Backblaze data shows Hitachi and Seagate as most and least reliable hard drives, respectively

I would never buy a hard drive that had to be delivered by post. Don't know if they played hackey sack or football or hockey with your parcel in the warehouse or in delivery.
Each drive is probably handled more harshly in the plant being manufactured than they are being delivered. The drive is 100 times more prone to damage while it is in use than it is being shipped. Drives have a shock ratings, and I'd be willing to bet that while packaged no drive exceeds this rating, unless the package is completely destroyed. And besides the people you are so inclined to belittle are the same people who stock the shelfs at a local brick and mortar store. The only way you can get out of the delivery abuse as you describe, is to pickup the item straight from the factory yourself. Your excuse is null and void of sound thinking.
 
So this is a comparison of seagate vs western digital, since WD owns HGST both those brands are technically WD. Personally usually prefer WD, my Toshiba laptop came with a Toshiba drive, it seems ok so far only been 4 months though, my alienware came with 2 seagates and I put a wd and a Hitachi drive in them. I had a WD black 320gb Laptop drive fail on me, but my 750gb WD black drive is still running great. Most of the dead drives I have been seeing at work have been seagates lately, unfortunately seems like Dell and lenovo both use seagate mainly. HP seems to be mixed with the newer ones using WD drives, and some of the higher capacity ones coming with seagate. Acer/Gateway seem to still use Hitachi, so WD for them.
 
ddg4005 said:
I'm running two Hitachi 4 terabyte hard drives in each box so this good to hear. What's surprising is the high failure rate for Seagate's internal hard drives especially since their external units are solid (at least they have been for me).
Indeed. I have a 14-year old Seagate 60 gigabyte (internal version) and it's still going strong. I also have two external drives, one of which is about 7 years old (GoFlex Desk 360 gigabyte) and the other is 3 years old (GoFlex Ultra-portable 1.5 terabyte). Both of them has yet to fail me. Perhaps I just got lucky.
 
I have a mixture of Hitachis and WD Greens in my two ZFS raids. I've only had 1 WD Green fail in the last 3 years. My older Seagate 600's, 320's and 300's are still kick'in as well.
 
Would be interesting to have the data broken down per drive model aswell.
For example the Seagate 7200.11 had tremendously bad reliability due to a firmware bug, which might taint the statistics?

I mean it's the same for SSD's, a few of OCZ's SSD models have had around 50% failure rates.
But if you remove those obviously faulty drives their numbers look more normal.Even if that is no excuse or reason to choose such a manufacturer, stats to back me up:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/911-7/ssd.html

On the previous page there are also HDD statistics, which differ tremendously vs Backblaze's data.
That just shows you need several data sets to get statistics which can be relied upon...
 
Last edited:
I have an old Seagate FreeAgent 500GB, which has been with me since my prior PC (3-4 years I think?) and still in working order. It's all down to personal preference and experience, this is their findings across drives in a particular work environment. I'm looking at this more with a grain of salt really, because I highly doubt everyone is going to drop a brand due to x reason.

So you got a bad experience, and want to share it but others might not have it. Could be the complete opposite, possibly down the road I might change my mind. Just for me right now it's about equal to Seagate / Western Digital, in terms of my next external and let that possibly change my mind. If it's a bad drive then fine I 'might' consider otherwise, but really I don't see much reason to do that.
 
It's all the luck of the draw, obviously you have a slightly higher chance of failure with Seagate (according to the chart above,) but personally, over the past 15 years I've only had 1 Seagate HDD failure, and 2 WDs fail. Never had any other issues with the 20-30 HDDs I've had between them.
 
........And besides the people you are so inclined to belittle are the same people who stock the shelfs at a local brick and mortar store. The only way you can get out of the delivery abuse as you describe, is to pickup the item straight from the factory yourself. Your excuse is null and void of sound thinking.
Wow, what provoked that? I stand by it for two reasons. Where I live UPS is one of the main couriers. I know someone that worked for years at UPS and heard horror story upon horror story with what they did in her sight with packages at the depot. I don't recall having ever received a package from UPS without damage on the external box of some kind. Did have to make one claim (thanks for good packaging). I figure if I buy a HD at a store I have a better chance than this of getting something handled gently. So sorry if this causes offence
I suspect delivery is like it seems like everything is in life, a few ruin it for the rest.
 
I've never had a good Seagate drive in the last 20 years. This report does not surprise me. I also avoid them like the plague. The last time I about a Seagate was the 7200.11 750GB. Absolute garbage. Luckily I had 2 in RAID1. I RMA'd and RMA's until the 5 year warranty was up. Between the two drives I had 10+ failures. Some replacements were 7200.12 units. Also garbage. I could have purchased new WD or Hitachi drives with the $ I spent on shipping those stupid things. Eventually that's exactly what I did - bought 2 1TB WD Blacks and they are running just fine after 3+ years of continuous use.
 
........And besides the people you are so inclined to belittle are the same people who stock the shelfs at a local brick and mortar store. The only way you can get out of the delivery abuse as you describe, is to pickup the item straight from the factory yourself. Your excuse is null and void of sound thinking.
Wow, what provoked that? I stand by it for two reasons. Where I live UPS is one of the main couriers. I know someone that worked for years at UPS and heard horror story upon horror story with what they did in her sight with packages at the depot. I don't recall having ever received a package from UPS without damage on the external box of some kind. Did have to make one claim (thanks for good packaging). I figure if I buy a HD at a store I have a better chance than this of getting something handled gently. So sorry if this causes offence
I suspect delivery is like it seems like everything is in life, a few ruin it for the rest.
His reply was a bit harsh but he is still right. You are obsessing about delivery problems too much. The same delivery system that all retailers use BTW. And the factory probably does have more stress on the drives than the delivery system.

The model and tolerances of the drive is more relevant than the shipper used. Assuming the postman didn't go postal on that day.....
 
I have a Hitachi 80GB 2.5 drive from my laptop for about 8 years now. Seems to be doing just fine.

While I already had failures with my 3GB Seagate and 2GB WD...

Now I am slightly worried about my other 2 Seagates, one which I am sure is a refurb for the replacement...

Ugh.
 
I suspect delivery is like it seems like everything is in life, a few ruin it for the rest.
I'll go along with that, in fact I do believe it to be true.

I don't see mail delivery being the problem with drive malfunctions. Not when I know first hand what kind of shock is required to damage a drive and how hard it is to deliver this shock (especially while still packaged). We are not talking about something that is fragile by nature, and should be handled with caution.

I have an anger management problem where the PC is concerned. I do manage my anger, it usually involves walking away, but with PC's I don't walk. I have a bad habit of taking it out on the case, when the PC freezes or BSOD's. It is not a new development, I've had it for decades. I can show you dents in the side of my case today, where daily freezing has agitated my temper. Luckily for my PC case, I finally figured out what was causing my freezes. It would help if I had money to burn, but I don't. Non of my drive issues have ever been from physical abuse. And delivering that same amount of abuse while the drive is still packaged is impossible. The packaging absorbs the majority of shock, where a case will not, without shock absorption mounts. I've never had these mounts, outside of a mobile device.

Lets also take a look at all the external storage devices, that take more torture on a daily basis compared to mail delivery. These external cases, especially the smaller ones don't have shock absorption either. All the tablets and laptops just thrown on a table, even if the distance is only an inch or two. Delivery services cannot equal that amount of shock if they wanted to, while the drive is safe within its packaging.

And lets not forget the drive in my PC case is a 1TB Seagate, purchased a little over 3 years ago. A drive that is within this article as being the highest failure rate. A failure rate that must be from factors other than physical issues, or else mine would have certainly been dead by now. No I am quite confident that drive malfunctions are not caused by mishandling of mail services. That is unless the drives were packaged poorly to begin with. In that case you can hardly single the mail service out for being the cause.
 
Not long ago. I had an argument from a stubborn techspot member that had a false faith in Seagate. Im in IT and would personally see Seagate drives die faster than any other. The member thought I was crazy. Nice to be rectified with actual data to back up the theory.

On a side note, I usually purchase WD hard drives and stay away from Hatachi. Not for any particular reason other than I trust what I know. After seeing this, they deserve second look.
 
Nice to be rectified with actual data to back up the theory.
Justified by incomplete story. Per mentioned this above.
Would be interesting to have the data broken down per drive model aswell.
For example the Seagate 7200.11 had tremendously bad reliability due to a firmware bug, which might taint the statistics?
From where I stand Seagate maybe the worst. But until it is proven the 7200.11 is not the main downfall of this statistic, I'm not listening.
 
This article pissed me off for two reasons.

1. Everyone who has to chime in. "I've had a seagate hard drive for 7 years, and it works perfectly!" or "My Maxtor 1GB died after 11.6 seconds of operation!" are just ****ing annoying. Your story does not matter. Your shitty little anecdote with a sample size I can count on one hand is meaningless.

2. This study was flawed. This put the hard drives into a hot, wet, vibrating cage and did so with the cheapest drives they could get their hands on. So Seagate's cheapest stock is less reliable than WD's cheapest stock. Who gives a crap? Put similar tiered drives into real life scenarios. A laptop that gets jostled every once and a while. A desktop that sits on a self 99% of its life.
 
@[URL='https://www.techspot.com/community/members/skandranonsg.339467/']Skandranonsg[/URL]

Point #2: I care. I also think many people who buy cheap drives care. So at least we know that if we want cheap drives, at least Hitatchi or WD will be much more reliable than Seagate. The study is "flawed" in a sense that it's not really a study at all since BackBlaze personally designed their cages and also buy only commodity parts and the cheapest drives they can get. They are basically just reporting what they saw from years of running on this kind of system. As a result, it's not really useful to say which makes is actually more reliable but it's useful enough for those who try to buy the cheapest drives.
 
I have a question, "who the f*** is "Backblaze"?

by all accounts, the drives they use for storage are consumer models.

And something else, would you really trust these people to back up your data in the cloud? If someone wants to run with the big boys, they should be playing with big boy toys.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be reporting brand versus brand results, on enterprise class drives. For example, WD's "Raid Edition" offerings.

And in spite of the above poster's admonition that my anecdote will be meaningless, my Seagate "Barracuda" drives, will eat my WD, "Caviar Blue" drives in WEI. They're quieter, faster, and cheaper.
 
From where I stand Seagate maybe the worst. But until it is proven the 7200.11 is not the main downfall of this statistic, I'm not listening.

Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "im not listening","Im not listening" wont save you when you lose all your backup data. Good luck with that strategy.
 
If my drive series is not problematic, why should I listen if the study includes know problematic drives? Release all the details so that the study would be worth listening to. Prove to me that all Seagate drive series are just as problematic and then we will talk (or should I say I will listen).
 
Christ, I loathe threads like this. Somebody who's really nobody, ("Backblaze"), publishes reliability data on hard drives intended for the consumer market, running in "enterprise" service, then everybody gets on their soapbox, and the "winds of boor", begin to howl.....

I tell you, it's enough to force you to seek refuge by listening to a sermon "starring", "Reverend", Al Sharpton.
 
Last edited:
Backblaze is an online backup service.
That explains why I don't know of them, and am not particularly interested in what they have to say.

But you didn't really answer my question. I already knew they were a "cloud" service. If Google, Yahoo, or the NSA were publishing statistics about HDD longevity, it might be more credible. AFAIK, "Backblaze", is still "nobody". Or at least, nobody of great importance.

As far as manufacturers go, they pretty much attach whatever life expectancy prediction to their HDDs they feel like, in a endeavor to get them out the door.

With that said I haven't had trouble with ANY HDDs to date. I even have a few of those "lousy" barracuda elevens. Even when Seagate, had their, "big recall of 'bricking' drives", I didn't have a stitch of trouble with mine.

As far as warranty issues go, manufacturers used to spend enormous sums when warranties were long. Instead of hassling with that, they just pass the savings on to consumers, who are now tacitly, "on their own".

Given my usage patterns, against predicted lifespans, (even divided by 2), most likely, 90% of my current HDDs will still be running long after I'm dead and buried.

I've known since the first ones hit the market, "green drives", were a piss poor idea from the jump. They read slow, continually shut down, and don't really save that much energy. But if you want to buy into that crap, please be my "guest".

It's sort of like credit cards companies that "guilt you into" giving up paper statements, and go green. They won't lower your interest rate though, and the only thing you gain, is the need to have internet service constantly. Should your web go down, and you miss a payment, the late charge is the same, whether you're "green", or otherwise.

So, who cares if "green HDDs" break, you won't catch me dead with one of those turds in my computer in the first place.

And like I said earlier, if "Backblaze" wants to run with the big boys, then they need to start buying, "big boy toys". That means enterprise service equipment. After all, they are trying to pass themselves off as an, "enterprise", are they not?
 
My Seagate has been working 5 years therefore it is the most reliable ever and this research is wrong.
 
My Seagate has been working 5 years therefore it is the most reliable ever and this research is wrong.

Glad to know your 1 drive debunks any research involving hundreds. Great logic.
 
Would be interesting to have the data broken down per drive model aswell.
For example the Seagate 7200.11 had tremendously bad reliability due to a firmware bug, which might taint the statistics?
As the end of the article suggests if you head over to Backblaze's website and specifically their blog, you can find a breakdown of the specific models tested. http://blog.backblaze.com/
 
Back