Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by Madengineer, Oct 23, 2011.
"Seagate 3.5" SSHD 4TB $199 @ MSY"
I installed my Toshiba 5TB X300 drives. These are the "high performance" 7200rpm drives with 128MB cache.
They're hot and noisy. One ran at 53 degrees in a disk dock. The other is internal, and I can hear it seeking over the hum of 8 other drives (half are 7200rpm) and all the fans. Haven't benchmarked the speed, they're probably great, but I had no speed issues with my Hitachi 4TB Coolspins so I think I'll go back to the low RPM drives.
I wouldn't say I'm unhappy with my purchase since they were the cheapest $/GB at the time and have a decent reputation for reliability, but I'll be sticking with HGST.
Had not problem with my 6 Toshiba's, been excellent drives. Up there with HGST so far.
12x 3TB Toshiba/Hitachi drives and about 6 has gone back for bad sectors in the past 5 years.
Looking at building a NAS shortly, mostly just for streaming and backup...
Seem to read the WD Reds aren't all that necessary over the Greens if you tweak their power saving settings, only real difference is warranty (don't care for it, never returned any PC part...).
Worth paying the significant premium? Can't see speed being a big deal for me. Mind you notice the Greens are a little less common now...
Was leaning to getting 4 6tbs.
Do you have backups, and will you run any kind of redundancy?
if yes, just go cheap desktop seagate hdd's
I got a few extermal drives I use currently as backups for things (some portable).
Though I was hoping I wouldn't need them if I went a 4 drive RAID NAS setup too.
Guessing the Seagate Archive drives aren't a good idea despite the size? Or is that the one you were leaning too?
Probably not worth it if you want to save the money. I've had greens and recently bought reds. The greens are great drives and have had no problems streaming large files over my network.
I always had them in my PC, never really got the hate personally, they served their purpose for storing media etc etc. Never had one die on me either.
What hate? I'm obviously not in the loop I built my first system around 1998. My first few PCs both had a Seagate and WD. I ditched the very first Seagate I owned because it starting clicking loudly. WD on the otherhand, had zero issues and have never had to return one. The oldest green in my unRAID NAS was installed maybe around 2005-2007. And they are still going good, no errors and SMARTS are healthy. Yeah, like you, I've never had one die on me.
If I went a couple Greens to start off with, wouldn't be any issues adding 2 reds or something else, later on? If availability comes an issue?
Sorry new to the RAID thing
Had SD/Micro SDs die on me all the time though... especially while in devices like my phones.
I'm not good with RAID either. Only enough to manage it Yeah a couple of greens is a good start as long as it suits your requirements. The Reds is only $1 more expensive than the Green for the 3TB... weird. But if you go 6TB, the Greens are $100 cheaper.
Greens were (mostly*) fine as standalone discs or with software raid. Hardware raid controllers tended to dislike their aggressive head parking. Yes you can manipulate the timeout with software but WD have threatened to deny warranty on discs that have had it fiddled with. That said, I've never heard of anyone actually getting an RMA refused for it.
*with the wrong combination, you could happily chew through the entire 300,000 cycle head-park rating in a matter of months leading to premature failure.
Set of greens, disable the head parking, raid6 'em, job done.
Backblaze's reliability report for 2015 is up. Super interesting read. They're actually favouring Seagates for 4TB now, partly due to their vastly improved reliability and apparently the drives do a better job than other brands of reporting pending failure via SMART.
For those that missed the news earlier this month, Seagate is being sued for their high failure rates in 3TB drives using data from Backblaze's reports.
HGST still looks insanely good. Failure rates on some models below 1%. That's even better than what you'd expect from an SSD.
Note: when looking at 4TB
Currently reading the article now. Interesting that sea-gate and Toshiba are basically at the same fail rate. That is pretty good for seagate.
Wd slightly ahead, but given the sample size, a little pointless.
HGST though, stunning performance numbers. The comment about limited numbers due to HGST stopping that model and releasing a higher priced / higher performance model, so going to be keeping an eye on them come the next upgrade/drive replacement.
An interesting read from google on SSD Failures.
Link to actual article:
Seagate 6TB Desktop HDD SATA US$184.57 (~AU$259)(amazon.com)
Ditto. Their RMA process worries me though in the event that I have to make a claim. AFAIK you have to go through the store you bought them from?
"SanDisk Ultra II 960GB SSD £144.79 (~AUD $283) Delivered @ Amazon UK"
Shouldn't that be in the SSD price thread?