If those portable drives are SSD, then they will be more durable.I remember there was some saying that some certain capacities are more durable than another, is it real?
For spinning HDD, no it is not.I remember there was some saying that some certain capacities are more durable than another, is it real?
There was a short term spate of a particular model of 3TB Seagate that had issues.In principle yes, as well as some brands have less problem rates.
2TB and 4TB HDDs are the most durable, while 3TB has a history of issues.
Keep in mind, Backblaze is company that's using consumer hard drives in a commercial, server-type setting, so the operating conditions are going to be different from what a drive is likely to experience in a typical system. They may see higher temperatures, and likely increased vibration, as they mount up to 60 drives together in a single case, with 20 of those cases stacked together in each server rack. Scroll down a bit here to see how the drives are mounted in their current "pod" design...This statement comes from Backblaze, the online backup company who analyzed the failure rates of 25,000 running hard drives.
Do you have actual evidence for that though? It's possible, though I would imagine that how the drives are typically used plays much more of a factor.That said, 3.5 inch drives are going to be more robust than the 2.5 inch ones.
Thank you for the link. Very interesting.If you are primarily concerned about durability to avoid the loss of irreplaceable data, your best option is to have all important data stored on at least two drives. That way, if one drive fails, the data is likely to still be safe on the other. Just be sure to replace the failed drive with another as soon as possible.
Keep in mind, Backblaze is company that's using consumer hard drives in a commercial, server-type setting, so the operating conditions are going to be different from what a drive is likely to experience in a typical system. They may see higher temperatures, and likely increased vibration, as they mount up to 60 drives together in a single case, with 20 of those cases stacked together in each server rack. Scroll down a bit here to see how the drives are mounted in their current "pod" design...
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/open-source-data-storage-server
As a result, their failure rates may not necessarily reflect the typical failure rate of a given drive (though could potentially indicate if some design might have a problem). There's also the possibility that their sample of drives may or may not happen to include a bunch of drives from a "bad batch", so while their results might be interesting, you should should take them with a grain of salt.
And of course, these are all full-size desktop hard drives, and if someone is looking at smaller "portable" external drives, those will be using laptop drives inside, with entirely different platters from the ones Backblaze has in their systems.
There was a short term spate of a particular model of 3TB Seagate that had issues.
Looking at BackBlaze results over the last few years, there is little difference across brands or models.
For 2021, 2% AFR or less.
Backblaze Drive Stats for 2021
Understanding our hard drives is key to understanding our company. Read the Backblaze drive stats for 2021 to learn more about our expansions.www.backblaze.com
For instance...
The 16TB Toshiba Enterprise, model num MG08ACA16TE has an annual fail rate of 0.91%
Pretty good, right?
However, the one and only one I had failed within 7 months.
Its replacement was delivered 2 weeks ago, and is sitting in the dock next to me.
Fail rates like that only count on a fleetwide basis, for budgeting and mass buys.
The particular drive YOU have may fail, no matter who says what.
And my last two dead HDD was 3TB WD and 16TB Toshiba.We have a small design office and in the last 3 years only Seagate HDDs have failed. Coincidence ? Bad luck ? I don't know, but all have been replaced by HDD from Toshiba and WD or SSDs from Crucial.
I am going to buy a Seagate 2.5inch external hard drive either 4TB or 5TB. May I know is 4TB or 5TB better?In principle yes, as well as some brands have less problem rates.
2TB and 4TB HDDs are the most durable, while 3TB has a history of issues. Generally speaking, you can rely on your hard drive for three to five years on "average".
This statement comes from Backblaze, the online backup company who analyzed the failure rates of 25,000 running hard drives.
They found that 90% of hard drives survive for three years and 80% for four years. But this number varied across brands. Western Digital and Hitachi hard drives lasted much longer than Seagate's in Backblaze's study.
The test shows that 5.1% fail in the first year due to manufacturing problems! Between the second and third years, only 1.4 fail and in the fourth year the percentage of failure rises to 11.8%.
Even avoiding moisture, dust, shocks, variations in electrical current, HDDs tend to fail due to wear and tear on moving components.
Also consider that a 5400rpm HDD will last longer than a 7200rpm one because wear and noise will be less.
My recommendation would be WD Blue 2TB or 4TB 5400rpm which have a good reliability/price ratio 😉
Yes, there was a particular run of Seagate 3TB drives that were problematic.I had heard years back that a few manufacturers' 3 TB models sucked/tended to fail