I have killed every single type of magnetic platter drive from every brand they are all bad
Comment on This new 40TB hard drive from Seagate is just the beginning—50TB is coming fast!
MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee 2 weeks agoi dunno man, i have about 20 years worth of bad experiences with seagate. none of their drives have ever been reliable for me. WD drives have always been rock solid and overall just better drives in my experience.
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Not “bad”, consumable.
Joeffect@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Maybe consider looking at what all those had in common… Ie you
zod000@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
The only drives I have ever had die on me were actually both WD, but it’s all anecdotal, and I’ve had tons of WD drives that were great (my favorites were the raptors and velociratpers). I’ve owned way too many HDDs over the many years, and I can say that I haven’t had issues with any, but again I do my research and only order from what I believe to be good runs of drives. In case you have never done so, take a look at the reports that Backblaze puts out on their drive reliability. I found it pretty eye opening. Before Backblaze start sharing their data, there used to be a site that crowd sourced HDD lifetimes and failure causes that I used to use when buying drives and I always entered my drive data there. I can’t recall the name of it now nor do I know if it still exists, but you could definitely spot the “bad” gens on there and WD and Seagate were both pretty even as far as I recall. I remember Hitachi being statistically worse, but it made sense as they bought IBM’s derided Deskstar business from them. Ironically, WD ended up buying Hitachi’s HDD business years later, but I think it was considered OK by then.
abdominable@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
It is not anecdotal, Seagate, FOR A DECADE, had quantifiably the worst drives with some models hitting 30% failure rate. They still, to this day, have shit models with over 10% and are almost always, the worst in back blaze reports of all data center drives. The only issue we have on the reports is nobody does random sampling and Seagate has always been the cheapest so they get overrepresented in reports.
zod000@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I would love to see your data on this if you have it available.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
It’s all anecdotal for the most part. I’ve had two DOA WD drives in a row before, but no dead seagates.
As a side note, I hope you have those two WDs backed up, they’re overdue for a death.
MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Trust me, I’ve been waiting for those ancient WDs to die. I’m actually using them in a raid 1 config, so if one dies the other remains. I’ve also got anything really important backed up to cloud storage. I’ve worked in software for 20+ years. I’m very well accustomed to data loss and recovery.
PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I’m very well accustomed to data loss and recovery.
Backs up anything “really important” to cloud storage
Yes, I do believe you are very well accustomed to data loss.
MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Almost every bit of data i have is redundant. The stuff I back up to cloud storage is the stuff I would care about if my house were to burn down. But that stuff is all double, and triple backed up, locally as well.
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Seagate have never once secretly changed the underlying disk technology on a NAS grade drive to one utterly unsuited for use in a NAS drive and then sold it as a NAS grade drive at a premium price because it’s a NAS grade drive. So there’s that.