Latest hard drive reliability data reveals it may be best to avoid 3TB drives

Shawn Knight

Posts: 12,807   +124
Staff member
I've said time and time again that solid state drives are the future but the truth of the matter is, traditional spinning disks still have a place inside a modern PC as a storage / backup drive. The question then becomes,...

[newwindow="https://www.techspot.com/news/59488-latest-hard-drive-reliability-data-reveals-may-best.html"]Read more[/newwindow]
 

Skidmarksdeluxe

Posts: 8,645   +3,288
I can easily do without a 3TB drive, my 480 GB SSD and portable 1GB GB HDD coupled with a 32 GB pen drive are more than sufficient for all my storage needs.
That said I'm not surprised to see Seagate still way out in front, they've held that lead for many a year now and I don't think the competition is all that keen to haul them in.
 

Scshadow

Posts: 625   +266
That said I'm not surprised to see Seagate still way out in front, they've held that lead for many a year now and I don't think the competition is all that keen to haul them in.
I believe you are misinterpreting the data here. Seagate's failure rate is much higher then the competition and I haven't in any recent years recalled it being any different. WD has always been the brand I've gravitated to for mechanical spinning drives. Seagate is the one that doesn't seem to be keen on reeling in their competition.
 
G

Guest

I've had several Seagate drives in my lifetime and they've always had a high failure rate in my experience. Before Seagate bought Samsung HDD line, Samsung's drives were the best in price, performance and reliability. Now I use Hitachi drives for mass storage and they haven't failed yet.
 
One thing I took away from this is Desktop drives are not designed or expected to be used in Enterprise environment.
If they were using Enterprise drives ie the Seagate Constellation drive they wouldn't have had the same failure rates.

I have used Desktop drives in Server/Datacenter environments and they are not up to it (regardless of brand) they are not rated for 24/7 operation and they can't take the resonance caused by large multi drive arrays (8+ drives in one chassis).

The same drives used in the designed environment give very different results...!
 

Skidmarksdeluxe

Posts: 8,645   +3,288
I believe you are misinterpreting the data here. Seagate's failure rate is much higher then the competition and I haven't in any recent years recalled it being any different. WD has always been the brand I've gravitated to for mechanical spinning drives. Seagate is the one that doesn't seem to be keen on reeling in their competition.
I never misinterpreted it at all, if you read my remarks again you'll likely notice the sarcasm and cynicism in them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darth Shiv

TitoBXNY

Posts: 239   +61
I purchased a 1TB Seagate drive and it lasted all of one month last year. My WD VelociRaptor 74 and 150 GB drives are still working after all of these years. Happy with my SAMSUNG EVO 840 and 3 WD I TB drives for games and storage.
 
I looked up the Barracuda 7200.14 3TB - and it clearly states it is a desktop drive. Too often companies live with lower end drives, and then just live with failures as if they are a part for business. Try using a enterprise or NAS rated drives. Investment up front is more, but you reap the benefits later.
 
G

Guest

This data doesn't mean much. I had a 3 TB drive for about 10 years now. The only differences I added a fan on top of it where the electronics board sits says who the top of the bottom Benz and I install it. All is Elizabeth use that dries performance or temperature about 10° which is sufficient enough to make the drive last a very long so mind you it doesn't matter what kind of manufacture is if you reduce the temperature is it for drive just by 10° can make it last a lot longer
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,362   +653
That checks out. I have had WD, Segate, and Samsung and Segate alway, ALWAYS, died first. That doesnt mean that all their series are bad. But I would only buy Segate hdd if I felt extremely lucky, which I am not.
 

EEatGDL

Posts: 762   +483
I had a 1TB Seagate HDD which failed -to the degree of no capacity reported to the BIOS- after 14 months; replaced it with a 3TB Seagate HDD; already expecting a high possibility of failure again, but it was the cheapest by far and it was an emergency buy. A year has passed and everything seems still fine, but now that I'm working I have saved money for immediate replacement for a good one or if it's up and running by then: buy a 6TB HDD by november of this year [that is planned since last year].
 

Scshadow

Posts: 625   +266
I never misinterpreted it at all, if you read my remarks again you'll likely notice the sarcasm and cynicism in them.
As much as I like sarcasm and cynicism, its best to remain dedicated to being either serious or sarcastic for a whole post. Unless it was sarcastic that "my 480 GB SSD and portable 1GB GB HDD coupled with a 32 GB pen drive are more than sufficient for all my storage needs." The change in tone from serious does not lend itself to sarcasm. Better yet, capitalization for emphasis on syllables that would vocally be pronounced with an inflection of the voice would also indicate sarcasm. PLEASE treat the art form of sarcasm with a little bit more respect. :p
 

IAMTHESTIG

Posts: 1,868   +900
Hmmm... interesting data. I must say out of the 21 Seagate 3 TB drives I have, I've had 4 failed drives already, 3 of which were JUST out of warranty. Glad to see their 4's are better though.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,307   +5,097
Well, I'm not agreeing with or disputing the data, but you have to admit it seems counter intuitive.

After, what is a Seagate 3TB drive, if not simply 3 1TB platters stacked?

If you want to speculate what is "logical", the failure rates should escalate for each platter added. After all, with each extra platter comes an extra read/write head. Again, logic says the 4TB drives should suffer the highest failure, since they have the most moving parts, and ostensibly operate at the highest temp.

Given that I'm still not completely convinced "Back Blaze", is the alpha and omega source for drive reliability stats, they are starting to scare me away from Seagate. When I have my druthers, I buy WD Blacks. But some of the prices you see an Seagate drives are hard to ignore.

If you go in for checking Newegg reviews for HDDs, it starts to appear that every drive on the market sucks, with the exception of WD Velociraptors, Which I've started using using as the "C:/" drive in my most recent build.

(But remember kidz, "most recent", probably carries. an entirely different meaning for me, than for y'all).

FWIW, the WD "Caviar Blue", (160GB SATA 150), that came with my eMachines will be 10 years old in less than a month, and it's still spinning strong.
 
Last edited: