I wondered how many posts it'd take before the digs appeared. Anyone that trusts their data on a single drive (whatever the brand) deserves to lose it :smile: For every drive you own, you should have at least one backup drive for it. I purchased a 4TB Seagate Baracuda drive for my HTPC a few months ago despite all the negative comments toward it because I know any drive can fail at any time, and as long my data is backed up across multiple drives, it doesn't matter if one of them fails..

any good 1TB deals?

I'd be more inclined to say that having an Iron Wolf in my computer would make me feel nervous and vulnerable

Heat. Looking for a 4TB with 7200rpm tho. Any deals around for them?

Anything other than anecdotal evidence to back that up?

I wondered how many posts it'd take before the digs appeared. Anyone that trusts their data on a single drive (whatever the brand) deserves to lose it :smile: For every drive you own, you should have at least one backup drive for it. I purchased a 4TB Seagate Baracuda drive for my HTPC a few months ago despite all the negative comments toward it because I know any drive can fail at any time, and as long my data is backed up across multiple drives, it doesn't matter if one of them fails..

It does matter unless your backups are done in real-time. Even then, refilling a 4TB disk is a right ballache! :smiley:

Not really, just drag a folder over and come back to it later when it's done, I can guarantee it'll take a lot longer to refill if you don't have a backup though :smiley:

Seconding that, I've got Ceph set up (which is admittedly overkill) but it's smart storage so when I lost a drive a few weeks back I didn't even notice until I saw reduced capacity on my network storage. The drive failed, a computer somewhere said "hey I've only got one copy of these chunks of data now" and made more copies. So long as I have space for 2 or 3 copies of all my data I won't lose any when a drive pops.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/

The Seagate drives have some of the highest failure rates. Personally, I stick with HGST drives in my NAS,set up in RAID 6. However, the fact is any drive can go at any time. Multiple backups is the only solution.

On topic, good price for the drive, heat added.

Seagate always comes up with some nice names, but shame that name given does not reflect reliability of their drives.Hot deal :wink:

Look at the 2016 numbers, they've improved immensely. Modern Seagate drives are absolutely fine. Even better than WD.

But you're right HGST is the best but they come at a large premium.

There's also this link. https://www.backblaze.com/hard-drive.html

Good deal, but it's not enough of a jump from the 3TBs I already have. Really really want a deal on some 6TB drives soon.

It's the Seagate st3000 models that gave Seagate a bit of a bad name. They are no worse or better than anyone else now. All drives are prone to failure if there is anything important on there back it up. A lot of people even say not to use hardware RAID 5/6 now due to the potential failure of the RAID card, and rather the use ZFS.

Personally, for media storage, I don't even bother with backup. The data is replaceable. I use Stablebit Scanner to keep an eye on the health of my drives, and backup/replace as and when needed. I'll probably regret that decision when a drive dies unexpectedly, but whatever.

I only backup my drives as I have ripped a lot of Blurays to it, each disk probably took me about 2hrs to rip on my ageing laptop and I have no intention of doing all that again :laughing:

The quality of Seagate's 4GB is not not impressed and it shows true value after warranty is over. I know this one is a new model, but there is a big chance will be similiar to previous 4gbs from Seagate. This is why i bought Toshiba yesteday :wink:

Which Seagate 4GB? The ST4000DM000 or the ST4000DX000? On the face of it, the Toshibas don't seem to do be doing all that well either...

I think the only (fairly) safe takeaway from that table is that the HGST 4TB drives seem to be the most consistently reliable out of all the makes/models monitored. I'd particularly take the smaller sample sizes (less than several hundred) with a pinch of salt, as there's a much greater chance of the results being skewed due to the presence (or absence) of bad batches which are not necessarily representative of that particular make/model as a whole.

Regardless, any hard drive can fail for a variety of reasons, and if your large and eclectic pr0n collection amassed over several years gets lost forever due to a drive failure, it won't be much comfort knowing that the annual failure rate for that model was 0.385% as opposed to 2.731%. Unless the data has no value or can be retrieved from other sources, back it up, it's that simple.