Seagate vs WD dilemma

[MatiasMGS]

Hi, I know this has been asked before a lot, but I wanna see more opinions regarding this. I'm basically between these HDDs:

Seagate Barracuda 1TB and
WD Caviar Blue 1TB

Now, I know the Seagate one is better, but seeing all the reviews in the newegg article, I started getting doubts. Is the failure rate that high? How long will it last? Are the WD more reliable or they both have its risks? Have someone been working with Seagate and can confirm this? Those are my main doubts. I know the Seagate HDD is comparable to the Caviar Blacks, but those are pretty more expensive...

 

[mwroobel]

In general use they will be approximately identical in performance. Depending on your usage patterns, if you have a particular workload that is sensitive to rotational latency (generally small and random) then the Seagate will perform marginally to moderately better. As to reliability, all hard drives die. If you get a lemon, you get it replaced. That is why you have (at least one) backup.

 

[MatiasMGS]

So neither choice is wrong? Does both HDDs have approximately the same failure rate?

 

[tazeat]

If reliability is a concern, get the wd black w/ a 5 year warranty... Either way, backups, backups, backups if you care about your data.

 

[poee]

... Either way, backups, backups, backups if you care about your data.

+1
I'm going to back this post up and print it out.

 

[drescherjm]

If reliability is a concern, get the wd black w/ a 5 year warranty... Either way, backups, backups, backups if you care about your data.

Agreed. It does not matter who the manufacturer is or how reliable a drive is. Any drive can and will die at any time (from the time before it arrives in your hands to its 5 year expected lifetime and beyond) so make sure you always have backups of your important data.

 

[MatiasMGS]

I'll get the Seagate then. WD black is unnecessarily expensive. Thanks guys.

 

[MatiasMGS]

Alright. Due to the terrible reputation Seagate has on the Internet, I decided to put a little more cash and I got the WD Black 1tb OEM. I thought the OEM version had 3 year warranty, but now I checked with the site and turns out I´ve got 5 years, just like retail!

 

[ZodaEX]

Agreed. It does not matter who the manufacturer is or how reliable a drive is. Any drive can and will die at any time (from the time before it arrives in your hands to its 5 year expected lifetime and beyond) so make sure you always have backups of your important data.

It does matter how reliable a drive is. Derp. After the 1-5 year warranty is up then your on your own if the drives breaks down. A more reliable hard drive will more likely last more years thus you save money by not having to possibly buy a new hard drive after 3 years. This has nothing to do with having to back up your data. You have to do that anyways to keep your data secure.

 

[MatiasMGS]

It does matter how reliable a drive is. Derp. After the 1-5 year warranty is up then your on your own if the drives breaks down. A more reliable hard drive will more likely last more years thus you save money by not having to possibly buy a new hard drive ever 3 years. This has nothing to do with having to back up your data. You have to do that anyways to keep your data secure.

Exactly. That's why I bought the WD Black. Of course I'd do backups but if the disk is not reliable, it might not last too long and it would be a waste of money. That's why I was worried about reliability, not because of the backups but for the money. You can't get a more reliable HDD that the WD Black. Already tested it and it's working flawlessly.

 

[odditory]

It does matter how reliable a drive is. Derp. After the 1-5 year warranty is up then your on your own if the drives breaks down. A more reliable hard drive will more likely last more years thus you save money by not having to possibly buy a new hard drive ever 3 years. This has nothing to do with having to back up your data. You have to do that anyways to keep your data secure.

Except what constitutes "more reliable" - who defines it? MTBF rating? No. There's no standardized procedure for coming up with let alone validating that figure - every manufacturer essentially creates their own, which these days seems to be molded by the corporate marketing direction more than anything. Large scale testing? There's no independent authority testing large enough sample sizes to matter (100,000+) and begin to draw any conclusions or assumptions about.

I do know what reliability is not: people on the internet ranting and raving that their drive just died and lost all their data and therefore XYZ sucks and ABC is more reliable. But unfortunately given the lack of more objective and larger scale test data, thats all some people have to go on. Sure there are exceptions, like a sudden massive surge of complaints wherever you go about a particular make/model and it coincides with the findings of most if not all review blogs/sites -- like the catastrophic failures of Sandforce based SSD's past - but those are few and far between.

 

[mwroobel]

Except what constitutes "more reliable" - who defines it? MTBF rating? No. There's no standardized procedure for coming up with let alone validating that figure - every manufacturer essentially creates their own, which these days seems to be molded by the corporate marketing direction more than anything. Large scale testing? There's no independent authority testing large enough sample sizes to matter (100,000+) and begin to draw any conclusions or assumptions about.

I do know what reliability is not: people on the internet ranting and raving that their drive just died and lost all their data and therefore XYZ sucks and ABC is more reliable. But unfortunately given the lack of more objective and larger scale test data, thats all some people have to go on. Sure there are exceptions, like a sudden massive surge of complaints wherever you go about a particular make/model and it coincides with the findings of most if not all review blogs/sites -- like the catastrophic failures of Sandforce based SSD's past - but those are few and far between.

And even if there were a "more reliable" design, you would always be at the mercy of the manufacturing process in which a single grain of dust will obviate any increase in design reliability. My two main mantras are "RAID IS NOT A BACKUP" and "ALL DRIVES FAIL". Don't trust any "more reliable" designations and always have at least one backup (preferably more in disparate locations.) Don't trust a manufacturer giving you an extra year warranty (or charging you significantly more) as meaning the drive will definitely last longer. Take these words to heart and you will sleep better

 

[MatiasMGS]

I just feel more comfortable buying WD, It's simple as that. I am aware that all drives can fail and that there's no proof WD drives have less failure rate than other HDDs. I've been running a WD drive for 4 years, and it's still running perfectly, that's all I know. Why would I change brands now?

 

[lightp2]

Dear OP,

Sometimes, (not always), when in a dilemma, is to have a third opinion.
In this case, maybe you can try Toshiba or else Samsung.

1. Large Scale mechanical Hard Disk manufacturers are down to last few.
2. All of them know exactly what kind of scenario they are in based on economy theories. These include all the necessary basic static and dynamic factors in the very specific industry.
2.1 For example, for enterprise market, they spot 5-year warranty, SAS-interface, fast drive, likely expensive, misc.
3. Exactly how they address the market is however, slightly different than what they know based on economy theories, because there are things beyond the economy theories, even for Economy Noble winners.

Just buy the drive most receptive to you, than let the nature take its course.

Suggestion only. Obviously if you believe you happen to sample a widely known industrial phenomenon with respect to reliability concern for particular model, than it is logical to assess the specific product carefully.

 

[ZodaEX]

Except what constitutes "more reliable" - who defines it? MTBF rating? No. There's no standardized procedure for coming up with let alone validating that figure - every manufacturer essentially creates their own, which these days seems to be molded by the corporate marketing direction more than anything. Large scale testing? There's no independent authority testing large enough sample sizes to matter (100,000+) and begin to draw any conclusions or assumptions about.

I do know what reliability is not: people on the internet ranting and raving that their drive just died and lost all their data and therefore XYZ sucks and ABC is more reliable. But unfortunately given the lack of more objective and larger scale test data, thats all some people have to go on. Sure there are exceptions, like a sudden massive surge of complaints wherever you go about a particular make/model and it coincides with the findings of most if not all review blogs/sites -- like the catastrophic failures of Sandforce based SSD's past - but those are few and far between.

True, you've made a great point.

 

[killian133]

why not get a wd red or black? i personally run 1 seagate and the rest wd. Why you might ask? because partly reviews, partly previous experience with rma. Rma two drives one wd one seagate. Wd cost 8$ to ship and rma. seagate cost 12$ and was sent back unfixed with some kind of excuse. Wd was sent back in the mean time faster and with new drive. So use your own experience. Maybe a lot of these drives would not fail as easy if they used proper packing. 75% of the time i order drives i get good packing but 25% there is just a piece of paper with 2 drives smashing together.. (*#&@!&^#

 

[ziggo0]

why not get a wd red or black? i personally run 1 seagate and the rest wd. Why you might ask? because partly reviews, partly previous experience with rma. Rma two drives one wd one seagate. Wd cost 8$ to ship and rma. seagate cost 12$ and was sent back unfixed with some kind of excuse. Wd was sent back in the mean time faster and with new drive. So use your own experience. Maybe a lot of these drives would not fail as easy if they used proper packing. 75% of the time i order drives i get good packing but 25% there is just a piece of paper with 2 drives smashing together.. (*#&@!&^#

I've never been sent drives with packaging like that. That doesn't discredit the carrier though, I've had UPS bounce packages off my front door with me watching, no surprise the drive was dead when installed.

Like everyone has noted before, there are reviews and personal experience, complaints galore that these drives are shit and these are made of solid gold. My experience with Seagate and WD has both been sour. WD more so than Seagate, but that's just with their GREEN drives. I've had 13 fail in 2 years (2tb, large raid6 array) - maybe it was my usage, temp, or sheer shit luck - I've had countless Seagate drives fail as well as last a lot longer than they should have (7200rpm 250gb has 13 reallocated sectors, over 50k power on hours still chuggin along).

 

[killian133]

I've never been sent drives with packaging like that. That doesn't discredit the carrier though, I've had UPS bounce packages off my front door with me watching, no surprise the drive was dead when installed.

Like everyone has noted before, there are reviews and personal experience, complaints galore that these drives are shit and these are made of solid gold. My experience with Seagate and WD has both been sour. WD more so than Seagate, but that's just with their GREEN drives. I've had 13 fail in 2 years (2tb, large raid6 array) - maybe it was my usage, temp, or sheer shit luck - I've had countless Seagate drives fail as well as last a lot longer than they should have (7200rpm 250gb has 13 reallocated sectors, over 50k power on hours still chuggin along).

Back in the year 2000 i wouldn't touch a WD drive and had bad experience with the 20gb and 40gb ide drives i had bought. After wd came out with 640gb drives i have been purchasing wd black 640-1tb for purely the 5 year warranty and great speed reviews at first, then it was because of reliability after i started using them.The fact the warranty is longer and rma is quicker/ cheaper if even have to is also bonus no brainier. if you live on the east coast the rma prices might be opposite.

 

[ziggo0]

^^I can say this about WD - their RMA service is painless and quick. I pay roughly $15 to ship a drive from Indiana via UPS, but 2 drives at $15.85 (last time). It's not that bad I guess, my problem with having to RMA a dead drive is it's just fucking annoying. If I get 2 years of no bullshit out of a drive I don't care how it dies I'm happy. But this 1 week 1 month shit gets irritating. Hitting a giant raid array for rebuilds/resyncs constantly puts down a lot of wear on other drives which could exasterbate other drives with weak heads or something else.

 

[[H]ero]

I have a friend who owns a lan shop and he is using a WD, he is happy with it. I used to own a lan shop and was using Seagate drives, I am happy with it... 6 years later and it is ready for retirement next week. I will go buy 2 2TB seagate HDD next week, not because they are better, but because I was happy with my old seagate hdds.