HGST hard drives

**badkuk** · October 29th, 2014 02:11 PM

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** · October 29th, 2014 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

and Western Digital acquired Hitachi GST

**badkuk** · October 29th, 2014 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Syuryuken

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** · October 29th, 2014 04:15 PM

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** · October 29th, 2014 04:49 PM

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** · October 29th, 2014 05:17 PM

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** · October 29th, 2014 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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

**Ry_Tower** · October 29th, 2014 06:30 PM

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

**badkuk** · October 29th, 2014 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Vodka

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** · October 29th, 2014 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by badkuk

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