Yes, because I want to lose 4TB of data at once.
HGST or Western Digital all the way.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;52133424]Yes, because I want to lose 4TB of data at once.
HGST or Western Digital all the way.[/QUOTE]
Any harddrive will lose its data all at once when it fails.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;52133424]Yes, because I want to lose 4TB of data at once.
HGST or Western Digital all the way.[/QUOTE]
I don't like Seagate as much as the next guy, but you have to remember that it is a mechanical device. It [B][I][U]WILL[/U][/I][/B] fail at some point whether it's today or 20 years from now.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;52133424]Yes, because I want to lose 4TB of data at once.
HGST or Western Digital all the way.[/QUOTE]
Just grab two drives and run them with RAID 1.
[editline]22nd April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;52136051]I don't like Seagate as much as the next guy. It [B][I][U]WILL[/U][/I][/B] fail at some point whether it's today or 2 years from now.[/QUOTE]
how else should I store my 4TB of smug anime girl pictures
Can we please do away with this whole "Seagate is shit" deal.
They're not shit. There's no difference between these or WD drives.
[QUOTE=redBadger;52136301]Can we please do away with this whole "Seagate is shit" deal.
They're not shit. There's no difference between these or WD drives.[/QUOTE]
Yes there is, historically they have had the highest failure rate of major branded hard drives.
[img]http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2014/news/blog-fail-drives-manufacture.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;52136321]Yes there is, historically they have had the highest failure rate of major branded hard drives.
[/QUOTE]
Tbh I only see people post this and this only but they never post any other source
have any more? like an article that doesn't credit this?
We have no idea the context behind this source at all. For all we know it could be fake.
[editline]22nd April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Brt5470;52135640]Any harddrive will lose its data all at once when it fails.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;52136051]I don't like Seagate as much as the next guy, but you have to remember that it is a mechanical device. It [B][I][U]WILL[/U][/I][/B] fail at some point whether it's today or 20 years from now.[/QUOTE]
His point was that it was more prone to failure than usual
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;52136321]Yes there is, historically they have had the highest failure rate of major branded hard drives.
[img]http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2014/news/blog-fail-drives-manufacture.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
This data is from 2013. Here is the data from Backblaze for 2016:
[img]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FY-2016-Failure-Rates-by-MFG.jpg[/img]
[url]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-benchmark-stats-2016/[/url]
Here's some more graphs, this time from 2013 - 2015 using the same data from Backblaze:
[url]http://bioinformare.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/survival-analysis-of-hard-disk-drive.html[/url]
[img]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/blog_q3stats_manufacturer-e1444680042365.jpg[/img]
Anecdotal but the highest failure rates I've seen (running ~>150 drives currently); were with Barracudas. WD blacks and RE, Seagate constellation have been fine.
Seagate [B]used[/B] to be horrible, but now they're the same and some even slightly better than WD. HGST will always be superior of course. That's what I read from the HDD statistics, don't know about the SSD:s.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52136324]
His point was that it was more prone to failure than usual[/QUOTE]
I know what his point was. Was just poking fun at the concept of losing it "all" at once. Any drive will basically go all-at-once.
[QUOTE=icemaz;52136354]This data is from 2013. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The bird Man;52136421]Seagate used to be horrible, but now they're the same and some even slightly better than WD. HGST will always be superior of course. That's what I read from the HDD statistics, don't know about the SSD:s.[/QUOTE]
That's why I said historically, I wasn't trying to be misleading, my point is they used to be significantly more likely to fail than the other brands. And actually that chart was from 2014.
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;52136321]Yes there is, historically they have had the highest failure rate of major branded hard drives.
[img]http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2014/news/blog-fail-drives-manufacture.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
2013 graph.
I bought one 4 days ago for $99. Transferred all my plex media to it.
[img]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FY-2016-Failure-Rates-by-MFG.jpg[/img]
Looking at the data on this [url=https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-benchmark-stats-2016/]page[/url] you have 2% or less chance of a drive like this failing.
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;52136448]That's why I said historically, I wasn't trying to be misleading, my point is they used to be significantly more likely to fail than the other brands. And actually that chart was from 2014.[/QUOTE]
You posted a graph which has no actual data numerical data on it, with no indication of the source beyond a single mark of the companies name. If that isn't misleading then I don't know what it is. You also posted it in response to someone saying "There's no difference between these or WD drives.", with old "historical" data.
And the data is from [URL="https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/"]2013[/URL].
I'll go Seagate long before I ever trust my shit on a WD for long periods. I know their reputation going back decades.
[QUOTE=icemaz;52136558]You posted a graph which has no actual data numerical data on it, with no indication of the source beyond a single mark of the companies name. If that isn't misleading then I don't know what it is. You also posted it in response to someone saying "There's no difference between these or WD drives.", with old "historical" data.
And the data is from [URL="https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/"]2013[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Well you have to realize that the people are using the same source to show him it has changed and refute him. If you're going to deny Blackblaze then you're going to have to deny every other comment refuting him.
The graph is real and there was an article that went with it, but as you can see its outdated.
[editline]22nd April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=pentium;52136650]I'll go Seagate long before I ever trust my shit on a WD for long periods. I know their reputation going back decades.[/QUOTE]
... You're literally doing the same thing that people were criticizing EliteGuy for. Do you still judge Apple based on the Apple II?
I'd take the deal because I'm smart enough to keep anything I don't want to lose on at least two separate physical locations at all times
[QUOTE=redBadger;52136301]Can we please do away with this whole "Seagate is shit" deal.
They're not shit. There's no difference between these or WD drives.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to my Seagate drive that died 3 months out of it's 2 year warranty. Meanwhile I have an old WD that has over 8 years of power on time and it's still going strong.
[QUOTE=AJ10017;52136868]Tell that to my Seagate drive that died 3 months out of it's 2 year warranty. Meanwhile I have an old WD that has over 8 years of power on time and it's still going strong.[/QUOTE]
Ok? Drive failure rates are incredibly small and you simply got unlucky.
I have a bunch of different drives (both WD and Seagate) and never had an issue with any, ranging from over 10 years old to a year old.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52136819]
... You're literally doing the same thing that people were criticizing EliteGuy for. Do you still judge Apple based on the Apple II?[/QUOTE]
I am still referring to modern drives where at work our statistics show that the highest number of machines returned defective with drive problems had a WD drive installed in the last five years.
These are not drives that are seeing gentle use. These are drives sitting in machines under countertops running 24/7 until something kills the machine.
I can however assure you though I am not biasing towards Seagate. I still vividly remember the 7200.11 firmware days.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;52136084]Just grab two drives and run them with RAID 1.
[editline]22nd April 2017[/editline][/QUOTE]
RAID 1 is a quick road to data corruption.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;52136949]RAID 1 is a quick road to data corruption.[/QUOTE]
How else would you prevent data loss? All higher RAID levels seem less optimal.
[QUOTE=Ott;52137023]How else would you prevent data loss? All higher RAID levels seem less optimal.[/QUOTE]
RAID 1 only mirrors data, it makes no assurance the data is correct, a single faulty drive can effectively erase the whole thing.
RAID 5-6 are better since it's more storage efficient, and it stores parity, meaning a single drive won't muck it all up.
These days though a proper software 'RAID' filesystem is the way to go, something like ZFS or BTRFS.
I've had 2 500gb Seagate drives, one was rarely used and failed within a year, another was for recording DVR footage 24hrs for 7+ years and is still going strong, now is my dedicated steam drive.
It's pretty much random.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;52137070]RAID 1 only mirrors data, it makes no assurance the data is correct, a single faulty drive can effectively erase the whole thing.
RAID 5-6 are better since it's more storage efficient, and it stores parity, meaning a single drive won't muck it all up.
These days though a proper software 'RAID' filesystem is the way to go, something like ZFS or BTRFS.[/QUOTE]
Read failure in most raid1/10 implementation​s (including mdadm) are caught and automatically corrected from the mirror. Combine with ECC ram and drives of decent quality and the likelihood of data corruption is low.
The problems start if you get a drive failure at the same time as a URE on the mirror. Rare and generally low impact (i.e. you are very unlikely to have more than a couple of unreadable sectors in the time it takes you to resync your replacement drive), but worth considering. Keep backups.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;52137291]Read failure in most raid1/10 implementation​s (including mdadm) are caught and automatically corrected from the mirror. Combine with ECC ram and drives of decent quality and the likelihood of data corruption is low.
The problems start if you get a drive failure at the same time as a URE on the mirror. Rare and generally low impact (i.e. you are very unlikely to have more than a couple of unreadable sectors in the time it takes you to resync your replacement drive), but worth considering. Keep backups.[/QUOTE]
It's more about general bit-rot and having to deal with data parity, RAID 6 especially (>=3 copies of each byte) is really safe, since even if one bit flips there can be consensus.
Most H/W raid is going to be obsolete anyway, software "RAID" like RAIDZ in ZFS or BTRFS is the future, RAIDZ2 specifically (Two parity disks) is the way forward.
[editline]22nd April 2017[/editline]
RAID 5/6 vs RAID 10 isn't a solved debate though, both of benefits and drawbacks. I just prefer the pros and cons of parity over mirroring and striping.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;52137566]
Most H/W raid is going to be obsolete anyway, software "RAID" like RAIDZ in ZFS or BTRFS is the future, RAIDZ2 specifically (Two parity disks) is the way forward.
[/QUOTE]
Lol no. Software RAID is incomparably slower than proper hardware RAID, especially when it comes to schemes involving parity calculations.
RAID 5/6 is not necessarily safer than RAID 10, and its horrendously slow write speed and recovery speed makes it heavily unfavorable for enterprise application where performance is commonly the primary concern.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;52137637]Lol no. Software RAID is incomparably slower than proper hardware RAID, especially when it comes to schemes involving parity calculations.
[/QUOTE]
S3, GCS, and pretty much all of the huge datastore services use an underlying software RAID system on bulk cheap servers and drives.
Faster, maybe not, but certainly cheaper and easier to manage on mass scale.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;52137637]
RAID 5/6 is not necessarily safer than RAID 10, and its horrendously slow write speed and recovery speed makes it heavily unfavorable for enterprise application where performance is commonly the primary concern.[/QUOTE]
It depends on how your set the disks up, if you only have 1:1 drive mirroring, then a lot can go wrong that won't get noticed, whereas if you have an 'intelligent' FS (ZFS, BTRFS) that can check on 3+ drives/parity and use a consensus to repair corruption, then you're in much better shape.
As for speed, the point is to avoid rebuilding and that's one of the reasons software RAID with new filesystems are taking over.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.