HGST hard drives

[badkuk]

Guys eto ba yung dating Hitachi that bought IBM's hard drive business? Some of their drives are rated at 2 million MTBF hours.

i think maganda yung Deskstar series nila, but this was back when IBM still owned it; OK ba mga drives nila?

[Syuryuken]

Guys eto ba yung dating Hitachi that bought IBM's hard drive business? Some of their drives are rated at 2 million MTBF hours.

i think maganda yung Deskstar series nila, but this was back when IBM still owned it; OK ba mga drives nila?

and Western Digital acquired Hitachi GST

[badkuk]

and Western Digital acquired Hitachi GST

i was looking through the reviews for WD Se/Xe/Re series when it was mentioned that HGST drives have longer MTBFs....but i've read some feedback about drive failures within a month's time :p



Alin ba dapat ang mas reliable, yung NR or enterprise hard drives?

[oj88]

For what purpose do you wish to use the drives for? There are different models that are purpose-built depending on your application.

IMO, all hard disks fails.... whether it be consumer or enterprise class. MTBF means nothing if for instance, you got a lemon or somebody during the manufacturing or handling of the drive bumped or dropped it. To prevent data loss, ideally some sort of redundancy and backup strategy should be used.

I've had a Hitachi 1TB desktop drive that failed within 8 months. The replacement drive, same Hitachi model, is still running for 3 years now.

I used to be a Seagate fan until about 3 years ago. I've discovered that when Seagate drives fail, they're usually the catastrophic kind; One day it's working but on the next power-up, you're greeted with a clicking, undetected, and inaccessible drive.

On the other hand, WD seems to be the opposite. When my WD fails (I used to have a lot of WD Green drives), it does so with plenty of warning.... A few bad sectors starts popping up, giving you enough time to salvage whatever data that can still be read. It's by no means an alternative to backing up, but it saves time not having to resort to restoring the whole drive from backup.

For that reason, on my home server (24x7 for 4 years now), I switched to WD Red drives (5 of them totaling about 16 TB). I don't work for WD but I really swear by their Red (NAS) drives.

[Syuryuken]

marami akong WD 320G blue morethan 3 years na rin wala pa namang nasisira yung isa nagloko within the first year pero after mareformat ok na hindi na nagloko hanggang ngayon

Yung isang SG 1Tera ko pang 13th month totally sira di ko man lang napakinabangan yung mga nadownload ko

[oj88]

Oh, I forgot to mention... my Seagate drives that had a catastrophic failure in the last 3-4 years:

500GB Barracuda
1.5TB Barracuda
2TB Barracuda Green

[Vodka]

Guys eto ba yung dating Hitachi that bought IBM's hard drive business? Some of their drives are rated at 2 million MTBF hours.

i think maganda yung Deskstar series nila, but this was back when IBM still owned it; OK ba mga drives nila?

ah the deskstar... one model otherwise known as "deathstar" one of the crappiest drives in history

[Ry_Tower]

Good thread, I am buying a portable HD kasi, I guess tama din sabi sa akin na okay yung WD na brand.

[badkuk]

ah the deskstar... one model otherwise known as "deathstar" one of the crappiest drives in history

ganun ba sir? saradong seagate kami for the longest time up until a few years ago, we're using WD blue/black na.

[Vodka]

ganun ba sir? saradong seagate kami for the longest time up until a few years ago, we're using WD blue/black na.

hehe well i forgot what model it was that earned that nickname. it certainly was exceedingly crappy LOL and i think it even contributed to IBM selling the hdd division to hitachi many years ago

as for HDD reliability this is a complex topic coz in order for anyone to make any sense in this discussion your sample size has to be pretty big. otherwise the claim is statistically insignificant

around 5yrs ago i worked as a sysad for a fairly large organization. WD drives seem to have had higher than average failure rate at that time

right now i still have one WD black, it's a good drive and i have some confidence in it. but for more important stuff i put them on a Cheetah SAS server drive, they're simply a lot more reliable than "desktop" drives

[Jun aka Pekto]

I'm not sure what people do with their hard drives.

I have a couple of 4gb Seagates from the late 90's that still work.

I also have a 40gb Maxtor from 2000, a 100gb Hitachi Deskstar from 2001, three WD 160gb, 200gb, and 250gb from 2002-2005, 2 Seagate 500gb and 2 WD 500gb hard drives from the late 2000's (all are at least 4 years old). All still work.

Since I started assembling PCs back in 1992, I've had exactly one hard drive that failed within four years: a WD 1.6gb I bought in 1996 which died in 2000.

[badkuk]

I'm not sure what people do with their hard drives.

**** :D

Seriously though, barring factory defects, i think environment(heat, power quality) can be a factor. Sad to admit our server room is less than ideal.

[Jun aka Pekto]

**** :D

Seriously though, barring factory defects, i think environment(heat, power quality) can be a factor. Sad to admit our server room is less than ideal.

One thing I always did with my PCs is equip them with ample RAM so there's less grinding due to the page file/virtual memory. I also made sure the page file was permanent in Windows PCs. I did it especially during the period from Win 3.0 to Win XP.

[oj88]

I'm not sure what people do with their hard drives.

I have a couple of 4gb Seagates from the late 90's that still work.

I also have a 40gb Maxtor from 2000, a 100gb Hitachi Deskstar from 2001, three WD 160gb, 200gb, and 250gb from 2002-2005, 2 Seagate 500gb and 2 WD 500gb hard drives from the late 2000's (all are at least 4 years old). All still work.

Since I started assembling PCs back in 1992, I've had exactly one hard drive that failed within four years: a WD 1.6gb I bought in 1996 which died in 2000.

Not really surprising. I too, have had to dump many of my old IDE and SCSI drives ranging from 40MB to 40GB. Most are still working but has fallen into being impractical to operate (space occupied+power consumption vs capacity). They still work because they were pulled out well before the end of their lifespan.

I still kept a few though. For example, I use an 80GB IDE drive on my pfSense firewall (using a SATA-IDE bridge), a 160GB IDE on a test PC, and several 120-500GB IDE and SATA 2.5" drives I have in USB enclosures... all still working. I also have a 60GB Maxtor that whines like crazy.... no bad sectors though.

Anyway, BTT. I'd iterate to definitely stay away from Green drives (Seagate or WD). As mentioned before, I've had them (5x WD Green and 1x Seagate Barracuda Green).

- Of the 5 WD Greens, all but 2 remains that are clear of bad sectors. Aside from that, the three 'failed' drives are still accessible, albeit, unreliable to be of further use
- The Barracuda Green was once replaced under warranty and the replacement drive has also bitten the dust just a few months after the warranty ran out. The failure mode of both drives were practically identical; the drives just one day started to exhibit the "click of death" and is no longer accessible/detectable

I run these drives 24x7, which clearly the Greens weren't rated for. Since I've started phasing out the Greens, I replaced them with WD Reds (4x 3TB and 1x 4TB). These are rated for 24x7 with an MTBF of 1M hours. So far, the oldest WD Red of the lot is well over 680 days old, with no sign of impending failure.

To illustrate, the first report is from the oldest 3TB WD Red (WD30EFRX)... still in perfect health:


This is from one of the three 'failed' 2TB WD Green drive (WD20EARS). It's about the same age as the WD Red above but has just started to exhibit problems in the last several weeks: