Which NAS drive would you get?

Discussion in 'SSDs & Data Storage' started by LFaWolf, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:43 PM.

  1. LFaWolf

    LFaWolf Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    251
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017 at 5:50 PM
  2. sinisterDei

    sinisterDei Gawd

    Messages:
    516
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    I prefer the HGST. Their drives have lower overall failure rates on Backblaze's drive reliability reports. It's not enough of a difference to *pay extra* for it, but if they're equal price - heck yeah get the HGST.
     
  3. LFaWolf

    LFaWolf Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    251
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    I saw the Backblaze failure rate of the Seagate drives as well, but those are not the Ironwolf but perhaps the even better Enterprise drives. Do you think the manufacturing process is the same too? I am actually leaning toward the Seagate but the failure rate is quite high, but of course they use a lot of the Seagate drives.
     
  4. Prisicilla

    Prisicilla n00bie

    Messages:
    16
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    I would pick HGST 10TB He drives, if price wasn't a factor.
     
  5. sinisterDei

    sinisterDei Gawd

    Messages:
    516
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    The Seagate failure rates aren't particularly high. They are higher than the HGST when comparing their 4TB units, but Backblaze hasn't bought enough 8TB+ HGST drives to make a valid comparison between the two brands. BB has used almost exclusively Seagate brand drives when purchasing 6TB+ drives, but they've discussed that in the past and it is a matter of pricing and availability to them, not reliability.

    Even when comparing the HGST and Seagate drives at 4TB, where the HGSTs have a lead, the Seagates are still not bad. As of 2017, they have a ~3% annual failure rate on the Seagates and a ~0.5% annual failure rate on the HGSTs. It's better on the HGST for sure, but when you're talking about an array with only 4 drives in it even a single drive failure for either brand would be a statistical anomaly outside of the norms set by the observed failure rates. Plus, those are all for drives that are a few years old, and whose failure rate is likely increasing by the year (the ST4000DM000 was released in late 2012/early 2013 I believe).

    What it comes down to for me is this; the HGST has better average observed failure rates, but only at a scale that none of us here on this forum are likely to witness. Thus, I choose the HGST when all other factors (price) are equal; I'm not willing to pay more $$$ for a statistically negligible lower chance of a drive failure, but if I can get that negligibly lower chance of failure for free I'll do it.
     
    LFaWolf and drescherjm like this.
  6. bigblueshock

    bigblueshock [H]Lite

    Messages:
    69
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2017
    I have a Seagate Ironwolf 8TB. No issues after a year so far (knock on wood)

    HGST if money isn't an issue.

    Not a fan of Western Digital's speed/benchmarks.
     
  7. LFaWolf

    LFaWolf Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    251
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    I guess it is overwhelmingly in favor of the HGST drive. Thanks everyone!