Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

The most reliable hard drives in 2015...


TheGuy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting article...  This ZDnet article talks about Hard Drives.

Headline is: The most reliable hard drives in 2015, according to Backblaze.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-most-reliable-hard-drives-in-2015-according-to-backblaze/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61

 

Talks about Seagate drives being more reliable then the Western Digital drives...

 

so what do you think...?

 

What are your experiences with drives and which model drive was that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had more Seagates actually die than WD's, although I did have a load of WD Greens in my old Gen7 that started flagging SMART errors due to the park issues that they had..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BackBlaze data would be meaningful if it was tracked by drive. They lump all models together and all by brand. Average months of use is meaningless. show me a graph by drive model showing time of use of failed drives. Then show me a failure analysis by the vendor. So, the 4TB Seagate is a reliable drive, last year people used the BB data to swear off all Seagate drives, now is it OK to buy Seagate? Also, they are still using desktop commercial drives for an enterprise application.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q4-2015/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BackBlaze data would be meaningful if it was tracked by drive. They lump all models together and all by brand. Average months of use is meaningless. show me a graph by drive model showing time of use of failed drives. Then show me a failure analysis by the vendor. So, the 4TB Seagate is a reliable drive, last year people used the BB data to swear off all Seagate drives, now is it OK to buy Seagate? Also, they are still using desktop commercial drives for an enterprise application.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q4-2015/

 

Yeah, it's funny.  IMO.

 

My take away: it means nothing. You should buy seagate or WD drives, and both are just as likely to fail. 

 

 

 

My only issue is that the people using the previous "statistics" to justify their arbitrary hatred of Seagate won't change their tune here. They'll say it's a fluke or just a minor issue, etc.  Instead of admitting there may be a bias (in the data or in the person).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching their news letters for about a year now, and their history with the Hitachi drives is what helped me with my decision to buy the 4 x 4 HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB 0S03666 drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching their news letters for about a year now, and their history with the Hitachi drives is what helped me with my decision to buy the 4 x 4 HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB 0S03666 drives.

Well, don't let backblaze's "data" sway you (for *or* against). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the first rule of statistics is:

 

" correlation doesnt define causation"

 

the backblaze data is a mismash of sizes,vendors model numbers. This makes meaningful analysis difficult.

 

and less powerful.

 

what would interest me is what large data centers consumers like amazon or google are actually buying.  money talks and even a small difference in lifespan could be noticeable

 

what would be ideal would be the warranty/return records from the drive manufactures  themselves. but we will never see that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...