Why does Linus use Seagates?

[_Grid21]

There have been many times where Linus has mentioned he uses Seagates Ironwolf Drives in his data storage. I really question why because I have had SUCH a HIGH FAILURE RATE with MORE Seagates then Western Digital. I realize he probably got paid to use them, but I've been kinda chuckling to myself and thinking "Their great now, just wait till they fail and he loses all of them". So why use them? Seagates to me are pure garbage drives because of their known high fail rates and can't last long as compared to Western Digital that I have had some well over 10 plus years and their still going. If Seagates are so "Good and protect your data" then why the high fail rate? I'd love to know what made Linus, in my opinion, such a poor choice for data storage especially when it comes to storing all the media he has. I am not asking to be rude, I genuinely like to know what on earth made him start using them? I just had a Seagate Barracuda drive fail me today in my own server in fact. 

[Electronics Wizardy]

What is your sample sie for failure rates? Its probably just due to random chance unless you have 1000+ drives. Most large samples out there like backblae show a simmilar failure rate, or within one percentage point, so not a massive differnce, and this won't result in data loss either.

 

I think he gets the seagates for free or cheaply.

 

 

[_Grid21]

2 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

What is your sample sie for failure rates? Its probably just due to random chance unless you have 1000+ drives. Most large samples out there like backblae show a simmilar failure rate, or within one percentage point, so not a massive differnce, and this won't result in data loss either.

 

I think he gets the seagates for free or cheaply.

 

 

I am speaking from experience. WD Drives last SO MUCH longer then any Seagate drive has. And I don't understand with the higher rate of a WD lasting longer, why did Linus pick such an awful company to get drives from. 

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, _Grid21 said:

I am speaking from experience. WD Drives last SO MUCH longer then any Seagate drive has. And I don't understand with the higher rate of a WD lasting longer, why did Linus pick such an awful company to get drives from. 

what is your sample sie? P value? 

 

You are probably seeing the results of random chance, not a differnce between brands.

[gloop]

2 minutes ago, _Grid21 said:

why did Linus pick such an awful company to get drives from. 

Sponsorships. 
 

why pay extra when you have a company literally giving you as many as you want?

[EmoChipmonk]

4 minutes ago, _Grid21 said:

I am speaking from experience. WD Drives last SO MUCH longer then any Seagate drive has. And I don't understand with the higher rate of a WD lasting longer, why did Linus pick such an awful company to get drives from. 

in his newer petabyte project videos he mentioned they just sent them to him for free but because he got 3 sets he had to find a use or send the unused ones back. Could be you just have bad luck

[_Grid21]

1 minute ago, EmoChipmonk said:

in his newer petabyte project videos he mentioned they just sent them to him for free but because he got 3 sets he had to find a use or send the unused ones back. Could be you just have bad luck

 

5 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

what is your sample sie? P value? 

 

You are probably seeing the results of random chance, not a differnce between brands.

It wasn't bad luck I lost them, they have been genuinely a bad brand. Heck, I'd love for Linus to make a video comparing the 2 and the life spans of both and explain his preferences of brand. 

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, _Grid21 said:

 

It wasn't bad luck I lost them, they have been genuinely a bad brand. Heck, I'd love for Linus to make a video comparing the 2 and the life spans of both and explain his preferences of brand. 

What is your sample sie? Your pull conclusions from a results that was much more likely to be caused by random chance. 

 

Linus doesn't have enough drives to know what drives are more reliable than others, you need 1000's of drives to get that type of data. Backblae is about as close as you can get

[r2724r16]

OP, you're making too many assumptions.

 

I've had the opposite experience of you, with Seagate HDDs being more reliable than WD HDDs. Does this mean Seagate drives are more reliable than WD drives? No, not necessarily.

[Sakkura]

I suppose the least bad data we have on HDD reliability is still Backblaze? They tend to show both WD and Seagate drives having higher failure rates than Hitachi and Toshiba drives... though it varies by model and there are major caveats to their methodology etc.

[keysbeast13]

8 minutes ago, EmoChipmonk said:

in his newer petabyte project videos he mentioned they just sent them to him for free but because he got 3 sets he had to find a use or send the unused ones back. Could be you just have bad luck

and he will be using them for years him and his wife filled two tables with drives they sent him LOL 

[DailyProcrastinator]

23 minutes ago, _Grid21 said:

I am speaking from experience. WD Drives last SO MUCH longer then any Seagate drive has. And I don't understand with the higher rate of a WD lasting longer, why did Linus pick such an awful company to get drives from. 

I've had the opposite experience with low end WD Blue drives vs Seagate Barracudas.  And I swear by Seagate ironwolfs. I had a bad experience in the past with WD Reds as well. As for failure rate for the most part it is pretty low, we are talking 1-2% at most.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2020/

 

What is your sample size and how are you verifying this info?

 

[_Grid21]

17 minutes ago, TheDailyProcrastinator said:

I've had the opposite experience with low end WD Blue drives vs Seagate Barracudas.  And I swear by Seagate ironwolfs. I had a bad experience in the past with WD Reds as well. As for failure rate for the most part it is pretty low, we are talking 1-2% at most.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2020/

 

What is your sample size and how are you verifying this info?

 

Well I used Crystal Disk with does Drive analysis and it the drive was in the red meaning it was basically on the verge of dying. It's now completely gone and this is the 3rd Seagate drive that has done this to me. What makes Ironwolf drives so good in your opinion/use case/ time?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, _Grid21 said:

I just had a Seagate Barracuda drive fail me today in my own server in fact

Barracudas are not NAS or server rated disks and aren't designed for 24/7 usage either. They have no vibration compensation in them to deal with these long run times and when you have many disks in a single chassis causing harmonic vibrations. Barracudas failing in that use case is not unexpected, you should get 2-5 years out of them but they will fail generally within that time period and more likely on the shorter end, not failing would be the exception. This also applies to every manufacturer and their non NAS/server disks too, they'll all fail.

 

Ironwolfs are designed for this and have vibration compensation etc, expecting 5 years for these is standard and you'll often get more.

 

Seagate have the largest range of disks for all different purposes and workload demands, isolating a single model line to say the whole brand is crap is a bit misguided. Seagate is the major OEM for many server vendors and produce disks for them and sold under those vendor brand names, if you have IBM branded server disks odds are it's a Seagate.