Buying separate drives or buying 1 altogether?

[Rhaemond]

I can buy 3 separate 1tb WD blacks or 1 4tb WD Black... What would be the bettion option? Would only 1 be reliable enough for all my storage? 

[Enderman]

Yeah it's safe, just get 1.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Id get one big drive.

 

Keep backups and your data is safe. 

 

Id probably get those 8tb externals instead. There about the same price and faster and have much more space than the 4tb wd black.

[Rhaemond]

13 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Yeah it's safe, just get 1.

How so? 

13 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Id get one big drive.

 

Keep backups and your data is safe. 

 

Id probably get those 8tb externals instead. There about the same price and faster and have much more space than the 4tb wd black.

Yea pretty much for storage reasons. I keep heavy games on the SSD, then I store light games on my HDDs. I don't think I can afford an 8tb external drive though, but a 4tb WD Black is fast though, right? 

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, Rhaemond said:

Yea pretty much for storage reasons. I keep heavy games on the SSD, then I store light games on my HDDs. I don't think I can afford an 8tb external drive though, but a 4tb WD Black is fast though, right? 

THe 8tb externals are pretty cheap.  https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Desktop-Hard-Drive-WDBWLG0080HBK-NESN/dp/B07D5V2ZXD/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=8tb&qid=1560489930&s=gateway&sr=8-3 Probably about the same price as that 4tb black.

[Enderman]

57 minutes ago, Rhaemond said:

How so? 

Because it's a hard drive, it's meant to be used for storage. Manufacturers don't expect people to buy 8 of them and put them in secure raid arrays, it's perfectly safe to use it on its own.

If you are concerned about data loss then get a second one and use it for backups.

 

Using 3 drives just multiplies your chances of data loss by 3x.

[Spotty]

3 hours ago, Rhaemond said:

I can buy 3 separate 1tb WD blacks or 1 4tb WD Black... What would be the bettion option? Would only 1 be reliable enough for all my storage? 

Why WD Blacks? They're quite expensive for HDDs.

Looking at prices on Newegg...
1TB WD blacks are $62 each. $186 for 3x1TB WD Blacks.
4TB WD Blacks are $165

 

WD Blue 3TB are $80 each
You could buy 2x WD Blue 3TBs and use one drive as a backup for less than the cost of either the 3x1TB WD Blacks or 1x4TB WD Black

 

Edit:

I notice in your system specs you don't list an SSD. You should definitely grab an SSD for your OS drive. Much, much faster than any HDD.

You could get this for the same price as the 3x1TB WD Blacks.

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
Storage	Crucial - MX500 250 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive	$35.99 @ Amazon
Storage	Seagate - Barracuda 3 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	$74.99 @ Amazon
Storage	Seagate - Barracuda 3 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	$74.99 @ Amazon
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	$185.97
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-06-14 03:50 EDT-0400

Edited June 14, 2019 by Spotty

[Lady Fitzgerald]

21 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Why WD Blacks? They're quite expensive for HDDs.

Looking at prices on Newegg...
1TB WD blacks are $62 each. $186 for 3x1TB WD Blacks.
4TB WD Blacks are $165

 

WD Blue 3TB are $80 each
You could buy 2x WD Blue 3TBs and use one drive as a backup for less than the cost of either the 3x1TB WD Blacks or 1x4TB WD Black

 

Edit:

I notice in your system specs you don't list an SSD. You should definitely grab an SSD for your OS drive. Much, much faster than any HDD.

You could get this for the same price as the 3x1TB WD Blacks.

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
Storage	Crucial - MX500 250 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive	$35.99 @ Amazon
Storage	Seagate - Barracuda 3 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	$74.99 @ Amazon
Storage	Seagate - Barracuda 3 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	$74.99 @ Amazon
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	$185.97
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-06-14 03:50 EDT-0400

The Blues are slower drives (only the old Blues up to 1TB were 7200rpm; the current ones are 5400rpm). They have only a two year warranty whereas the Blacks have a five year warranty. 

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

5 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

They have only a two year warranty whereas the Blacks have a five year warranty. 

warranty doesnt cover data loss

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

The Blues are slower drives (only the old Blues up to 1TB were 7200rpm; the current ones are 5400rpm). They have only a two year warranty whereas the Blacks have a five year warranty. 

While you're correct, I don't necessarily see the value in it. Especially not enough to justify the cost of the WD Blacks.

It's a HDD. They're all slow.

If you really want 7200RPM drives then get the Seagate Barracuda 3TBs then, they're $5 cheaper than the WD Blues anyway.

You could buy a WD Blue/Seagate Barracuda 4TB drive plus an SSD/Optane to use as cache for less than the cost of the WD Black 4TB.

As far as warranty goes, you can buy two of the WD Blues/Seagate Barracudas for the cost of the WD Blacks. Mirror the drives and if one fails outside of warranty period just chuck it out. The added benefit of this is if a drive does fail you don't lose your data.

The Seagate Barracuda Pro drives cost the same as the WD Blacks, come with a 5 year warranty and come with 2 years of data recovery service included (afaik the WD Black doesn't come with data recovery included?).

 

I'm sorry, but I've yet to find a reason to justify the cost of the WD Blacks. They just seem a relic of 10+ years ago when having a "performance" HDD actually meant something.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

4 hours ago, Spotty said:

While you're correct, I don't necessarily see the value in it. Especially not enough to justify the cost of the WD Blacks.

It's a HDD. They're all slow.

If you really want 7200RPM drives then get the Seagate Barracuda 3TBs then, they're $5 cheaper than the WD Blues anyway.

You could buy a WD Blue/Seagate Barracuda 4TB drive plus an SSD/Optane to use as cache for less than the cost of the WD Black 4TB.

As far as warranty goes, you can buy two of the WD Blues/Seagate Barracudas for the cost of the WD Blacks. Mirror the drives and if one fails outside of warranty period just chuck it out. The added benefit of this is if a drive does fail you don't lose your data.

The Seagate Barracuda Pro drives cost the same as the WD Blacks, come with a 5 year warranty and come with 2 years of data recovery service included (afaik the WD Black doesn't come with data recovery included?).

 

I'm sorry, but I've yet to find a reason to justify the cost of the WD Blacks. They just seem a relic of 10+ years ago when having a "performance" HDD actually meant something.

WD Blacks may be a relic but they were, and still are, very reliable. Their customer service when making a warranty claim is superior to Seagate.

 

Having a drive that is more durable is desirable to reduce the chances of data loss and the inconvenience of having to replace the drive more frequently. The Blacks are definitely more durable than the Blues and the longer warranty period of the Blacks means you are far less likely to have to deal with shelling out for a replacement for a drive that has failed out of warranty. If you had a lot of money, would it be safer under your mattress or in a bank?

 

Seagate's data recovery is a joke in that only an idiot would depend on data recovery to protect their data. Any drive is subject to sudden, irrecoverable data loss with no warning. Seagate's data recovery will not help if that happens, especially since I doubt it would go any further than simple software based recovery, not any recovery requiring the use of a clean room. At best, data recovery is a hit or miss proposition.

 

RAID is NOT a backup, including mirroring (RAID 1). All RAID (or any other kind of redundancy) protects against is drive failure (up to the point of failure tolerance) and allows for continuous operation in the case of drive failure withing the failure tolerance. There are far more ways to lose data than drive failure, such as user error (accidental deletion; in a mirror, an accidentally deleted file will be deleted on both drives), theft, flood, fire, accidental damage (such as the cat or dog knocks over the computer while it is running), power line surge that blows through any surge protection you might have, a blown PSU fries everything in the computer, viruses and other malware, etc.

 

The only way to ensure the safety of one's data is for it to exist in three, separate places (a mirror or any other from of redundancy is still just one place). This is typically on a computer, on an onsite backup drive, and on an offsite backup drive. For a backup drive to be a true backup drive, it MUST be kept powered down, disconnected from the computer, and stored away from the computer except while updating the backup.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

5 hours ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

warranty doesnt cover data loss

No but neither does data recovery. It is hit or miss at best.

[Spotty]

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

RAID is NOT a backup, including mirroring (RAID 1). All RAID (or any other kind of redundancy) protects against is drive failure (up to the point of failure tolerance) and allows for continuous operation in the case of drive failure withing the failure tolerance. There are far more ways to lose data than drive failure, such as user error (accidental deletion; in a mirror, an accidentally deleted file will be deleted on both drives), theft, flood, fire, accidental damage (such as the cat or dog knocks over the computer while it is running), power line surge that blows through any surge protection you might have, a blown PSU fries everything in the computer, viruses and other malware, etc.

 

The only way to ensure the safety of one's data is for it to exist in three, separate places (a mirror or any other from of redundancy is still just one place). This is typically on a computer, on an onsite backup drive, and on an offsite backup drive. For a backup drive to be a true backup drive, it MUST be kept powered down, disconnected from the computer, and stored away from the computer except while updating the backup.

I never said that RAID was a back up. I never claimed that your data would be able to survive theft, flood, fire, malware, etc if you put it in a RAID. I know exactly what RAID is and isn't. The point I was making is you could buy two drives for the price of 1 WD Black and if one drive does fail you could just chuck it out. "Mirror" was perhaps a poor choice of words, as I was not specifically referring to just RAID1, rather any form of creating an identical back up of the primary drive on the second - including creating a back up copy and storing it off site and offline if you require that level of data protection.
 

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

WD Blacks may be a relic but they were, and still are, very reliable. Their customer service when making a warranty claim is superior to Seagate.

 

Having a drive that is more durable is desirable to reduce the chances of data loss and the inconvenience of having to replace the drive more frequently. The Blacks are definitely more durable than the Blues and the longer warranty period of the Blacks means you are far less likely to have to deal with shelling out for a replacement for a drive that has failed out of warranty. If you had a lot of money, would it be safer under your mattress or in a bank? 

Drive reliability does not protect your data. Drive reliability does not protect against theft, flood, fire, malware, accidental deletion, etc.
Besides, as you said...

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Any drive is subject to sudden, irrecoverable data loss with no warning. 

That applies to the WD Black as well, no matter how reliable the drive may be, how long its warranty period is or how good you think WD's customer service is. It can still fail.

 

You're contradicting yourself.
You're saying that in order for your data to be safe you need to store it in 3 places and keep it offline and off site and that there are risks to data such as fire, theft, flood, accidental deletion, malware, etc... However, at the same time you're defending using a single WD Black because the drive is according to you more reliable and has a longer warranty period. That doesn't make any sense.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

I never said that RAID was a back up. I never claimed that your data would be able to survive theft, flood, fire, malware, etc if you put it in a RAID. I know exactly what RAID is and isn't. The point I was making is you could buy two drives for the price of 1 WD Black and if one drive does fail you could just chuck it out. "Mirror" was perhaps a poor choice of words, as I was not specifically referring to just RAID1, rather any form of creating an identical back up of the primary drive on the second - including creating a back up copy and storing it off site and offline if you require that level of data protection.
 

Drive reliability does not protect your data. Drive reliability does not protect against theft, flood, fire, malware, accidental deletion, etc.
Besides, as you said...

That applies to the WD Black as well, no matter how reliable the drive may be, how long its warranty period is or how good you think WD's customer service is. It can still fail.

 

You're contradicting yourself.
You're saying that in order for your data to be safe you need to store it in 3 places and keep it offline and off site and that there are risks to data such as fire, theft, flood, accidental deletion, malware, etc... However, at the same time you're defending using a single WD Black because the drive is according to you more reliable and has a longer warranty period. That doesn't make any sense.

Alright, buster, stop putting words in my mouth and twisting them around! I never said to use only one drive nor did I say that a better drive negated the need for data to exist in three places. Of course, whether you use a Black or a Blue in the computer, you will still need need actual backup drives. Your statement made it appear like you were advocating RAID 1 as a backup, especially since you did not actually recommend using backups. I never said that a more durable drive would protect you from data loss; I said it reduces the chances of data loss. One can lose data between the time it is put on the drive and when it gets backed up if the drive fails before you can update the backup. Using a more durable drive reduces that chance. Also, the inconvenience and hassle of replacing a drive is reduced when using a drive that is less likely to die prematurely.

 

One thing I did not outright mention, although I implied it, was that drives with longer warranties are far more likely to last longer than ones with shorter warranties. Also your math doesn't add up when it comes to what you spend for two 2 year drives vs. a single 5 year drive. Two WD Blues cost a little more than a single WD Black, have only a total of four years of warranty, if you buy them one after the other (it's still only two years if using two Blues simultaneously) instead of the Black's five year warranty.

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Alright, buster, stop putting words in my mouth and twisting them around! I never said to use only one drive nor did I say that a better drive negated the need for data to exist in three places. Of course, whether you use a Black or a Blue in the computer, you will still need need actual backup drives.

 

15 hours ago, Rhaemond said:

I can buy 3 separate 1tb WD blacks or 1 4tb WD Black... What would be the bettion option? Would only 1 be reliable enough for all my storage? 

They want at least 3TB of storage (current WD Black models are 1TB, 2TB, 4TB, 6TB) and judging by the prices of the drives they've mentioned, they are looking to spend up to $185 (the cost of 3x 1TB WD Blacks).

What is being discussed here is the best configuration that will give them the best reliability and are asking if buying separate drives or buying a single large drive is better. My suggestion is that they could have their cake and eat it too by buying multiple larger capacity drives that are cheaper than the WD Blacks and still deliver the capacity they require (at least 3TB) while remaining within budget.
Assuming the price of the parts they are looking at is how much they are willing to spend (up to $185) it's not possible to buy a WD Black 4TB + additional HDDs to use as back ups, so in this situation the OP has the option of either a single WD Black 4TB or choosing a cheaper model drive and getting multiple drives.

I'm happy to debate all day if it means helping the OP get different opinions and thoughts that can help them make a more informed decision, however it's pointless arguing what is the most reliable without taking in to consideration OPs requirements and budget. Otherwise you may as well suggest using SSDs to minimise risk of mechanical failure as well as multiple backups kept both locally and in multiple off site locations with cloud storage and regular tape backups.

 

@Lady Fitzgerald You have $185 to spend to get 3TB of storage that is reliable and safe. The option is single WD Black 4TB with no back ups or multiple WD Blues/Barracudas 3TB/4TB drives with one used as a backup drive. The WD Black 4TB + back up drive is not an option within the budget.
Which would you choose; the single WD Black without a backup or the multiple cheaper drives with a backup?

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Spotty

[Rhaemond]

On 6/14/2019 at 3:44 PM, Spotty said:

Why WD Blacks? They're quite expensive for HDDs.

Looking at prices on Newegg...
1TB WD blacks are $62 each. $186 for 3x1TB WD Blacks.
4TB WD Blacks are $165

 

WD Blue 3TB are $80 each
You could buy 2x WD Blue 3TBs and use one drive as a backup for less than the cost of either the 3x1TB WD Blacks or 1x4TB WD Black

 

Edit:

I notice in your system specs you don't list an SSD. You should definitely grab an SSD for your OS drive. Much, much faster than any HDD.

You could get this for the same price as the 3x1TB WD Blacks.

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
Storage	Crucial - MX500 250 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive	$35.99 @ Amazon
Storage	Seagate - Barracuda 3 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	$74.99 @ Amazon
Storage	Seagate - Barracuda 3 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	$74.99 @ Amazon
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	$185.97
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-06-14 03:50 EDT-0400

 

On 6/15/2019 at 3:06 AM, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Alright, buster, stop putting words in my mouth and twisting them around! I never said to use only one drive nor did I say that a better drive negated the need for data to exist in three places. Of course, whether you use a Black or a Blue in the computer, you will still need need actual backup drives. Your statement made it appear like you were advocating RAID 1 as a backup, especially since you did not actually recommend using backups. I never said that a more durable drive would protect you from data loss; I said it reduces the chances of data loss. One can lose data between the time it is put on the drive and when it gets backed up if the drive fails before you can update the backup. Using a more durable drive reduces that chance. Also, the inconvenience and hassle of replacing a drive is reduced when using a drive that is less likely to die prematurely.

 

One thing I did not outright mention, although I implied it, was that drives with longer warranties are far more likely to last longer than ones with shorter warranties. Also your math doesn't add up when it comes to what you spend for two 2 year drives vs. a single 5 year drive. Two WD Blues cost a little more than a single WD Black, have only a total of four years of warranty, if you buy them one after the other (it's still only two years if using two Blues simultaneously) instead of the Black's five year warranty.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 3:59 AM, Spotty said:

 

They want at least 3TB of storage (current WD Black models are 1TB, 2TB, 4TB, 6TB) and judging by the prices of the drives they've mentioned, they are looking to spend up to $185 (the cost of 3x 1TB WD Blacks).

What is being discussed here is the best configuration that will give them the best reliability and are asking if buying separate drives or buying a single large drive is better. My suggestion is that they could have their cake and eat it too by buying multiple larger capacity drives that are cheaper than the WD Blacks and still deliver the capacity they require (at least 3TB) while remaining within budget.
Assuming the price of the parts they are looking at is how much they are willing to spend (up to $185) it's not possible to buy a WD Black 4TB + additional HDDs to use as back ups, so in this situation the OP has the option of either a single WD Black 4TB or choosing a cheaper model drive and getting multiple drives.

I'm happy to debate all day if it means helping the OP get different opinions and thoughts that can help them make a more informed decision, however it's pointless arguing what is the most reliable without taking in to consideration OPs requirements and budget. Otherwise you may as well suggest using SSDs to minimise risk of mechanical failure as well as multiple backups kept both locally and in multiple off site locations with cloud storage and regular tape backups.

 

@Lady Fitzgerald You have $185 to spend to get 3TB of storage that is reliable and safe. The option is single WD Black 4TB with no back ups or multiple WD Blues/Barracudas 3TB/4TB drives with one used as a backup drive. The WD Black 4TB + back up drive is not an option within the budget.
Which would you choose; the single WD Black without a backup or the multiple cheaper drives with a backup?

 

I appreciate all the help. Sorry for the late replies.

I was pitching this idea since a 1TB of WD Black = 1kphp (20$)

and a 4TB WD Black = 4kphp

So yeah, I have a choice of buying the drives separately or just as 1 drive.

As for external drives, I don't see much use in it since I don't have any plans of carrying huge amounts of data into fragile containers plus the prices of externals here in the Philippines are about double the internals. 

I don't know how to use RAID, unfortunately. 

I guess then the best option would be just get 1 4TB then, right?
Oh and btw I have a 480gb BX500 SSD already just for the heavy games... 

[Spotty]

11 minutes ago, Rhaemond said:

 

I was pitching this idea since a 1TB of WD Black = 1kphp (20$)

and a 4TB WD Black = 4kphp

4000php is about US$75. Those prices are very cheap. Less than half what they're normally worth. Are they used drives?

 

If the optiond are 3x1tb or 1x4tb then I would take the 4tb just for the convenience.

Keep in mind that if they are used drives then they may be more likely to fail than a brand new drive and as always follow sensible back up practices to protect any data you aren't prepared to lose.

[Rhaemond]

4 minutes ago, Spotty said:

4000php is about US$75. Those prices are very cheap. Less than half what they're normally worth. Are they used drives?

 

If the optiond are 3x1tb or 1x4tb then I would take the 4tb just for the convenience.

Keep in mind that if they are used drives then they may be more likely to fail than a brand new drive and as always follow sensible back up practices to protect any data you aren't prepared to lose.

Pretty much I'm getting a good deal since the seller received it as a gift, opened it, and didn't want to use it. Checked through HDD Sentinel and the WD app and it all checks out great. 0 issues, 100% life with around 3 days used. 

A brand new WD Black 1TB would cost me 4kphp... So yea, gonna go with value for money, I guess.

On a side note, Gold, Black, Purple. Which color is better when it comes to WD Drives? I just game and do video/pic editing at times but no heavy stuff though. Might be planning to stream in the future but eh.

[Spotty]

4 minutes ago, Rhaemond said:

Pretty much I'm getting a good deal since the seller received it as a gift, opened it, and didn't want to use it. Checked through HDD Sentinel and the WD app and it all checks out great. 0 issues, 100% life with around 3 days used. 

A brand new WD Black 1TB would cost me 4kphp... So yea, gonna go with value for money, I guess.

On a side note, Gold, Black, Purple. Which color is better when it comes to WD Drives? I just game and do video/pic editing at times but no heavy stuff though. Might be planning to stream in the future but eh.

For your use probably the blacks. Blacks are WDs performance drives, while gold is enterprise, purple for surveillance systems, red for NAS.

 

If that's the case then they sound like a good deal.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Purples are not suitable for data storage. They are strictly for surveillance systems.

 

Internal drives can be used for external backup drives. Just connect a USB dock to the computer, then plug in a drive.

[Rhaemond]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

For your use probably the blacks. Blacks are WDs performance drives, while gold is enterprise, purple for surveillance systems, red for NAS.

 

If that's the case then they sound like a good deal.

Would gold be better than black then? 

29 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Purples are not suitable for data storage. They are strictly for surveillance systems.

 

Internal drives can be used for external backup drives. Just connect a USB dock to the computer, then plug in a drive.

Noted. Thank you! A USB dock costs around 1500php here. Pretty cheap