Question 2013 HDD vs 2017 HDD

[Nidhal13]

Hello everyone,

I would like to know which HDD is the better for my usage or will last me the longest, knowing that I will use them only to store informations and so they will probably increase few hundreds hours per years and few opening-closing cycles each year. I was proposed one SATA Seagate Constellation E2 (3TB) build in 2013 with 15000 hours in total and tens of opening/closing cycles. And in the other hand I was proposed SAS HGST (4TB) build in 2017 with 45000 hours in total and 20 opening-closing cycles.

Which one do you think is the best for my future usage ?

Thank you

 

[SkyNetRising]

I would like to know which HDD is the better for my usage or will last me the longest

Completely unknown and can not be predicted.

I was proposed one SATA Seagate Constellation E2 (3TB) build in 2013 with 15000 hours in total and tens of opening/closing cycles.
And in the other hand I was proposed SAS HGST (4TB) build in 2017 with 45000 hours in total and 20 opening-closing cycles.
Which one do you think is the best for my future usage ?

Do you even have a SAS controller card?
Without it - SAS drives are of no use to you.

Get a new modern drive with proper warranty. And make regular backups.

 

[Nidhal13]

Yes I do have one, I will properly install it in RAID0. Thanks for your answer, but isn't the date of conception an important factor ?

Thanks

 

[SkyNetRising]

I will properly install it in RAID0. Thanks for your answer,
but isn't the date of conception an important factor ?

New one is better than used one.

Why RAID 0 ? What do you hope to achieve by using RAID 0 ?

 

[Nidhal13]

New one is better than used one.

Why RAID 0 ? What do you hope to achieve by using RAID 0 ?

Even if it has twice hours of utilization ?
I would like to store some games which are not so important, so I can take the risks to lose some informations.

 

[kanewolf]

Yes I do have one, I will properly install it in RAID0. Thanks for your answer, but isn't the date of conception an important factor ?

Thanks

No. If it sits on a shelf with zero run-time hours it is better than running for 3 years.
You show 45,000 runtime hours on the newer drive and 15,000 hours on the older drive.
Either one can fail at any time and RAID 0 increases the probability because any drive failure takes ALL data.
But I would pick the one with lower runtime hours.

 

[kanewolf]

Even if it has twice hours of utilization ?
I would like to store some games which are not so important, so I can take the risks to lose some informations.

loose ALL information in the RAID 0 volume.

 

[SkyNetRising]

I would like to store some games which are not so important, so I can take the risks to lose some informations.

Again - why RAID 0 ?
Use SSD instead. SSD will have way better performance than any RAID 0 made from mechanical HDDs.

 

[LordVile]

If you’re not rewriting often why not go solid state?

 

[Nidhal13]

Again - why RAID 0 ?
Use SSD instead. SSD will have way better performance than any RAID 0 made from mechanical HDDs.

Simply for a matter of budget, since I need some large capacity and I don't have a huge budget for this.

 

[USAFRet]

Simply for a matter of budget, since I need some large capacity and I don't have a huge budget for this.

You do know that "RAID" requires 2 or more drives, right?
And RAID 0 is the very antithesis of data security.

 

[Nidhal13]

You do know that "RAID" requires 2 or more drives, right?
And RAID 0 is the very antithesis of data security.

Yes. When I mentionned the choice between two hard drives, I meant it in the sense of between two sets of hard drive (having the same general specs).

 

[USAFRet]

Yes. When I mentionned the choice between two hard drives, I meant it in the sense of between two sets of hard drive (having the same general specs).

OK, that was not clear.

As far as "reliability"?
Flip a coin.

I have drives that are twice as old as those and still running fine.
I've had other HDDs die at 5 weeks. Or 7 months.

Those were both replaced for $0. Unlike yours.

 

[Nidhal13]

OK, that was not clear.

As far as "reliability"?
Flip a coin.

I have drives that are twice as old as those and still running fine.
I've had other HDDs die at 5 weeks. Or 7 months.

Those were both replaced for $0. Unlike yours.

Thanks for your answer ! I think I will take the risk and see how it goes in the coming years.

 

[fzabkar]

Seagate's ST3000DM001 3TB model had an extremely high failure rate, to the point where it was the subject of a lawsuit. BackBlaze also has bad reliability stats for this model. If the 2013 Constellation model was in the same family, then I wouldn't go near it.

BTW, do you mean "ES.2"?