging into the numbers reveals why this may not be so cut and dry. Like I mentioned above, keeping it to Q1 2015 there were only 252 seagate 1.5TB drives which had a 36%fail rate. Compared to the 4,664 HGST Deskstar drive with a fail rate of 1.66% isn't a fair test. Not to knock the 7200 2TC HGST, but comparing it to 252 Seagate 1.5 TB drives is not scientific. Nor would it be fair to say that the 2TB Seagate Barracuda's 0% fail rate based on only 81 devices is fair. The data's good, but there isn't any firm interpretation apart from anecdotal inferences you could draw from it. Still the best thing to do is to keep an eye on your drive's SMART status and back up frequently. AD yeah, I'm talking about 15 years ago when I was working in IT. I probably installed or used about 1000 drives in a few years time. There were a few manufacturers, some of which are now defunct. Seagate was king, the drives were the fastest and most reliable. Quantum was cheap but the drives failed in horrific numbers. We'd get a case of 20 of them, 1-3 would not work right out of the box. 1-2 would fail in a couple days, and the rest would either work forever or fail within a few weeks/months. They were half the price of everyone else though.. Maxtor had a so-so reputation. Some lasted forever, some failed in minutes. IBM made the second best HDDs to seagate. Samsung was new to the scene and made drives just barely better than quantum. Horrific failure rates. WD wasn't considered anything but mediocre. Since then, Samsung bought IBM's drive technology. Maxtor bought quantum. Seagate bought Maxtor. Seagate went downhill, Samsung has gone up and so has WD. |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Jun 4, 2015 15:32:04 GMT -6
LOL, now it seems that there are only two manufactures of HDs and numerous brands. So does this mean that in 15 years we will be mocking Samsung's SSD's on our Microsoft Quantum powered CPU Linux boxes? That's going to be a fun time I hope to be able to partake in (assuming I'm not to busy telling those damned kids to stay off my lawn).
Best
AD
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 6, 2015 6:22:32 GMT -6
Double-post... my bad... my mistake... sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 6, 2015 6:23:19 GMT -6
Hm, i recently read on zdnet that SSD drives can loose their data after a few days unpowered due to thermical effects. My SSDs never were unpowered for more than maybe 3 days. Anyone here ever had something like this happen? No, but thanks for the warning. I'll back up more often!! |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jun 6, 2015 10:30:36 GMT -6
if you guys aren't using something like www.backblaze.com to backup all your stuff, you're doing it wrong. it's the best $5/mo you can spend. |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Jun 8, 2015 11:38:51 GMT -6
if you guys aren't using something like www.backblaze.com to backup all your stuff, you're doing it wrong. it's the best $5/mo you can spend. I looked at them and like that they have the infrastructure to handle the traffic, but see little difference between them and carbonite for the same price. I too would rather have a solution for secure cold storage of projects rather than the constant upload of data. AD |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jun 8, 2015 15:11:25 GMT -6
Backblaze is $90/2 years with unlimited file size and file type restrictions. Carbonite doesn't back up externals unless you get the $100/year plan. Carbonite doesn't work with macOS unless you get their cheapest plan, which doesn't cover external HDs. Backblaze covers externals (I know, i've got 4TB uploaded to their cloud, it took 6 months lol) www.backblaze.com/best-online-backup-service.html |
|
