“The two models, the 30TB … and the 32TB …, each offer a minimum of 3TB per disk”. Well, yes, I would hope something advertised as being 30TB would offer at least 3TB. Am I misreading this sentence somehow?
They probably mean the hard drive has 10 platters, each containing at least 3TB.
Haven’t bought Seagate in 15 years. They improve their longevity?
https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive-test-data
Backblaze reports are cool
I have one Seagate drive. It’s a 500 GB that came in my 2006 Dell Dimension E510 running XP Media Center. When that died in 2011, I put it in my custom build. It ran until probably 2014, when suddenly I was having issues booting and I got a fresh WD 1 TB. Put it in a box, and kept it for some reason. Fast forward to 2022, I got another Dell E510 with only an 80 GB. Dusted off the old 500 GB and popped it in. Back with XP Media Center. The cycle is complete. That drive is still noisy as fuck.
Not worth the risk for me to find out lol. My granddaddy stored his data on WD drives and his daddy before him, and my daddy after him. Now I store my data on WD drives and my son will to one day. Such is life.
And here I am with HGST drives hitting 50k hours
Edit: no one ever discusses the Backblaze reliability statistics. Its interesting to see how they stack up against the anecdotes.
Vastly. I’m running all seagate ironwolf pros. Best drives Ive ever used.
Used to be WD all the way.
whoa
Dude
Seagate. The company that sold me an HDD which broke down two days after the warranty expired.
No thanks.
laughing in Western Digital HDD running for about 10 years nowWestern digital so good
Had the same experience and opinion for years, they do fine on Backblaze’s drive stats but don’t know that I’ll ever super trust them just 'cus.
That said, the current home server has a mix of drives from different manufacturers including seagate to hopefully mitigate the chances that more than one fails at a time.
I currently have an 8 year old Seagate external 4TB drive. Should I be concerned?
Funny because I have a box of Seagate consumer drives recovered from systems going to recycling that just won’t quit. And my experience with WD drives is the same as your experience with Seagate.
Edit: now that I think about it, my WD experience is from many years ago. But the Seagate drives I have are not new either.
Survivorship bias. Obviously the ones that survived their users long enough to go to recycling would last longer than those that crap out right away and need to be replaced before the end of the life of the whole system.
I mean, obviously the whole thing is biased, if objective stats state that neither is particularly more prone to failure than the other, it’s just people who used a different brand once and had it fail. Which happens sometimes.
Ah I wasn’t thinking about that. I got the scrappy spinny bois.
I’m fairly sure me and my friends had a bad batch of Western digitals too.
Did you buy consumer Barracuda?
I had the opposite experience. My Seagates have been running for over a decade now. The one time I went with Western Digital, both drives crapped out in a few years.
I have 10 year old WDs and 8 year old Seagates still kicking. Depends on the year. Some years one is better than others.
Heck yeah.
Always a fan of more storage. Speed isn’t everything!
HP servers have more fans!
Good. However, 2 x 16TB Seagate HDDs still cheaper, isn’t it?
These drives aren’t for people who care how much they cost, they’re for people who have a server with 16 drive bays and need to double the amount of storage they had in them.
(Enterprise gear is neat: it doesn’t matter what it costs, someone will pay whatever you ask because someone somewhere desperately needs to replace 16tb drives with 32tb ones.)
In addition to needing to fit it into the gear you have on hand, you may also have limitations in rack space (the data center you’re in may literally be full), or your power budget.
How many platters?!
30 to 32 platters. You can write a file on the edge and watch it as it speeds back to the future!
Great, can’t wait to afford one in 2050.
Fleebay? Yup, me too!
$4.99 for the drive plus $399.00 s&h
That’s good, really good news, to see that HDDs are still being manufactured and being thought of. Because I’m having a serious problem trying to find a new 2.5’ HDD for my old laptop here in Brazil. I can quickly find SSDs across the Brazilian online marketplaces, and they’re not much expensive, but I’m intending on purchasing a mechanical one because SSDs won’t hold data for much longer compared to HDDs, but there are so few HDD for sale, and those I could find aren’t brand-new.
Dude i had a 240 gb ssd 14 years old. And the SMART is telling me that has 84% life yet. This was a main OS drive and was formatted multiple times. Literally data is going to be discontinued before this disk is going to die. Stop spreading fake news. Realistically how many times you fill a SSD in a typical scenario?
As per my previous comment, I had
/var,/var/log,/home/me/.cache, among many other frequently written directories on the SSD since 2019. SSDs have fewer write cycles than HDDs, it’s not “fake news”.“However, SSDs are generally more expensive on a per-gigabyte basis and have a finite number of write cycles, which can lead to data loss over time.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive)
I’m not really sure why exactly mine it’s coil whining, it happens occasionally and nothing else happens aside from the high-pitched sound, but it’s coil whining.
How the hell a SSD can coil whine… Without mobile parts lol… Second, realistically for a normal user, it’s probable that SSD is going to last more than 10 years. We aren’t talking about intensive data servers here. We are talking about The hardcorest of the gamers for example, normal people. And of course, to begin with HDDs haven’t a write limit lol. They fail because of its mechanical parts. Finally, cost benefit. The M.2 I was suggesting is $200 buck for 4Tb. Cmon it’s not the end of the world and you multiply speeds… By 700…
How the hell a SSD can coil whine… Without mobile parts lol…
Do you even know what “coil whine” is? It has nothing to do with moving parts! “Coil whine” is a physical phenomenon which happens when electrical current makes an electronic component, such as an inductor, to slightly vibrate, emitting a high-pitched sound. It’s a well-known phenomenon for graphic cards (whose only moving part is the cooler, not the source of their coil whinings). SSDs aren’t supposed to make coil whines, and that’s why I’m worried about the health of mine.
Finally, cost benefit. The M.2 I was suggesting is $200 buck for 4Tb. Cmon it’s not the end of the world and you multiply speeds… By 700…
I’m not USian so pricing and cost benefits may differ. Also, the thing is that I already have another SSD, a 240G SSD. I don’t need to buy another one, I just need a HDD which is what I said in my first comment. Just it: a personal preference, a personal opinion regarding personal experiences and that’s all. The only statement I said beyond personal opinions was regarding the life span which I meant the write rate thing. But that’s it: personal opinion, no need for ranting about it.
SSDs won’t hold data for much longer compared to HDDs
Realistically this is not a good reason to select SSD over HDD. If your data is important it’s being backed up (and if it’s not backed up it’s not important. Yada yada 3.2.1 backups and all. I’ll happily give real backup advise if you need it)
In my anecdotal experience across both my family’s various computers and computers I’ve seen bite the dust at work, I’ve not observed any longevity difference between HDDs and SSDs (in fact I’ve only seen 2 fail and those were front desk PCs that were effectively always on 24/7 with heavy use during all lobby hours, and that was after multiple years of that usecase) and I’ve never observed bit rot in the real world on anything other than crappy flashdrives and SD cards (literally the lowest quality flash you can get)
Honestly best way to look at it is to select based on your usecase. Always have your boot device be an SSD, and if you don’t need more storage on that computer than you feel like buying an SSD to match, don’t even worry about a HDD for that device. HDDs have one usecase only these days: bulk storage for comparatively low cost per GB
I replaced my laptop’s DVD drive with a HDD caddy adapter, so it supports two drives instead of just one. Then, I installed a 120G SSD alongside with a 500G HDD, with the HDD being connected through the caddy adapter. The entire Linux installation on this laptop was done in 2019 and, since then, I never reinstalled nor replaced the drives.
But sometimes I hear what seems to be a “coil whine” (a short high pitched sound) coming from where the SSD is, so I guess that its end is near. I have another SSD (240G) I bought a few years ago, waiting to be installed but I’m waiting to get another HDD (1TB or 2TB) in order to make another installation, because the HDD was reused from another laptop I had (therefore, it’s really old by now, although I had no I/O errors nor “coil whinings” yet).
Back when I installed the current Linux, I mistakenly placed
/varand/home(and consequently,/home/me/.cacheand/home/me/.config, both folders of which have high write rates because I use KDE Plasma) on the SSD. As the years passed by, I realized it was a mistake but I never had the courage to relocate things, so I did some “creative solutions” (“gambiarra”) such as creating a symlinked folder for.cacheand.config, pointing them to another folder within the HDD.As for backup, while I have three old spare HDDs holding the same old data (so it’s a redundant backup), there are so many (hundreds of GBs) new things I both produced and downloaded that I’d need lots of room to better organize all the files, finding out what is not needed anymore and renewing my backups. That’s why I was looking for either 1TB or 2TB HDDs, as brand-new as possible (also, I’m intending to tinker more with things such as data science after a fresh new installation of Linux). It’s not a thing that I’m really in a hurry to do, though.
Edit: and those old spare HDDs are 3.5" so they wouldn’t fit the laptop.
I doubt the high pitched whine that you’re hearing is the SSD failing. The sheer amount of writes to fully wear out an SSD is…honestly difficult to achieve in the real world. I’ve got decade old budget SSDs in some of my computers that are still going strong!
Everybody taking shit about Seagate here. Meanwhile I’ve never had a hard drive die on me. Eventually the capacity just became too little to keep around and I got bigger ones.
Oldest I’m using right now is a decade old, Seagate. Actually, all the HDDs are Seagate. The SSDs are Samsung. Granted, my OS is on an SSD, as well as my most used things, so the HDDs don’t actually get hit all that much.
I had 3 drives from seagate (including 1 enterprise) that died or got file-corruption issues when I gave up and switched to SSDs entirely…
Yeah, same. I switched to seagate after 3 WD drives failed in less then 3 years. Never had problems since.
I’ve had a Samsung SSD die on me, I’ve had many WD drives die on me (also the last drive I’ve had die was a WD drive), I’ve had many Seagate drives die on me.
Buy enough drives, have them for a long enough time, and they will die.
Seagate had some bad luck with their 3TB drives about 15 years ago now if memory serves me correctly.
Since then Western Digital (the only other remaining HDD manufacturer) pulled some shenanigans with not correctly labeling different technologies in use on their NAS drives that directly impacted their practicality and performance in NAS applications (the performance issues were particularly agregious when used in a zfs pool)
So basically pick your poison. Hard to predict which of the duopoly will do something unworthy of trusting your data upon, so uh…check your backups I guess?
Had good impressions and experiences with Toshiba drives. Chugged along quiet nicely.
Yeah our file server has 17 Toshiba drives in the 10/14 TiB sizes ranging from 2-4 years of power-on age and zero failures so far (touch wood).
Of our 6 Seagate drives (10 TiB), 3 of them died in the 2-4 year age range, but one is still alive 6 years later.
We’re in Japan and Toshiba is by far the cheapest here (and have the best support - they have advance replacement on regular NAS drives whereas Seagate takes 2 weeks replacement to ship to and from a support center in China!) so we’ll continue buying them.
Ah I thought I had remembered their hard drive division being aquired but I was wrong! Per Wikipedia:
At least 218 companies have manufactured hard disk drives (HDDs) since 1956. Most of that industry has vanished through bankruptcy or mergers and acquisitions. None of the first several entrants (including IBM, who invented the HDD) continue in the industry today. Only three manufacturers have survived—Seagate, Toshiba and Western Digital
That decade old one is 3TB. 😅
Unfortunately, I have about 10 dead 3TB drives sitting around in my closet. I took the sacrifice so you don’t have to :-)
at least you have a bunch of nice coasters and cool magnets now.
Thanks. 👍
These things are unreliable, I had 3 seagate HDDs in a row fail on me. Never had an issue with SSDs and never looked back.
Seagate in general are unreliable in my own anecdotal experience. Every Seagate I’ve owned has died in less than five years. I couldn’t give you an estimate on the average failure age of my WD drives because it never happened before they were retired due to obsolescence. It was over a decade regularly though.
well until you need capacity why not use an SSD. It’s basically mandatory for the operating system drive too
Capacity for what?. There are 4tb SSD m.2 costing $200 bucks cmon…
I would rather not buy so large SSDs. for most stuff the performance advantage is useless while the price is much larger, and my impression is still that such large SSDs have a shorter lifespan (regarding how many writes will it take to break down). recovering data fron a failing HDD is also easier: SSDs just turn read-only or completely fail at one point, in the latter case often even data recovery companies being unable to recover anything, while HDDs will often give signs that a good monitoring software can detect weeks or months before, so that you know to be more cautious with it
How is it easier? Do you open your HDDs and take info from there? Do you have specialized equipment and knowledge? Second, if you detect on smart that you are closer to TBW, change the SSD duh… Smart is a lot more effective on SSDs depending the model it even gives you time to live…
I mean, cool and all, but call me when sata or m2 ssds are 10TB for $250, then we’ll talk.
Not sure whether we’ll arrive there the tech is definitely entering the taper-out phase of the sigmoid. Capacity might very well still become cheaper, also 3x cheaper, but don’t, in any way, expect them to simultaneously keep up with write performance that ship has long since sailed. The more bits they’re trying to squeeze into a single cell the slower it’s going to get and the price per cell isn’t going to change much, any more, as silicon has hit a price wall, it’s been a while since the newest, smallest node was also the cheapest.
OTOH how often do you write a terabyte in one go at full tilt.
I don’t think anyone has much issue with our current write speeds, even at dinky old SATA 6/GB levels. At least for bulk media storage. Your OS boot or game loading, whatever, maybe not. I’d be just fine with exactly what we have now, but just pack more chips in there.
Even if you take apart one of the biggest, meanest, most expensive 8TB 2.5" SSD’s the casing is mostly empty inside. There’s no reason they couldn’t just add more chips even at the current density levels other than artificial market segmentation, planned obsolescence, and pigheadedness. It seems the major consumer manufacturers refuse to allow their 2.5" SSD’s to get out of parity with the capacities on offer in the M.2 form factor drives that everyone is hyperfixated on for some reason, and the pricing structure between 8TB and what few greater than 8 models actually are on offer is nowhere near linear even though the manufacturing cost roughly should be.
If people are still willing to use a “full size” 3.5" form factor with ordinary hard drives for bulk storage, can you imagine how much solid state storage you could cram into a casing that size, even with current low-cost commodity chips? It’d be tons. But the only options available are “enterprise solutions” which are apparently priced with the expectation you’ll have a Fortune 500 or government expense account.
It’s bullshit all the way down; there’s nothing new under the sun in that regard.
the M.2 form factor drives that everyone is hyperfixated on for some reason
The reason is transfer speeds. SATA is slow, M.2 is a direct PCIe link. And SSDs can saturate it, at least in bursts. Doubling the capacity of a 2.5" SSD is going to double its price as you need twice as many chips, there’s not really a market for 500 buck SATA SSDs, you’re looking for U.2 / U.3 ones. Yes, they’re quite a bit more expensive per TB but look at the difference in TBW to consumer SSDs.
If you’re a consumer and want a data grave, buy spinning platters. Or even a tape drive. You neither want, nor need, a high-capacity SSD.
Also you can always RAID them up.
For the context of bulk consumer storage (or even SOHO NAS) that’s irrelevant, though, because people are already happily using spinning mechanical 3.5" hard drives for this purpose, and they’re all already SATA. Therefore there’s no logical reason to worry about the physical size or slower write speeds of packing a bunch of flash chips into the same sized enclosure for those particular use cases.
There are reasons a big old SSD would be suitable for this. Silence, reliability, no spin up delay, resistance to outside mechanical forces, etc.
cool never will buy another seagate ever though.
Same but western digital, 13gb that failed and lost all my data 3 time and 3rd time was outside the warranty! I had paid 500$, the most expensive thing I had ever bought until tgat day.
Lmao the HDD in the first machine I built in the mid 90s was 1.2GB
Our first computer was a Macintosh Classic with a 40 MB SCSI hard disk. My first “own” computer had a 120 MB drive.
I keep typoing TB as GB when talking about these huge drives, it’s just so weird how these massive capacities are just normal!
I had a 20mb hard drive
I had a 1gb hard drive that weighed like 20 kgs, some 40 odd pounds
Back then that was very impressive!
Yup. My grandpa had 10 MB in his DOS machine back then.
My dad had a 286 with a 40MB hard drive in it. When it spun up it sounded like a plane taking off.
It really was doubling in speed about every 18 months.
My 286er had 2MB RAM and no hard drive, just two 5.25" floppy drives. One to boot the OS from, the other for storage and software.
I upgrade it to 4 MB RAM and bought a 20 MB hard drive, moved EVERY piece of software I had onto it, and it was like 20% full. I sincerely thought that should last forever.
Today I casually send my wife a 10 sec video from the supermarket to choose which yoghurt she wants and that takes up about 25 MB.
I had 128KB of RAM and I loaded my games from tape. And most of those only used 48KB of it.
Yeah we still had an old 8086 with tape drive and all from my dad’s university times around, but I never acutely used that one.
Avoid these like the plague. I made the mistake of buying 2 a couple years ago and have had to RMA them 3 times already.
I stopped buying seagates when I had 4 of their 2TB barracuda drives die within 6 months… constantly was RMAing them. Finally got pissed and sold them and bought WD reds, still got 2 of the reds in my Nas Playing hot backups with nearly 8 years of power time.
They seem to be real hit or miss. I also have 2 6TB barracudas that have 70,000 power on hours (8 yrs) that are still going fine.
“Hit or miss” is unfortunately not good enough for consumer electronics.
It means you’re essentially gambling with bad odds so the business you’re giving money to can get away with cutting corners.
I recently had to send back a Barracuda drive as well. I’m seeing if the Ironwolf drive fares any better.
I have heard good things about their ironwolf drives, but that’s a enterprise solution drive, so hopefully it’s worth it
I have several WDs with almost 15 years of power on time, not a single failure. Whereas my work bought a bunch of Seagates and our cluster was basically halved after less than 2 years. I have no idea how Seagate can suck so much.
About 10 years ago now, at a past employer, had a NAS setup that housed a bunch of medical data…all seagate drives. During my xmas PTO…I was lead on DR…yea fuckers all started failing one after another. Took out 14 drives before the storage team said fuck this pulled it offline and had a new NAS brought in from EMC, was a fun xmas restoring all that shit. Seagate used to be my go to, but it seems like every single interaction I have with them ends in disaster.
Seagate was my go-to after I had bought those original IBM DeathStars and had to RMA the RMA replacement drive after a few months. But brand loyalty is for suckers. It seemed Seagate had a really bad run after they acquired Maxstor who always had a bad reputation.
Maxstor… that is a name I have not heard in a long time lol
