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

[Guest]

I have had two Seagate drives to fail within the past 3 months. I lost quite a bit of data and will look elsewhere for my storage needs. The Goflex 2tb and 3tb are not worth the money in my opinion. Make a backup of your backup.

 

[Mikymjr]

My mothers computer is still running a western digital for about 5-7 years now ^^. I only had to change the motherboard, cpu and graphics card to make it faster for her

 

[cliffordcooley]

I still have a bad taste in my mouth for WD, from years back. Before that it was actually Seagate I had an issue with, Seagate and Maxtor. With Samsung selling out if I was to switch, I don't see that I have a choice other than WD? Toshiba for some reason has always seemed foreign to me (as if any of the others are actually domestic (yeah I know)). I think I will remain loyal to Seagate, at least until we no longer have need of HDD.

 

[jacques]

The older seagate drives were good drives

 

[Guest]

My C: drive still running & healthy...

Hitachi 160GB IDE 133... Windows 7 in it. (y)

 

[Guest]

These results are just posted to help push the sales of Hitachi HD's. EVERY Hitachi Hd I ever used has failed on me within a yr. It's a reason those drives were called Deathstars instead of Deskstars.

 

[mailpup]

These results are just posted to help push the sales of Hitachi HD's. EVERY Hitachi Hd I ever used has failed on me within a yr. It's a reason those drives were called Deathstars instead of Deskstars.

Actually that name originated when IBM made the Deskstar HDD, before selling the business to Hitachi. Of course, now it's owned by WD.

 

[wiyosaya]

I have been using Seagate drives for years now, including the 7200.11 series, and I have had absolutely no problems with them. I have to wonder whether there is some sort of skew here that is not accurately taken into account - let's say, for instance, that 90% of the drives they bought were Seagate, or, for some reason, they put this release out to bolster their bargaining power.

Sure, everyone can get (myself included), and from the posts here, some have, had a bad Seagate drive, however, for me, I have never had one. On the other hand, I have had WD drives in the past that failed far before their time, and I have shied away from them ever since.

I am currently doing a HTPC build, and I just ordered a 1 TB Seagate Video HD because its noise spec is 20 dB active, 19 dB idle. Not many can claim a noise level that low. I just hope that I don't regret it.

 

[Guest]

Think that the Seagate quality was deliberate in that they were the leaders of removing the three year warranty down to a year.

They led and the others followed in the main

 

[Railman]

I will need to purchase a HD in the near future. I had already decided to spend extra for a drive with a 5 year guarantee. I do have a Maxtor drive that is 9 years old. Hopefully my next drive will be as resilient.

 

[Carleton Wu]

Will never buy another Seagate. Their 1TB fiasco still leaves a bitter taste. Bought 4 drives for server. All eventually failed. RMA'd them and the replacement drives failed. Sent 2 back yet again... those failed. What is the point of having a warranty if the drives themselves are the problem--not just random sample defects.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I don't understand how anyone can have a 100% failure rate, not one but twice in a row. While others don't have any issues at all. I've had one DOA and killed another which was the way I see it my fault. Other than that I've had no issues out of two dozen drives. Out of two 1TB drives, one was the DOA drive. But the other and the replacement are still going strong 3 years later.

Wish someone could explain why the difference in mileage? Is it geographical location that makes the difference? I don't understand! Does Newegg get better quality drives than a comparable outlet? Has paying attention to Newegg's 5-star ratings actually saved my butt? I've had worse luck with memory modules, than I have with purchasing Seagate hard drives.

 

[captaincranky]

Several years ago we had a thread that stated "heat was a primary destroyed of HDDs. And may I add, that it wasn't as much heat as you'd think it would take to do it.

This thread is pointless for one very simply reason, nobody at home likely has a commercial environment the stresses their drives to the levels used as examples in this press release.

But, more importantly, it doesn't say WHY the drives failed.

That relegates it to useless, anecdotal banter.

For example, lets say Seagate's drives failed because the spindle bearings wore out. Let's say that WD's drives, failed because of head contact with the platters.

With that information at hand, at least an attempted appeal could by made to the manufacturers, to shore up the frailties.

But, "deese drives dun broke", really isn't that helpful,

 

[wiyosaya]

Several years ago we had a thread that stated "heat was a primary destroyed of HDDs. And may I add, that it wasn't as much heat as you'd think it would take to do it.

This thread is pointless for one very simply reason, nobody at home likely has a commercial environment the stresses their drives to the levels used as examples in this press release.

But, more importantly, it doesn't say WHY the drives failed.

That relegates it to useless, anecdotal banter.

For example, lets say Seagate's drives failed because the spindle bearings wore out. Let's say that WD's drives, failed because of head contact with the platters.

With that information at hand, at least an attempted appeal could by made to the manufacturers, to shore up the frailties.

But, "deese drives dun broke", really isn't that helpful,

I totally agree with your assessment. What the failure were and Clifford's statement that knowledge of the operating environment would also be helpful would have rounded out this "research" to the point where it's scientific merit would have been better than what the "story" contains. However, without these crucial pieces of information, this story is, as you say, anecdotal at best.

IMHO, there is something else going on here, and if it is not some sort of conspiracy, then it simply must be that the people who complied this data have no clue as to what defines meaningful information.

Following Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that the people who compiled the information have no idea what meaningful information is.