Comment on Sony is killing off recordable Blu-ray, bidding farewell to disc burning | TechSpot

• Infynis@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I got mine in November

  source

  • FinalRemix@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Recommendations?

    source

    • ag10n@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’ve put together a RAID 1 of these and some 860 Evo QLC Hard to say if they’ll last as long as BD but you can’t beat the capacity

      visiontek.com/…/visiontek-tlc-7mm-2-5-ssd-sata-en…

      samsung.com/…/ssd-860-evo-2-5--sata-iii-500gb-mz-…

      source
• glimse@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Something tells me the market for media servers is very different than the market for BD-R. The only benefit to having a collection of burned discs over a NAS is that you can let people borrow them. It’s otherwise mostly downsides

  source

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If they were cheaper I’d use them for archival purposes. They work well as cold storage.

    source
• Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Are we back to trusting Seagate again? Last I knew their spinning rust was t trust worthy. I’ve had 6 drives fail me in the last 2 decades, and all but one or two were Seagate, so I just assume their bad anymore and go with other suppliers.

  source

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Every drive I’ve had fail, personally or professionally, has been a Seagate drive.

    source

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Every drive I’ve had failed was WD. My Seagates have been mostly fine

      source
    • pikmeir@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’ve had both Seagate and WD drives fail. I just think drives fail rather commonly.

      source
  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Seagate does seem to have a higher failure rate, but they are also cheaper. From this article:

    The oldest (average age of 92.5 months) hard drive Backblaze tested was a 6TB Seagate (ST6000DX000). Its AFR was 0.11 percent in 2021 and 0.68 percent in 2022. Backblaze said this was “a very respectable number any time, but especially after nearly eight years.”

    …

    “In general, Seagate drives are less expensive and their failure rates are typically higher in our environment,” Backblaze said. “But, their failure rates are typically not high enough to make them less cost-effective over their lifetime. You could make a good case that for us, many Seagate drive models are just as cost-effective as more expensive drives.”

    Their oldest drives are Seagate as well, so that’s saying something.

    Whether a drive will be reliable for you is less related to the manufacturer and more related to capacity and luck.

    Here’s an anecdote from Reddit:

    I’ve had numerous hard drive failures over the years – nothing atypical, I just use lots of drives, and like almost everything else, they have stochastic failures. But between Seagate and WD, the Seagate drives all at least let me know they were going to fail soon, via SMART monitoring, and gave me (just) ample time to get all of my data off of them before completely dying. My WD drives that failed did so instantaneously, without any prior indication of problems.

    But this could also be luck, idk. My takeaway is:

    • Seagate has a little higher failure rate, which explains why they’re often cheaper
    • Seagate may do a good job detecting errors with SMART
    • all drives fail and whether one will fail before another is more likely up to luck than any systemic issue by a manufacturer

    source
  • new_guy@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I genuinely don’t know. Their name was just the first one that came to my mind.

    source