What company makes the least-unreliable hard drives? I'm made to understand HGST is now just rebranded WD

How many manufacturers of HDDs actually remain? Aren't they all basically the same company and designs now?

>backblaze
>statistical source on anything
nice meme

>They are not rebranded WD, they are their own product even though WD owns the division.
Weren't they the previously independent segment of Hitachi?

its not that seagate got their shit together, its that they full stopped using the 1.5tb drives, this drive caused nearly every company to have shit drives, and they had more of these than any other seagate drive at one point.

I bought 6x HGST 7K3000s from a friend, who bought them recertified 3 years ago. I had two of them start making horrible mechanical noises, but I'm not sure if it was my shitty 10 year old PSU, that apparently wasn't that good even to begin with (techpowerup.com/reviews/CoolerMaster/GX650W_Bronze/8.html)

so I bought 9 more recertified HGST 7K6000's, lets see what happens with them.

>HGST Ultrastar
Does that exist in a NAS version?
You know with extra features for RAID controllers and so on.

Attached: 207370_10151266116787027_562673480_n.jpg (460x662, 69K)

nope, seagate has always been on top. they sold flooded garbage drives with salt water in them, which is about as shitty of a company you can be. Dropped their reliability rate to garbage, but you wouldn't remember before that, you /v/irigin. This is an 18 year or older board. all big companies are fucking pieces of shit. WD has always produced the worst fucking drives and probably always will.

I always get refurbished or re-certified drives. They last years in my servers 24/7. never really had issues vs normal new drives, It's pretty unnoticeable.

It's pretty weird how similar drives look inside today (just much smaller)

Is it weird that I've had an old 1TB WD Green HDD that is still working perfectly after about 8 years?

Back when I has desktops with HDDs I never had one fail. But since I started using laptops +15 years ago I've gone through innumerable 2.5" drives, I don't think any have lasted more than 3 years. (although I've had SSD failures as well).

So as usual the old stuff is more reliable than the new shit?

WD is bad
Hitachi is loud and slow
Seagate is hit or miss
Toshiba is slow

HDDs and portability don't mix. Those portable drives (external and in laptops) suffer from bumps and lack of cooling. Plus I assume more density and more platters have resulted in less reliability.

>hit or miss
I GUESS THEY NEVER MISS HUH

this

I bought an Ideapad 310 a few years ago and it came with a WD blue, failed after 6 months. Slapped in a HGST and the mf still running fine

Yes, HGST = Hitachi Global Storage Technologies

I've had a few 1TB and 1.5TB 2.5" drives in my server for years and they're still doing fine. The problem is intricate moving parts in a portable device.

10 GIG drives under $150 msrp when?

Umm virtually any HDD that's under $150 is >10 GIG.

YOU GOT A BOYFRIEND, I BET HE DOESN'T KISS YA. MWUAH

uninstall tik tok
subscribe to pewdiepie

>I don't think the NAS variants are worth the premium, especially under 4 TB because they lack some features that are only in higher-capacity models
Genuinely curious, what extra features do NAS drives have over standard drives?

I've always been under the impression that labeling a drive as a "NAS drive" is the storage equivalent of slapping a "Gamer" logo on a mouse and marking it up 30%.

You're mostly right, except they've been validated not so shit themselves in RAID.
There's no reason to get a NAS drive if you're not running RAID.

Recertified means anything that passed inspections. It could be a repaired model or something that was fine but returned by a customer, then wiped and tested.

incredibly misleading graph, seagate and WD both produce perhaps 1000x more than the other 2 so of course failure rates will be higher its just basic statistics....

Does anyone have that chart but with 2017 and 2018 to date?

Or did Backblaze get threatened into not posting charts like this anymore?

Attached: 1468784983273.jpg (500x500, 63K)

>I find it strange they repair/refurbish drives at all, that that's economical.
WD's models with better warranties are significantly more expensive, even though they're just as (un)reliable as the "lower end" models. For example, the Blue and non-Pro Reds have identical hardware, yet Reds get longer warranties and a 50% markup. The only practical difference is the firmware.

It's not hardware quality you're paying for, it's to cover a potential replacement. And most people generally end up not needing that replacement, or the replacement is trash that ends up failing just out of warranty, so in most cases you're giving them extra money for nothing.

>What I find interesting is that WD is actually selling them directly to customers, which implies they have a reliable stock of them, which makes me suspicious about WD's quality.
Exactly.

WD should become a waste management company, they've clearly figured out a profitable way of recycling garbage.

>year of our lord
>HDDs

Attached: boomer.jpg (633x640, 47K)

Isn't RAID supposed to just werks on any drive?

>not buying easystores

You're wasting money otherwise. All drives have a chance of dying. A backup is what's reliable.

Two shucked easystores > Spending even more money for one enterprise drive

Attached: red price.png (2100x1013, 310K)

backblaze.com/blog/2018-hard-drive-failure-rates/

>39 posts
>Nobody links this site

Attached: 1319028775084.jpg (366x274, 19K)