for those who are planning on getting a new HDD i urge you to look at these

[themaniac]

so i was doing searching on the internet and came across BackBlaze(from what i understand they are a company that will backup your desired things on your HDD/SSD) and i found 3 articles about HDD failure rates, 2 from BackBlaze and 1 from PCWorld(which is using 1 of the BackBlaze articles), so i decided to share it,

 

BackBlaze articles: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/ and https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/

 

PCWorld: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089464/three-year-27-000-drive-study-reveals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.html

 

TL;DR

 

Hitachi/HGST had the lowest(with the highest being lower than 2%) with Western Digital behind them(with the highest failure rate being at around 6%), and Seagate with the highest(at the lowest it is 7%)

 

so from this it shows that you should get Hitachi since its the safest

 

NOTE: i did not read all of it

[Dabombinable]

so i was doing searching on the internet and came across BackBlaze(from what i understand they are a company that will backup your desired things on your HDD/SSD) and i found 3 articles about HDD failure rates, 2 from BackBlaze and 1 from PCWorld(which is using 1 of the BackBlaze articles), so i decided to share it,

 

BackBlaze articles: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/ and https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/

 

PCWorld: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089464/three-year-27-000-drive-study-reveals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.html

 

TL;DR

 

Hitachi/HGST had the lowest(with the highest being lower than 2%) with Western Digital behind them(with the highest failure rate being at around 6%), and Seagate with the highest(at the lowest it is 7%)

 

so from this it shows that you should get Hitachi since its the safest

 

NOTE: i did not read all of it

 That's old news, and the Seagate U5 series has good reliability-unlike their newer ones in which I've had an 80GB nearly fail, and a 160GB which isn't too far behind (My Seagate ATA IV also is dead with a control board replacement needed)

[Fulgrim]

Pretty sure that backlblaze article was linked/mentioned many times in the past on this forum.

[Nineshadow]

Please not the Blackblaze thing again.

 

It's almost totally irrelevant.

 

They compared 14,803 Seagate 4TB drives to 45 4TB WD drives (among others). HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK?

 

Blackblaze just buys the cheapest storage they can find (often refurbished) , those usually being external Seagate drives from what I can remember.

 

Not to mention the unsuitable conditions for benchmarking HDD's life.

[Clyne]

Your seriously saying use backblaze to see which HDDs that are good?

 http://www.extremetech.com/computing/198154-2014-hard-drive-failure-rates-point-to-clear-winners-and-losers-but-is-the-data-good

The review is bs, they don't use total amount of drivers from each model and judge their failure based on amount of drives it failed.

WD have like 50, Seagate has like 500. They test and review based off that. That's not right, your just testing a smaller batch compared to a higher batch of HDDs.

[Enderman]

these were shown to be false years ago

linus talked about how backblaze benchmarks are BS on the wan show

 

you're a few years behind on current news

[themaniac]

 That's old news, and the Seagate U5 series has good reliability-unlike their newer ones in which I've had an 80GB nearly fail, and a 160GB which isn't too far behind (My Seagate ATA IV also is dead with a control board replacement needed)

ok i just found it thought i'd share

 

Pretty sure that backlblaze article was linked/mentioned many times in the past on this forum.

ok didn't know

Please not the Blackblaze thing again.

 

It's almost totally irrelevant.

sorry i was just searching and i found it

[OddsCrazyStuff]

The only problem with those numbers, is that it dont say how olds the HDD's are.

Having a HDD fail within a year or after several years, makes a big difference.

[themaniac]

Your seriously saying use backblaze to see which HDDs that are good?

 http://www.extremetech.com/computing/198154-2014-hard-drive-failure-rates-point-to-clear-winners-and-losers-but-is-the-data-good

The review is bs, they don't use total amount of drivers from each model and judge their failure based on amount of drives it failed.

WD have like 50, Seagate has like 500. They test and review based off that. That's not right, your just testing a smaller batch compared to a higher batch of HDDs.

no i just found it thought i'd share 

 

these were shown to be false years ago

linus talked about how backblaze benchmarks are BS on the wan show

 

you're a few years behind on current news

ok didn't know

[Albatross]

Regardless of having been shared before, I am surprised to see Hitachi take the lead!

 

edit

 

 

these were shown to be false years ago

linus talked about how backblaze benchmarks are BS on the wan show

 

you're a few years behind on current news

 

Oh.

[Enderman]

no i just found it thought i'd share 

 

ok didn't know

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/109633-january-31st-2014-the-wan-show-document/

[Nineshadow]

Read this article for more on why Blackblaze's HDD test is unreliable : http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

[watts300]

@themaniac I don't understand. Can you include more in your TL;DR summary?

In a long enough time line, ALL drives will fail. 100%. What is the time line the statistics are using for the failure rates you listed?

Three years? Five?