Is this a good hard drive for NAS storage?

[babadoctor]

https://www.amazon.com/HITACHI-Deskstar-7200RPM-Internal-Desktop/dp/B00QMQXSH8/

I want it to last a long time.

My budget is 60$

[babadoctor]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Hitachi... Deathstar?

is hitachi unreliable or something?

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, babadoctor said:

is hitachi unreliable or something?

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/

its a joke 

[babadoctor]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

No, not at all, but I would recommend enterprise no matter what.

I don't have SAS compatibility on my server

its just sata 3

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

It'll be fine, I wouldn't throw a dozen of them in a single system- but a single one, or a few of them for mostly lightweight usage (like you'll be using it for) is perfectly fine.

[babadoctor]

2 minutes ago, Jacktastic-Mofo said:

It'll be fine, I wouldn't throw a dozen of them in a single system- but a single one, or a few of them for mostly lightweight usage (like you'll be using it for) is perfectly fine.

If its running 24/7, would that be lightweight?

by running, i mean it is just on

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

Just now, babadoctor said:

If its running 24/7, would that be lightweight?

by running, i mean it is just on

Yeah, I'm assuming you're not using it for 24/7 loading of files on and off. I've got a nas, 2x1TB HDD"s that are powered on 24/7 for months- they just fetch and store tv shows, and movies for my Plex server, and archives of my multi-media projects.

[manikyath]

just wanna say, if you're planning on using any hard drive for storing data you care about, you should have two of them

[Droidbot]

25 minutes ago, babadoctor said:

is hitachi unreliable or something?

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/

PS backblaze stats are not a good indicator of actual HDD failure rates, as some are tested with 50 units and others with 5000. 

but everybody can agree the 3tb barracuda sucks ass

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

PS backblaze stats are not a good indicator of actual HDD failure rates, as some are tested with 50 units and others with 5000. 

but everybody can agree the 3tb barracuda sucks ass

backblaze has serious faults, but does actually have *some* interesting stats that can come out of it.

(for example if a specific type of drive does really good for a while, and then 60% of the batch clunks out in one test period, that may be some reason for concern about projected lifespan)

 

that said, the 3TB barracuda thing is probably worse than amd/nvidia, windows/mac, android/iphone, or power supply fan up or down.

 

the reviews on my retailer of choice are split about 50/50 between "had it for 6 months and it died. shame." and "had it for 3 months and it still works fine, everyone who says they die are liars"

whereas the pretty much identially priced toshiba 3TB drive has reviews along the lines of "put a big number of these in data storage service, if the raid cards toss the occasional one out, we just end up using it as cold backup"

 

and for everyone yammering about these drives not being made for this kind of workload, if a similarly priced drive is FAR more reliable in the punishment they go trough in a NAS/storage enviroment, imagine how well they'll do in your desktop.

[Droidbot]

8 minutes ago, manikyath said:

backblaze has serious faults, but does actually have *some* interesting stats that can come out of it.

(for example if a specific type of drive does really good for a while, and then 60% of the batch clunks out in one test period, that may be some reason for concern about projected lifespan)

 

that said, the 3TB barracuda thing is probably worse than amd/nvidia, windows/mac, android/iphone, or power supply fan up or down.

 

the reviews on my retailer of choice are split about 50/50 between "had it for 6 months and it died. shame." and "had it for 3 months and it still works fine, everyone who says they die are liars"

whereas the pretty much identially priced toshiba 3TB drive has reviews along the lines of "put a big number of these in data storage service, if the raid cards toss the occasional one out, we just end up using it as cold backup"

 

and for everyone yammering about these drives not being made for this kind of workload, if a similarly priced drive is FAR more reliable in the punishment they go trough in a NAS/storage enviroment, imagine how well they'll do in your desktop.

my dad has a pair of 1.5TB barras that he put in his desktop when he built it ~q1'10. 

one died after 5 years

and the second is showing signs of death now, getting sloooooow. 

 

but that's a testament to their reliability, I guess. 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

my dad has a pair of 1.5TB barras that he put in his desktop when he built it ~q1'10. 

one died after 5 years

and the second is showing signs of death now, getting sloooooow. 

 

but that's a testament to their reliability, I guess. 

seemingly, the barracuda issue is tied to very specificly their 3TB drives, i have a 250GB barracuda (from back when that was still a drive full of platters) that's still going strong.

[KuJoe]

I've used plenty of Hitachi hard drives both in production and for personal use and haven't had any issues with them. All hard drives have risks, they could last minutes or years due to so many different factors. If you want to reduce the risk of hard drive failure then your options are either running a RAID configuration or taking backups of the data at an interval your comfortable with. For example, my personal NASes only have single hard drives in them (DS110j and DS115j) but I'm OK with that because my important data is replicated in real time to multiple locations which means I would need quite a few hard drives to fail at once in order to lose any data, and even then I'd still have a backup of that data that's less than 24 hours old.

[babadoctor]

13 hours ago, KuJoe said:

I've used plenty of Hitachi hard drives both in production and for personal use and haven't had any issues with them. All hard drives have risks, they could last minutes or years due to so many different factors. If you want to reduce the risk of hard drive failure then your options are either running a RAID configuration or taking backups of the data at an interval your comfortable with. For example, my personal NASes only have single hard drives in them (DS110j and DS115j) but I'm OK with that because my important data is replicated in real time to multiple locations which means I would need quite a few hard drives to fail at once in order to lose any data, and even then I'd still have a backup of that data that's less than 24 hours old.

real time backup?

doesn't that make your computer slow...?

[KuJoe]

1 minute ago, babadoctor said:

real time backup?

doesn't that make your computer slow...?

Nope, SSDs are amazing.

[babadoctor]

14 hours ago, manikyath said:

seemingly, the barracuda issue is tied to very specificly their 3TB drives, i have a 250GB barracuda (from back when that was still a drive full of platters) that's still going strong.

i bought a seagate 2tb pipeline HDD and it DIED AFTER 2 MONTHS.

I have bad luck w/ hard drives