HDD Seagate reliable

[U Mert BRO]

Im thinking to buy Seagate Barracuda 2TB which has 7200 rpm and much cheaper from wd black.But im afraid of their reliable as everyone blame them for it.Is seagate that bad?Thanks in advance

 

[U Mert BRO]

I went for toshiba.

 

[Tech_TTT]

I went for toshiba.

Congratz

 

[atljsf]

@atljsf OK, so you have an anecdote about how a Seagate drive you bought died prematurely. You can find those for every product ever made, especially electronics. Do you have any empirical evidence to back up your claims that Seagate drives are more prone to failure than other brands?

or you wrk for seagate and hate to see the brand distrusted by the buyers or you refuse to hear someone saying that a brand must be avoided, one that seems to be the one you buy the most

no point on replying to you more

about real data

the data often shows only certain models sold on certain markets, which is not really that representative

also the warranties applied often doesn't represent the complete oem sold units, only units sold in places like amazon, other countries sell more or less models, and sell on different terms of warranty, so the reports of dead units are not represented by those numbers at all, it is representative, but only applies to part of the market

just as the original data a couple years ago from a big data storage company, can't remember which one, using hard disks on a very different manner than the one i use hard disks

again, replying to the original poster, asking if the comments about seagate hard disks are good or not

my reply remains the same, i will not trust my money or my files to that brand again, so other brands are more recomended together with a good backup from time to time

 

[madmatt30]

The Seagate sshd's are quite simply not worth the money.There is very very little benefit to having a 8gb ssd cache

Having used SSHDs and HDDs paired with an external SSD cache (8GB and 16GB) I'd have to disagree. The Achilles heel of HDDs are their 4k read/write speeds. They do fine at reading large files - their sequential speeds are up around 100-150 MB/s. They absolutely suck at small files - 4k speeds are barely above 1 MB/s, laptop HDDs are worse at about 0.75 MB/s.

This is where SSDs get most of their speed from. They're only about 4x faster than HDDs at sequential speeds (about 500 MB/s). But their 4k speeds can hit 30-70 MB/s - 30x to 70x faster than a HDD. The same holds for a SSHD. The vast majority of that 8GB cache ends up holding small files (as opposed to a RAM cache which only holds the most recently read data). And you can fit a heckuva lot of 4 kB files into 8GB.

On a Thinkpad with a HDD and 16GB cache SSD, I spent a couple nights playing around with disabling the cache, reformatting it for 4GB, 8GB, 12GB, and 16GB capacity. 8GB is *plenty* and dramatically sped up Windows boot times (from over 1 minute to about 20 seconds) and program start times. The drawback of a SSD cache is that it doesn't speed up writes.

Reference, other than discredited backblaze please

Again.... this is real data

Seagate 0,72% (contre 0,69%)
Toshiba 0,80% (contre 1,15%)
Western 1,04% (contre 1,03%)
HGST 1,13% (contre 0,60%)

Tosh did well in last period getting under 1% failure rate ....but the 6 month period before, they just about doubled Seagate's returns

You really have to look at the failure rates of individual drive models. If you read that link, the entirety of HGST's poor showing is due to a single model - the 1TB 5400 RPM 2.5" model with a 3.48% return rate. The other HGST models listed had a 0.32% and 0.21% return rate.

Each drive model includes a combination of different technology, different density, different components, and different failure rates. People want an easy "buy brand x, avoid brand y" rule of thumb, but there isn't one. You have to dig up failure rates or reliability reports for individual drive models. There are good and bad drive models from every manufacturer. (Speaking of which, HGST's 3.5" technology went to Toshiba, it's 2.5" tech went to WD - a condition various governments placed on the merger of WD with HGST. Previously Toshiba only made 2.5" drives.)

With that in mind, "7200 RPM 2TB Seagate Barracuda" is not enough info to narrow down to a single drive model, so it's impossible to say how reliable it is. I'll add that most of Seagate's reputation for bad drives comes from the 2000s, when they had over 50% of the HDD market. So there were simply more Seagate drives out there than other drives, and thus correspondingly more user reports of failed Seagate drives on forums. You can't just count the number of people reporting failed drives.

In 30 years of computer use, I've owned and installed drives from all the remaining HDD manufacturers or their predecessors, and have experienced failures with every one of them. With the low cost of HDDs, there's little point worrying about their reliability. Just make sure to regularly backup your data. If you happen to fall within the unfortunate 1% per year who suffer a drive failure, simply get it replaced under warranty and restore from your backup.

I could understand the recommendation when it comes to 2.5inch sshd's for laptop use simply because traditional 5400 rpm 2.5 inch drives are just plain slow in very concievable scenario.
I would argue though that for a laptop where the majority of the time a large amount of mass storage is unnnecessary you should just go straight out for a 240gb ssd beacsue the difference is simply night & day even on an older sata 2 interface,
This is about desktop 3.5inch drives though at the end of the day.
The sshd jack naylor recommded is now discontinued ,it had numerous problems regarding the optimiation of the ssd cache - it was easily confused ( I did own one) & could completely crap out on itself from time to time & slow the whole drive down.It also only comes with a 3 year warranty not a 5 year.
It was also on a general mass storage/large file copy/large file read-write upto 50% slower than a standard 7200rpm barracuda drive.

The firecuda does actually look a decent drive in its own right admittedly - its 50% more though than a comparitive 2tb platter drive & absolutely does not offer a 50% performance boost.
Id like to know how 8gb of nand storage adds nearly $40 to the price of the drive.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@atljsf OK, so you have an anecdote about how a Seagate drive you bought died prematurely. You can find those for every product ever made, especially electronics. Do you have any empirical evidence to back up your claims that Seagate drives are more prone to failure than other brands?

or you wrk for seagate and hate to see the brand distrusted by the buyers or you refuse to hear someone saying that a brand must be avoided, one that seems to be the one you buy the most
no point on replying to you more

about real data [...]

...Seriously? Daring to ask you to provide evidence to back up your claims means I must have a stake in Seagate? For the record, I don't work for Seagate, nor do I have any sort of stake or interest in the company.

You proceed to speculate on possible reasons why the data @JackNaylorPE presented might not be accurate, yet have failed to provide any data of your own.

 

[Tech_TTT]

lol guys the OP bought Toshiba and there is no point of Arguing ... see ya all lol

 

[atljsf]

yes, often this happens when you don't like others opinions, bye

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Seagate - they had a real bad production patch 4 or 5 years back which saw an awful amount of drive failures on the cheaper consumer models .it killed their reputation big time .
I'm guilty of tarring & feathering them with that brush myself even though their current drives are probably fine.
Their warranty procedure in the UK is goddam awful though at the end of the day (when you have 6 out of 10 drives fail within 6 months as a system builder its a nightmare) & that's why I will not buy them now

Yes, the 7200.11 had many issues as have many other products .. i.e. EVGA SC, etc. But not many folks make current purchase decisions based upon a single model experience from an 8 year old design. We moved from 7200.10s to 7200.12s (as did many NAS supplies at the time, as the word on the 7200.11's broke early and they continued to be avoided after after the firmware issues were resolved.

If you look at storagereview.com, you'll note that Seagate made the best drive ever made (from a reliable standpoint), it also made the worst. A person that chooses the "best model ever made" would in no way be affected by the fact that the worst drive ever made bore the same logo. All we can do is choose the best model for our needs ... today ... based upon available information. Brand loyalty from experiences in the previous decade really has no bearing on today's choices. Better said ... factual data from published performance and reliability is a valid source upon which to make decisions rather than brand loyalty, experiences / impressions with devices long out of production.

As I said above, buying a HD based upon even supported data of HD reliability is a fool's errand. Buy the model, not the brand. Would you say that the fact that the Chicago Cubs were so futile that they went 100+ years w/o winning the World Series was a reason they should never be counted on winning one ? Would you say that putting our money on the Yankees w/ 27 WS Championships is a better bet ?
However, not only did the Cubbies win last year, but, last time I looked (mid February), odds makes had the Cubs as the favorite (9/2 odds) and the Yanks were ranked 11rh (25/1 odds). back in the day, we used to use the term [insert any product here] is the Cadillac of [insert product category here]. That saying is an anachronism today.

Sshd's?? - faster than a WD black - no , not a chance at all.The black is far faster in general use , an sshd only has a noticeable performance difference if you use the same 2 or 3 apps/games continuously & their boot cache is stored in the ssd cache section.

Until you produce a reference to support this position, it remains just that ... and unsubstantiated statement.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2013/-17-PCMark-7-Gaming,2915.html

Gaming
Seagate SSHD = 9.76 MB/sec (54% faster)
WD Black = 6.34 MB/sec

Avg Read Speed (cache useless)
Seagate SSHD = 149.24 MB/sec (27% faster)
WD Black = 108.78 MB/sec

Max Read Speed
Seagate SSHD = 185.77 MB/sec (32% faster)
WD Black = 140.99 MB/sec

Tweaktown noted "substantial" and "tremendous" performance improvements, which hardly coincides with the characterization you have made. And you can not dismiss the performance improvements of the cache because in everyday use by real people this drive is delivering these kinds of improvements.

Newer drives are coming out with greater density and no doubt these advancements will provide an improvement over what current drives offer. Octane is also supposed to help in this regard, but as our own experience and the reviewers have said the technology offers users a nice advantage over HD alternatives and SSHDs in many instances remain hardly distinguishable from SSDs in everyday usage.
No, thay are not for everyone, if you are budget constrained the $30 may cost you an improvement elsewhere; but of you are budget restrained, then the SSD has the same effect ... and the SSHD for an extra 430 remains a cheaper alternative.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

The sshd jack naylor recommded is now discontinued ,it had numerous problems regarding the optimiation of the ssd cache - it was easily confused ( I did own one) & could completely crap out on itself from time to time & slow the whole drive down.It also only comes with a 3 year warranty not a 5 year.
It was also on a general mass storage/large file copy/large file read-write upto 50% slower than a standard 7200rpm barracuda drive.

1. I have dozens of the drives.... when they initially came out they had 3 year warrantees which later were bumped up to 5 years. Again, the SSHD has a lower failure rate than the WD Black which clearly puts it in the same category in that respect.

2. Yes, the drives are being phased out, if you buy the old version you will find that the warrantees will vary ... I have seen 1, 3 and 5 in recent days...checked today and one site had 30 days

3. Obviously, you wouldn't buy the old version with the new one being so close in price .. and it still comes with the 5 year warranty and 7200 rpm platters. However reviews are scarce saying little other than that it's currently the fastest SD on the market.
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/firecuda-family/firecuda/en-us/docs/100804185b.pdf

Here's a comparison between the Seagate SSD and Toshiba HD

Pros

The SSHD is faster than a mechanical HDD for loading regularly used applications and games. Using our Seagate FireCuda Gaming SSHD, Windows startup is faster and shutdown is noticeably quicker than using the 2TB Toshiba HDD.

The FireCuda 2TB SSHD is decent bang for buck at $100 compared with spending $70 for a standard 2TB HDD as its performance and loading times are better.

A 5-year warranty and high-quality Seagate support stand it out from the “HDD crowd”.

SSHD Caching works for gaming and gamers. You get faster level loading than from a HDD, and games can still stay on the hard drive without having to manually configure anything.
Cons

Price. It costs about 30% or $30 more for the 2TB FireCuda SSHD than it does for a 2TB Toshiba HDD.

This has been quite an enjoyable exploration using Seagate’s 2TB FireCuda SSHD. Based on our experience, SSHD caching is highly recommended for gamers as saving time and the frustration of waiting for applications, games and levels to load! We are giving the Seagate 2TB FireCuda Gaming SSHD BTR’s “Highly Recommended” Award.

For us, spending the extra $30 for a slightly faster 2TB Seagate FireCuda SSHD over our 2TB Toshiba HDD is worth it. And our 2TB Toshiba drives are now relegated to becoming back-ups for our Seagate SSHDs so we will never experience any downtime in playing or in benchmarking.

4. The mass storage test results are quoted above ... again, as that's the only data available.

5. Can you create a test suite that will make an SSD look bad... if course ... load massive programs and massive project files on a loop and you will negate much of it's advantages. But then all you have proved is that creating an artificial scenario negates the drive's advantages. The reality however is that, in real world usage, users can not tell the difference between a SSD + HD and an SSHD

Here's a test done with the new SSHD in a PS4. In each case the SSHD was faster than a substitute 2 TB drive from Samsung on 1st load .... on the 5th load, it was almost as fast as the SSD.

Speaking form actual experience, we randomly assigned users laptops, one with SSD + HD and one with SSHD. Over the 6 month blind evaluation, no one was ever to notice any difference in performance between the two. We also used a desktop which was bootable off the SSHD, SSD HD and only time anyone ever noticed a difference was when we had it set to boot off the HD.

In the office, CAD users tend to work on a project over time starting and completing projects over a period of multiple weeks ,... on the gaming side, folks tend to complete Far Cry 3 before jumping over to Far Cry 4. So if you are like most folks who tend to play games sequentially, you will benefit ... if you are loading 8 different games every day, then the next day another 8 with half the same as day before, i would say, no it's not worth an extra $30 for you.

However, I disagree that the 5 year warranty has no value as I'm one of those that has benefited from them several times. My last two HD failures in a working box occured in the same week about 15 years ago.

a) WD failed early in the week (Tuesday if I had to guess) after about 3.5 years in use of a general office box. WD required that I mail the drive in for evaluation and if deemed to have failed, would return a replacement. Process they said would take 12-14 days and there were no options to cross ship.

b) Seagate 7200 rpm SCSI drive (CAD Station) was 4.7 years old\ when it failed. Seagate sent the drive ON mail (difference in cost between 2 day and ON was on my dime). Got RMA on Friday, was delivered on Saturday morning ... I shipped out the old drive on Monday.

Not suggesting by any means what policies exist today but listing solely to point out that id uptime is important, would be good idea to investigate this. We just keep spare drives around and relegate them to back up duty after about 3.5 - 4.0 years.