They have over 25,000 hard drives and have compiled the data from the failure rates for the drives there so you can see the most reliable brands. I was very surprised with the results.
............ I very much question the validity of these tests and results.
Hitachi has been labeled "HGST" and has been owned by WD for a very long time now. There is no reason to separate the two.
Seagate Green drives have not been out as long as this graph goes on for, yet they have high failure rates, skewing the results quite a bit.
In addition, the types of drives they tested were completely random in relation to the number of platters, how fast the platters spun, and what issues were from the drive mechanically failing, or having firmware issues (which was a big problem with seagate's 7200.11 and 5600.11 1.5TB drives, which it appears were tested to a large degree).
Not to mention majority of seagate's drives in this test were from the batch that came from mainland china while their main factory in Thailand was flooded, which were of poor quality due to not being made in the main plant, and being offloaded to another company's plant temporarily.
There are so many variables of this test that they completely ignored, and there are so many reasons to question the results. what even was the purpose of this test supposed to be?
Platter counts, spindle speed, and firmware are the 3 main areas you need to watch for failure for, and the fact that they MIXED platter counts and speeds between the tests of the same category is really, really, really stupid.
I smell FUD and pageview/clickbait. These test results are completely irrelevant and are a hugely flawed test. Not to mention it gives results that the average consumer would never see, and would be irrelevant to them, as the consumer drives were put through enterprise-level tests.
For anyone who wants some real facts, based on a google study, the result is rather unsurprising. 90% of drives that will fail, fail within the first 3-6 months. After that, it depends on user use, but they generally won't fail for a very long time, 3-5 years at the least.
And before anyone calls out "hurdurr seagate fanboy":
I call bullcrap on this test. Hitachis have been the worst in my experience and seagate and WD have been really reliable. /me eyes his laptops with travelstars he doesnt trust
I call bullcrap on this test. Hitachis have been the worst in my experience and seagate and WD have been really reliable. /me eyes his laptops with travelstars he doesnt trust
most of our pcs are 4 years old or older. WD bought hitachi in 2011. all of my laptops have hitachi drives in them which have always acted strangely and have never really worked right. but the fact that WD owns hitachi causes more bullcrap to be called on this article
dell inspiron 530s that afaik shipped with a hitachi drive that failed almost instantly (my dads pc)
crappy acer that i was stuck with for 5 years but had an ssd until i gave it to my brother
dell latitude d600
dell latitude d610
dell latitude c600
(yeah my family likes dell)
my mom has these:
crappy macbook which she apparently likes
crappy toshiba that died in like four months and warranty had to be used on
(those are both newer than 4 years but whatever)
i personally also have a custom built desktop with a western digital and seagate that im soon gonna add an ssd too (also newer than 4 years but we still have more older ones than newer ones)
Wow. According to this, modern hard disk drives are a lot less reliable over the years then the new ones. I still have a NEC D3713 HDD dated 1994 in use today and it has not failed me. Why did they leave out a few companies in this test though? What about NEC hard drives and the Quantum Maverick hard disk drives? Are they no longer that popular anymore?
NEC hasn't made a hard drive since the days of IDE, and even most enthusiasts have never heard of Quantum Maverick.
People don't use IDE controllers anymore? Every single computer I have has an IDE controller, even my web server build with parts I got off Ebay does. I couldn't live without IDE. Every drive I have uses it, from my CD-ROM drives to my floppy diskette to my actual hard disk drives. Don't you know what a Quantum Maverick is though? I have one, but for some reason after I format it and try writing a file to it the files immediately become corrupt and unreadable. The same thing with any directory.
Aren't you that guy that brags about using 1990s PCs all the time and thinks it's cool?
Ergo, not a particularly large slice of the market.
My server build has modern parts! I have a dual core AMD Athlon processor @ 2.2GHz, 2GB DDR1 RAM, and a 40GB hard disk drive. I think you would consider that "modern", wouldn't you? It's almost as fast as my dad's PC with a intel Q6600 processor @ 2.4GHz and 2GB DDR2 RAM.
My server build has modern parts! I have a dual core AMD Athlon processor @ 2.2GHz, 2GB DDR1 RAM, and a 40GB hard disk drive. I think you would consider that "modern", wouldn't you? It's almost as fast as my dad's PC with a intel Q6600 processor @ 2.4GHz and 2GB DDR2 RAM.
Also, could you define "ergo"?
I still wouldn't really consider that modern. It uses DDR1 memory and in another 2 years we'll already be at DDR4. I'm surprised at how little you know about modern computing technology when you adore computers so much. IDE drives have long since passed and been replaced with SATA. And it's absolutely normal for most people to have no idea of these HDD companies you're talking about, since they went out of production long ago before a lot of us likely became familiar with computers. You should also know that floppy drives are a thing of the past as well, they're absolutely pointless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
My server build has modern parts! I have a dual core AMD Athlon processor @ 2.2GHz, 2GB DDR1 RAM, and a 40GB hard disk drive. I think you would consider that "modern", wouldn't you? It's almost as fast as my dad's PC with a intel Q6600 processor @ 2.4GHz and 2GB DDR2 RAM.
Yes, brag about how you think your decade-old PC is "modern".
Once again, it's not cool and nobody cares.
The parts are not a decade old, and my dad's PC is the newest one in the house. It can play "World of Tanks" at a reasonable frame rate along with doing a bunch of other tasks. Are you saying that we need to get an upgrade, when this current PC can do everything yours can?
The parts are not a decade old, and my dad's PC is the newest one in the house. It can play "World of Tanks" at a reasonable frame rate along with doing a bunch of other tasks. Are you saying that we need to get an upgrade, when this current PC can do everything yours can?
So you're saying you can play Battlefield? We're not saying you need an upgrade. We're saying you need to stop bragging about how old your computers are and then getting upset when nobody thinks it's cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
I do of course agree with you, although it should be noted the data on the study is a bit dated.
Not saying the backblaze if correct though, personally i trust you know more than enough, although that study is from 2007.
The parts are not a decade old, and my dad's PC is the newest one in the house. It can play "World of Tanks" at a reasonable frame rate along with doing a bunch of other tasks. Are you saying that we need to get an upgrade, when this current PC can do everything yours can?
my Acer aspire 5517 with a duel core E series APU can play world of tanks. that doesn't mean it's good.
Also, your computer cannot do everything others can. For example, i'm currently mining dogecoins at 300 Kh/s,
Proud member of the MCF AWA war of '13! if someone suggests Alienware or Cyberpower, wait for a custom-built list from someone who knows their stuff. Meh Rig
They have over 25,000 hard drives and have compiled the data from the failure rates for the drives there so you can see the most reliable brands. I was very surprised with the results.
fm87!Hitachi has been labeled "HGST" and has been owned by WD for a very long time now. There is no reason to separate the two.
Seagate Green drives have not been out as long as this graph goes on for, yet they have high failure rates, skewing the results quite a bit.
In addition, the types of drives they tested were completely random in relation to the number of platters, how fast the platters spun, and what issues were from the drive mechanically failing, or having firmware issues (which was a big problem with seagate's 7200.11 and 5600.11 1.5TB drives, which it appears were tested to a large degree).
Not to mention majority of seagate's drives in this test were from the batch that came from mainland china while their main factory in Thailand was flooded, which were of poor quality due to not being made in the main plant, and being offloaded to another company's plant temporarily.
There are so many variables of this test that they completely ignored, and there are so many reasons to question the results. what even was the purpose of this test supposed to be?
Platter counts, spindle speed, and firmware are the 3 main areas you need to watch for failure for, and the fact that they MIXED platter counts and speeds between the tests of the same category is really, really, really stupid.
I smell FUD and pageview/clickbait. These test results are completely irrelevant and are a hugely flawed test. Not to mention it gives results that the average consumer would never see, and would be irrelevant to them, as the consumer drives were put through enterprise-level tests.
For anyone who wants some real facts, based on a google study, the result is rather unsurprising. 90% of drives that will fail, fail within the first 3-6 months. After that, it depends on user use, but they generally won't fail for a very long time, 3-5 years at the least.
And before anyone calls out "hurdurr seagate fanboy":
Page View Bait is all I see, more so given it is a blog of unknown.
I happily own 2 WD HDDs and 3 Seagate HDDs. All of which have been in service for a rather long time, 3+ years active duty (in actual power on hours).
I have to this day encounter a failing HDD of any kind.
Hitachi is owned by WD.
According to who?
crappy acer that i was stuck with for 5 years but had an ssd until i gave it to my brother
dell latitude d600
dell latitude d610
dell latitude c600
(yeah my family likes dell)
my mom has these:
crappy macbook which she apparently likes
crappy toshiba that died in like four months and warranty had to be used on
(those are both newer than 4 years but whatever)
i personally also have a custom built desktop with a western digital and seagate that im soon gonna add an ssd too (also newer than 4 years but we still have more older ones than newer ones)
At least 86% of what I say is always correct.
People don't use IDE controllers anymore? Every single computer I have has an IDE controller, even my web server build with parts I got off Ebay does. I couldn't live without IDE. Every drive I have uses it, from my CD-ROM drives to my floppy diskette to my actual hard disk drives. Don't you know what a Quantum Maverick is though? I have one, but for some reason after I format it and try writing a file to it the files immediately become corrupt and unreadable. The same thing with any directory.
At least 86% of what I say is always correct.
Aren't you that guy that brags about using 1990s PCs all the time and thinks it's cool?
Ergo, not a particularly large slice of the market.
My server build has modern parts! I have a dual core AMD Athlon processor @ 2.2GHz, 2GB DDR1 RAM, and a 40GB hard disk drive. I think you would consider that "modern", wouldn't you? It's almost as fast as my dad's PC with a intel Q6600 processor @ 2.4GHz and 2GB DDR2 RAM.
Also, could you define "ergo"?
At least 86% of what I say is always correct.
I still wouldn't really consider that modern. It uses DDR1 memory and in another 2 years we'll already be at DDR4. I'm surprised at how little you know about modern computing technology when you adore computers so much. IDE drives have long since passed and been replaced with SATA. And it's absolutely normal for most people to have no idea of these HDD companies you're talking about, since they went out of production long ago before a lot of us likely became familiar with computers. You should also know that floppy drives are a thing of the past as well, they're absolutely pointless.
That's nowhere near modern.
The parts are not a decade old, and my dad's PC is the newest one in the house. It can play "World of Tanks" at a reasonable frame rate along with doing a bunch of other tasks. Are you saying that we need to get an upgrade, when this current PC can do everything yours can?
At least 86% of what I say is always correct.
So you're saying you can play Battlefield? We're not saying you need an upgrade. We're saying you need to stop bragging about how old your computers are and then getting upset when nobody thinks it's cool.
I do of course agree with you, although it should be noted the data on the study is a bit dated.
Not saying the backblaze if correct though, personally i trust you know more than enough, although that study is from 2007.
my Acer aspire 5517 with a duel core E series APU can play world of tanks. that doesn't mean it's good.
Also, your computer cannot do everything others can. For example, i'm currently mining dogecoins at 300 Kh/s,
if someone suggests Alienware or Cyberpower, wait for a custom-built list from someone who knows their stuff. Meh Rig
Not sure if "Hipster" is quite the one I want, but it might work well enough to describe you.
What kind of a challenge is that? I can run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam no problem.
At least 86% of what I say is always correct.