Cheapest I can find at the moment. Amazon seem to have put their price up to £112.
15 comments
ssimonian
1 Sep 17#1
Personally not a huge fan of seagate but this is a decent price for their NAS tier drives
kkthomask
1 Sep 17#2
What is NAS?
benoj to kkthomask
1 Sep 17#3
Network attached storage
Houstieboy to kkthomask
1 Sep 17#6
He's a rapper
kkthomask
1 Sep 17#4
thanks dude..this is my enlightenment for this weekend
tan159
1 Sep 17#5
The maker must like x-men. Surprised this drive isn't called Wolverine
ianjw
2 Sep 17#7
I had a couple of Seagate Nas drives that my qnap wouldn't recognise and couldn't initialise. Swapped them for WD and all was fine. Very strange. Seems to have been a few instances of this on the qnap forums.
jamgin
2 Sep 17#8
Would buy just for the name IronWolf. Pity they don't put a picture of a wolf on the drive.
markevans31 to jamgin
2 Sep 17#9
Doh!!!!!
ws007 to markevans31
3 Sep 17#10
Don't mock blind
or stupid :blush:
tightar5e
4 Sep 17#11
We use WD, this isn't because Seagate are better/worse than WD in terms of failure. It's because WD has a better returns process.
When drives do fail or you start getting S.M.A.R.T errors, you can process an RMA, pre-register a credit card, and WD send you a refurbished drive out pretty much that day (takes approx 7 days from registering the RMA to receiving the drive from Netherlands, all in). You then have 4 weeks to return the faulty drive, or you are charged for the drive they sent. It allows you just that little more leeway, in terms of testing stuff/getting data off the faulty drive, to get it up and running, rather than always keep spare drives on hand. Often, it's a case of having a raid array working in degraded state for a few days, but with additional backups elsewhere.
Not great if you need it properly working next day, but it's a lot better than having to return the drive and waiting for a new one, which my last Seagate (it was a Samsung) took nearly a month all in, to receive the replacement. Maybe it's got better but we haven't used Seagate since.
For £17 extra for the WD Red, I prefer that method, other people's mileage might vary, but it's worth knowing how each return experience works, when it comes to the crunch.
Just to add: I have no link to WD, and actually when the ex. HItachi - Toshiba drives are cheaper we buy those, as they have proved the most reliable for us, but on the whole it's been WD.
M0nk3h to tightar5e
4 Sep 17#12
That's understandable. I've heard good and bad things about WD as I have with SGate. Personally, I'm not for the whole brand-wars on HDDs. If it works, it works.
Always had Seagate drives and never had a fail so I've never really experienced what everyone else mentions. Never had to RMA a drive, ever.
malhal to M0nk3h
6 Sep 17#13
One bad thing about them both is they now only make noisy drives:
AAM is no longer available for Seagate and Western Digital drives. In 2008, Seagate removed AAM capabilities from all its drives because Convolve alleged that one of its patents, US Patent No. 6,314,473 covers AAM technology. en.wikipedia.org/wik…ent
myintranet
18 Sep 17#14
Shows at 114.99 for me?
M0nk3h to myintranet
18 Sep 17#15
Then it's most likely expired, you do know this deal was posted over 2 weeks ago? :grin: :neutral_face:
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
15 comments
or stupid :blush:
It's because WD has a better returns process.
When drives do fail or you start getting S.M.A.R.T errors, you can process an RMA, pre-register a credit card, and WD send you a refurbished drive out pretty much that day (takes approx 7 days from registering the RMA to receiving the drive from Netherlands, all in). You then have 4 weeks to return the faulty drive, or you are charged for the drive they sent. It allows you just that little more leeway, in terms of testing stuff/getting data off the faulty drive, to get it up and running, rather than always keep spare drives on hand. Often, it's a case of having a raid array working in degraded state for a few days, but with additional backups elsewhere.
Not great if you need it properly working next day, but it's a lot better than having to return the drive and waiting for a new one, which my last Seagate (it was a Samsung) took nearly a month all in, to receive the replacement. Maybe it's got better but we haven't used Seagate since.
For £17 extra for the WD Red, I prefer that method, other people's mileage might vary, but it's worth knowing how each return experience works, when it comes to the crunch.
Just to add: I have no link to WD, and actually when the ex. HItachi - Toshiba drives are cheaper we buy those, as they have proved the most reliable for us, but on the whole it's been WD.
Always had Seagate drives and never had a fail so I've never really experienced what everyone else mentions. Never had to RMA a drive, ever.
AAM is no longer available for Seagate and Western Digital drives. In 2008, Seagate removed AAM capabilities from all its drives because Convolve alleged that one of its patents, US Patent No. 6,314,473 covers AAM technology.
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ent