some user feedback here finds people dropping their drives quite frequently...The failure rate makes sense for particular drives and not just brands.
Many people complain that Seagate desktop drives have a high rate of failure but my Segate barracuda is working just fine since 8 years.
More than 8000 hours on power and HD sentinel says health 99%.
Though, I'm not sure about their external drives.
Some user feedbacks suggest that lots of people have lost their valuable data from Segate external drives, especially the one that has a capacity of 1.5 TB but that could have been just a bad stock.
After that month, Backblaze quit using any WD disks but not because of failure rates. It's because they could not get them for as cheap as other brands. They had been shucking external drives to get the internal disks inside, but apparently all of the good deals dried up this year. Since 2013, their most reliable tested brands have been HGST (acquired by Western Digital in 2012) and Toshiba
I don't think it matters, and here's why. If it fails, it fails, and you need to have a means of recovery from a backup. Whether it's a 0.01% chance over 5 years, or a 0.02% chance, you're going to get unlucky at some point. And when it has occurred the percentages are irrelevant. Work on the assumption that it will fail, work on the assumption that it will fail in the next 15mins, plan, buy and act accordingly.
Yes, I have heard such.Many people complain that Seagate desktop drives have a high rate of failure
So although the failure rate might be higher your drive is not affected.but my Segate barracuda is working just fine since 8 years.
More than 8000 hours on power and HD sentinel says health 99%.
Yes, and that is what increases the failure rate, I assume. And I wouldn't like getting such drive.Some user feedbacks suggest that lots of people have lost their valuable data from Segate external drives, especially the one that has a capacity of 1.5 TB but that could have been just a bad stock
But why doesn't it if you buy one drive? Doesn't the probability increase that you would get a worse one if you buy one having a high failure rate?If you're buying 100's of drives it matters.
So more than one backup per hard drive on another or different drives?Buying many drives buy cheap, have backups, spread risk with different types.
(Unless there was no backup, I guess) Yes, if it fails. And the probability that it will fail (and may be not backuped data will be lost) should be decreased by buying from the brand which sells drives with lesser failure rates, I would think, am I wrong with it? If one presupposes there always is an actual backup it might be all the same (apart from losing the newest data not being backedup yet and may be other drawbacks).if you are buying 1 drive it doesn't matter because if it's going to fail it'll fail, the outcome is the same, and you need to act the same way regardless.
I never would give away a (broken) drive with my personal data, unless I could wipe the data before (e.g. if expected it will get defective), what is rather unlikely when the drive is not accesseble anymore.warranty is a secondary consideration
Yes, that would be the right method, I assume.If you are really concerned about data loss, then buy 2 and have one running as a backup, buy 'robust' drives so that accidents are less likely to be an issue.
The probability does decrease but only very slightly, if you were to buy a drive from "no-name drive inc." then you might have a failure rate that is 10-100x worse than a reputable brand, but all of the big players will be very very close to each other. So the IF becomes a when to all intents and purposes, it could fail in month 1, it could fail in month 60, for you with a single drive the percentages on reputable drives will not change that. If you have 100's/1000's of drives then the probability is important.(Unless there was no backup, I guess) Yes, if it fails. And the probability that it will fail (and may be not backuped data will be lost) should be decreased by buying from the brand which sells drives with lesser failure rates, I would think, am I wrong with it? If one presupposes there always is an actual backup it might be all the same (apart from losing the newest data not being backedup yet and may be other drawbacks).
I never would give away a (broken) drive with my personal data, unless I could wipe the data before (e.g. if expected it will get defective), what is rather unlikely when the drive is not accesseble anymore.
Yes, that would be the right method, I assume.