Seagate’s 10TB hard drives provide massive storage for your growing Steam library - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50739867][url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/3028981/storage/seagate-slapped-with-a-class-action-lawsuit-over-hard-drive-failure-rates.html[/url] basically they have a really shitty long term survival rate[/QUOTE] I've been after a new drive as what i've had this one for around 4 years now, what's the better choice if Seagate drives aren't good?

Had a 1TB Seagate slowly die over a period of like 3 months after like a year or so. Me being the absolute idiot at the time never registered it, so I couldn't get it replaced.

[QUOTE=meppers;50739992][t]http://i.imgur.com/yC3ujOK.png[/t] [URL="https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q3-2015/"]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q3-2015/[/URL][/QUOTE] Without being totally sure, wasn't there something about this chart was just a load of bullshit?

[QUOTE=nightlord;50741401]I've been after a new drive as what i've had this one for around 4 years now, what's the better choice if Seagate drives aren't good?[/QUOTE] There's nothing wrong with seagate as a whole, just the 3TB drives mentioned in that article. Faulty products aren't exclusive to Seagate, contrary to internet bandwagon belief.

[QUOTE=meppers;50739992][t]http://i.imgur.com/yC3ujOK.png[/t] [URL="https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q3-2015/"]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q3-2015/[/URL][/QUOTE] Maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but how can some of them have failure rates of 129.88% and 222.77%?

[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50739923]Meanwhile SSD prices are going down too, bringing affordable SSDs in Terabyte range, at least for norwegians.[/QUOTE] No joke. There was a 480GB SSD on sale for $60 the other week. OCZ Trion if I recall

SSD's have a extremely low failrate right? I heard something like 10-15 years of lifespan till it wears out

[QUOTE=darth-veger;50744011]SSD's have a extremely low failrate right? I heard something like 10-15 years of lifespan till it wears out[/QUOTE] I don't even know if that's true anymore. I think there's an actual ongoing read/write test that's been taking place for months and a couple SSD's are still trucking even though they've gone through petabytes worth of writes. I think today the failure rate is probably lower than the damn obsolescence rate [editline]20th July 2016[/editline] Alright, Just looked it up. That endurance test was a couple years ago and a couple made it to over 3 Petabytes. I say that's pretty damn impressive, and it was only after 1.1 petabytes that sectors were being relocated and some raw read error rates cropped up, and Samsung/Kingston's were still going after 2 petabytes like nothin' To give you an idea, Just to hit that 700 Terabyte mark where the first SSD failed in the test, you'll have to write 40GB a day. For 50 years. You can forget about hitting 2 and 3 petabytes

[QUOTE=TheTalon;50744019]I don't even know if that's true anymore. I think there's an actual ongoing read/write test that's been taking place for months and a couple SSD's are still trucking even though they've gone through petabytes worth of writes. I think today the failure rate is probably lower than the damn obsolescence rate [editline]20th July 2016[/editline] Alright, Just looked it up. That endurance test was a couple years ago and a couple made it to over 3 Petabytes. I say that's pretty damn impressive, and it was only after 1.1 petabytes that sectors were being relocated and some raw read error rates cropped up, and Samsung/Kingston's were still going after 2 petabytes like nothin' To give you an idea, Just to hit that 700 Terabyte mark where the first SSD failed in the test, you'll have to write 40GB a day. For 50 years. You can forget about hitting 2 and 3 petabytes[/QUOTE] Source on that endurance test? Techreport's pinned TLC around 500TB while the other MLC ones are 1-1,5PB, which is still a ludicrous amount but below yours. Would be nice to have more data points.

[QUOTE=RandomGamer342;50744478]Source on that endurance test? Techreport's pinned TLC around 500TB while the other MLC ones are 1-1,5PB, which is still a ludicrous amount but below yours. Would be nice to have more data points.[/QUOTE] It depends on drive size. More NANDs = spreading the write further out.