Well, one of two models is horrible (43% failure), other one has 5% failure rate. Less than WD Red (almost 7%).I'm not surprised those 3TB Seagate drives are horrible. I had two of them that died after less than 18 months.
Well, one of two models is horrible (43% failure), other one has 5% failure rate. Less than WD Red (almost 7%).I'm not surprised those 3TB Seagate drives are horrible. I had two of them that died after less than 18 months.
Though I do have a Samsung 840 EVO SSD in my PC, is that technically a Seagate product?
No, 100% Samsung.
Too bad they don't use Toshiba HDDs, I believe they make their own drives. So far it's been pretty good for me.
I think they mainly do 2.5" drives for laptops etc. I could be wrong though.
I've owned one Seagate in my life.
One.
In all the years - and there are *many* - that I've been dorking around with the guts of computers, I've never had a HDD fail on me THAT FAST. It was breathtaking, we're talking months here. I've sworn allegiance to Western Digital. HGST-proper is nice, but the selection always seems to be pretty limited and branded WD price/space ratios are really hard to beat. Yay volume!![]()
Any thoughts on this drive? HGST 4tb 7200RPM external hard drive:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008JQNXLA/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I'm going with HGST based on the study posted here. The reviews on amazon aren't fantastic on this one, but I know usually people only go and review when they're upset. That price is just really fantastic...
close to pulling the trigger. do I do it?
Depends on what the drive is for. If you're going to use it for long-term storage, it's probably best to buy a 2TB drive and buy a cloud backup solution.
For long-term/personal stuff, always have backup copies.
Just avoid Seagate and related brands (Samsung, Lacie) it seems safe to say that they have worse reliability across all models.
Does this only refer to hard drives or are SSDs included?
Ah WTF I got a Lacie enclosure but apparently they are owned by seagate >_<
At least they are the 4tb ones...
Does this only refer to hard drives or are SSDs included?
These capacities are not for SSDs, so I don't think so.
Scary. I have a bunch of 3TB Seagate drives in use. Even had 1 die on me last year.
I'm going to be using it for video editing. I know, I know, would be better to get thunderbolt (I'm editing on a mac and using FCPX), but I just can't make a thunderbolt drive work in my budget (unless you can point me to a decent one that's at least 2tb...). So this will be pretty much for about 3-4 hours of usage a day (editing at home for my freelance gigs). Thoughts?
edit: though now I'm wondering if I should get 2 of the 2tb models for redundancy:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004W7DQZS/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Let me put it this way.
If your 4TB drive dies, you lose up to 4TB of data.
If one of your 2TB dies, it's very unlikely the second 2TB drive will die at the same time, so unless you need 4TB at all times it's probably best to hedge your bets.
Scary. I have a bunch of 3TB Seagate drives in use. Even had 1 die on me last year.
Oh great, my Xbox One external HDD is a Seagate 3TB. I almost always buy Western Digital, but this one was on sale on Black friday.
It's kind of crazy that HGST is the most reliable, because it was originally the IBM drive division that created the least reliable hard drive model ever.
Don't stripe the 2TB drives if that's your safety plan. Also, that's a terrible safety plan. Use some cloud backup or something.
Yes but for warranty purposes Crucial for example only go up to 70TB.Given that several people were concerned about SSD lifespans, I attempted to find some data.
http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb
Could reach up to PB marks for some of them, issues start to appear for some in the several hundred TB mark.
To put that in perspective.
Lets go with 300 TB write until issues and go with a sample heavy desktop usage of 10 GB/day.
It would take 82.14 years to reach that write. Granted that doesn't encompass all aspects of SSD failure. But write endurance is sometimes a popular point of concern and that isn't quite the issue with newer SSDs by good manufacturers.
Nah you can get SSDs past 3TB.Yeah, SSDs have barely hit the 1 TB mark.
So what's the "WTF" for?
That's better than either of the Western Digital ones.
Cause it was like a $750 drive that comes with the cheapest shit available? Just kind of aggravating, if I had known they used seagate drives I would have bought something else or just a box and put my own drives in.
Nah you can get SSDs past 3TB.
Seagate hard drives are garbage. In related news, water continues to be wet.
Better start replacing them ASAP. Those Seagate drives are no joke; stick with them for much longer and you're putting your data at risk.
What would y'all recommend on this:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008JQNXLA/?tag=neogaf0e-20
vs:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00E3RH61W/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I've owned one Seagate in my life.
One.
In all the years - and there are *many* - that I've been dorking around with the guts of computers, I've never had a HDD fail on me THAT FAST. It was breathtaking, we're talking months here. I've sworn allegiance to Western Digital. HGST-proper is nice, but the selection always seems to be pretty limited and branded WD price/space ratios are really hard to beat. Yay volume!![]()