Seagate Discontinuing Mobile 7200RPM Drives in 2013?

[yer_momma]

The problem with simply looking at pure failure rates like that is that it doesn't show the different models. All manufacturers make cheap HD's for budget users, and more expensive drives for performance users, and more reliable drives for enterprise/server users. There are also certain models that are simply duds, like WD's Red series, just look at the newegg reviews, endless pages of users complaining about DOA's and multiple drive failures within a week. The entire line should have just been recalled. On the other hand the WD Black series has pretty good reviews with only a few DOA's and 90 day failures sprinkled in. Western digital made famous the phrase "Click of death" in the early 2000's with so many failures. Seagate has made some dud drives too but they also made a lot of good ones.

In the enterprise SAS drives the failure rates are naturally far lower for all brands, Google did a large survey on failed drives to see if there was a particular trends which is an interesting read: research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf

SSD drive failure rates are far less than that of standard hard drives, with OCZ naturally being the most unreliable as they basically let Customers do their beta testing. Intel has always been the best since they actually test their drives before they go out the door.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]OK, so future Momentus XT drives will be 5400RPM instead of the current 7200RPM with some NAND flash?I doubt that, it's their performance drive. Until they stick a lot more cache on there that can also buffer writes, 7200RPM is needed to maintain decent performance in all situations.[/citation]

7200RPM isn't so much better than 5400RPM that 5400RPM can't be decent, especially in the higher capacity drives. 7200RPM only spins about 33% faster and the realistic gains are generally not that high from what I've seen.

 

[Fulgurant]

The problem with simply looking at pure failure rates like that is that it doesn't show the different models.

We're on basically the same page. Obviously, the careful consumer should consider the failure rate of a given model. That's but one reason you're usually better off buying something that's been on the market for awhile than you are buying cutting-edge hardware; you can't evaluate a given product's reliability until it's had a chance to fail.

If you click the link in my previous post, though, you'll find that the site author does include a listing of particularly problematic models from each brand. IIRC, he singles out any model with a return rate over 5%.

 

[siman0]

Seagate drives the WORST in the industry. They cost business and consumers millions of dollars every year because their products have sucked so bad. It's one of the main reasons HP is such a horrible brand, because they horrible parts with a 2 year life span.. anything seagate stops making is good for everyone else. If you don't agree with this, then you are clearly un-educated in the matter.

I work in a server farm/room our highest replaced/failed drives are WD drives by a wide gap.