Why do they fail so much?

Why do they fail so much?

Attached: seagate-green-stacked.jpg (3379x2967, 496K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theregister.co.uk/2014/02/17/backblaze_how_not_to_evaluate_disk_reliability/
tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html
amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST1000DM003/dp/B005T3GRNW
backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2019/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

because they don't

That's self-contradictory

Never had a seagate drive in my life, both internal and external. Hitachi on the other hand...

Attached: 1562635997620.jpg (640x411, 153K)

*never had a seagate drive fail in my life

well, I'm not in the wrong. so OP is
toshiba is utter shit, but seagate is fine

if you need militar grade storage get a fucking wd black ffs

Seagate is actually as reliable as WD and HGST on their good drive series.
They regularly fuck up big time and get a series with 30%+ failure rate within a year though and these series bomb their reputation.
It's the reason why you get people like and the polar opposite that had the joy of owning a 7200.11 or DM005 with 4TB.

How do you know whether a series is a good one?
Hitachi had a legendarily faulty series once.

>How do you know whether a series is a good one?
You don't, at least if you buy current gen.
It's a gamble, or at least it used to be. Maybe they stepped up their QC game, idk.

Because you touch yourself at night.

works on my machine

>had and still have a bunch of hard drives over the years (20+ timespan)
>most (probably around 15) were Seagate and none failed, worst case were some reallocated sectors
>for every other brand (Quantum, Maxtor, WD), of which there were very few in total, at least one of each shat itself

Attached: 1866_3_Cent_Nickel.jpg (800x400, 143K)

I had an external drive that had some nonmechanical failure in less than one year but other than that they have been reliable.

is there a specific timespan when seagate HDDs were bad? My main HDD is a 1TB seagate barracuda from 2012 and it's never had any issues.

Specific models have ridiculous rates but others are normal, a 3TB model from 2011 had a 30% failure rate.

Weren't the high failure rates only really with those extra-large HDDs though? I remember when I was buying PC parts back in 2012 that the main recommendation was that HDDs greater than 1TB were sketchy as fuck and prone to failure.

tight tolerances have a cost and high margins are sweet anodyne to the knowledge that your products are mediocre in that regard

what do you mean they fail so much. i have a external hard drive made from segate its awesome it hasn;t failed me yet

Why do they never fail?

Attached: TOSHIBA_Logo.png (800x274, 24K)

The only seagate drive I've had that has failed was my fault, because I let my laptop fall working, apart of this, I have 30 TB of data in 8 seagate drives, not even 1 sector damaged.

Attached: WD.jpg (602x653, 46K)

I don't know, they never failed on me.

>backblaze
>any credibility at all

Any actual direct links to the supposed empirical data?

>still pretending

Imagine owning one of the 3TB drives.
I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Had one since 2012, never failed on me. Maybe I'm just lucky though.

what's wrong with backblaze?

theregister.co.uk/2014/02/17/backblaze_how_not_to_evaluate_disk_reliability/

tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

It doesn't confirm WD and Toshiba shills world view

Oh look the WD defense force has arrived

both articles "defend" Seagate against Backblaze's reported "failures", though

My ST3000DM001 just started reallocating sectors, I noticed it started having hiccups and when I checked it was already over 2k events. It has almost 15k hours on it so I guess it wasn't super terrible but I have drives with 20 and even 30k hours on them and they still work well. I guess this specific line was unlucky for some reason.

>Hitachi on the other hand...
Hitachi got a lot better once Western Digital bought out their hard drive line
Would still recommend SSDs these days for maximum reliability

I'm still waiting for this thing to die

Attached: still alive.jpg (668x216, 47K)

>using the pleb version instead of the most superior theme

Attached: file.png (494x626, 335K)

How many times you had sex?

0 times and I hope it stays that way my entire life

Attached: based.jpg (450x452, 68K)

>my entire life
It won't be a long life, that's for sure.

Current high end seagate failure rates are the same as WD.
Its there lower end older drives specifically there 3tbs that you have to worry about. A lot of those got fucked because they where produced during the taiwan flooding.

Attached: 6X7Bl2B.jpg (567x931, 99K)

Because it's a based Japanese manufacturer. I have bought one last year and I run it 24/7. S.M.A.R.T. is impeccable so far. Though, the only way to judge a hard drive series and brand is through big population analysis. I read BackBlaze's reports every year.

Attached: Blog-Q1-2019-Lifetime.png (860x690, 112K)

ive been using this seagate disk since i built my pc in 2013 and its held up.

amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST1000DM003/dp/B005T3GRNW

>Western Digital
>48115 hours
>perfect disk health

Attached: Based Western Digital.png (1360x934, 101K)

lol

Toshiba bought OCZ.

Which brand/model?

That sole WD is the old consumer Red

Their usage and statistics aren't comparable to a typical consumer workload but they're infinitely better than reviews posted online where one guy says his drive failed.

It's on Backblaze's site.
backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2019/

except they're infinitely worse because backblaze tortures and abuses their drives beyond any realistic use case

slow but steady

Attached: Capture.png (669x212, 16K)