Anime Club - Heaven Society

[brownninja97]

all of it lol

buckel up because its gonna get awesome.

 

So we were messing around with some new cooking utensils that my mother got for christmas and my older brother was attempting to make wonton soup.

 

back on topic i had my fist deep in the dakimakura because the contents wasnt balanced across it. 

 

Later on I thought it would be a great idea to add the dakimakura to my mothers teddy collection(dont ask im worried).

 

She got pissed because it was miku(she couldnt really find a constructive arguement).

 

Later on i saw that my brother was deep frying some crap which i found odd because hes a healthy man guy man.

 

Afterthat i went about my day, threw my sex slave miku pillow in my room.

 

Later my mother comes in with some balls and tell me to eat them, i take them and me being me slipped on nothing and miku and I are covered in tentacles, my mother flipped out because deep fried shit and cream carpets dont mix. she gave some cloths to charity and im pretty sure she took the miku pillow cushion thing with her, god speed miku. 

 

In all seriousness i didnt expect the doll to last for a week in the house, my mother was looking at every excuse to throw it out, she even deleted every picture and video recording of it(i should of been faster with putting it on the pc). that thing shook her to the core for some reason, she likely read something about weeaboos and thought she had to end this shit before it could become something, shes way too late for that of course. 

[Typho]

- Cool folders -

Wait what? How do you do dis  ?

EDIT: Oh nvm someone else already asked the question

[helping]

I'd buy HGST NAS 4tb drives instead.

idk.. I know for certain Tek Syndicate had a cluster of HGST and SG drives

all of them failed

though Hitachi I think is a subsidiary of WD.. I realize that the differences are marginal but I still think I'd pick the WD drive.

esp since I think their warranty is better

 

Seagate has advanced RMA but it's 10$ a pop.

[TopWargamer]

I'd buy HGST NAS 4tb drives instead.

Any advantage over the WD drive?

[brownninja97]

Any advantage over the WD drive?

personally i dont think there is a difference but its likely optimized for raid and has reliability.

[Charger]

idk.. I know for certain Tek Syndicate had a cluster of HGST and SG drives

all of them failed

though Hitachi I think is a subsidiary of WD.. I realize that the differences are marginal but I still think I'd pick the WD drive.

esp since I think their warranty is better

 

Seagate has advanced RMA but it's 10$ a pop.

Cant we just agree that all hard drives are shit and we all have drives we like and hate based on past usage and personal drive failures? I still have a soft sport for maxtor drives because I never had a problem with them even though they were known to not be the most reliable drives.

[Fred Castellum]

Any advantage over the WD drive?

Cant we just agree that all hard drives are shit and we all have drives we like and hate based on past usage and personal drive failures? I still have a soft sport for maxtor drives because I never had a problem with them even though they were known to not be the most reliable drives.

I try to find the most stable drives possible because I like to have data backups.

I made my decision to get HGST NAS drives off of backblaze drive failure statistics. Sure the warranty isn't as good as the WD equivalent but it appears to have the lowest failure rate, which means less headaches for me.

HGST is a WD company now, they got bought out a couple of years back.

I own multiple WD drives 1tb and up. I also own two HGST 4tb NAS drives. None have failed on me yet. I had a 320gb WD drive die but that was due to negligence by a family member and overheating due to that negligence.

[Vitalius]

idk.. I know for certain Tek Syndicate had a cluster of HGST and SG drives

all of them failed

though Hitachi I think is a subsidiary of WD.. I realize that the differences are marginal but I still think I'd pick the WD drive.

esp since I think their warranty is better

 

Seagate has advanced RMA but it's 10$ a pop.

Any advantage over the WD drive?

Cant we just agree that all hard drives are shit and we all have drives we like and hate based on past usage and personal drive failures? I still have a soft sport for maxtor drives because I never had a problem with them even though they were known to not be the most reliable drives.

I try to find the most stable drives possible because I like to have data backups.

I made my decision to get HGST NAS drives off of backblaze drive failure statistics. Sure the warranty isn't as good as the WD equivalent but it appears to have the lowest failure rate, which means less headaches for me.

HGST is a WD company now, the got bought out a couple of years

 

Where are the WD 4 TB Drives?

 

There is only one Storage Pod of Western Digital 4 TB drives. Why? The reason is simple: price. We purchase drives through various channel partners for each manufacturer. We’ll put out an RFQ (Request for Quote) for say 2,000 – 4 TB drives, and list the brands and models we have validated for use in our Storage Pods. Over the course of the last year, Western Digital drives were often not quoted and when they were, they were never the lowest price. Generally the WD drives were $15-$20 more per drive. That’s too much of a premium to pay when the Seagate and HGST drives are performing so well.

Confidence in Seagate 4 TB Drives

 

You might ask why we think the 4 TB Seagate drives we have now will fare better than the 3 TB Seagate drives we bought a couple years ago. We wondered the same thing. When the 3 TB drives were new and in their first year of service, their annual failure rate was 9.3%. The 4 TB drives, in their first year of service, are showing a failure rate of only 2.6%. I’m quite optimistic that the 4 TB drives will continue to do better over time.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive-q4-2014/

 

How much weight should consumers put on these results?

The Backblaze data is interesting, but it’s still shot through with problems that limit just how much weight I’m willing to put on it. Backblaze has redesigned its storage pods several times since it began gathering data in an attempt to limit vibration. The company has an admitted habit of sourcing the absolute cheapest drives it can find, which virtually guarantees that some of the products its stocking are going to be used or refurbished units. Its relentless focus on price above all other characteristics makes sense for its own operating environment, but the company’s use of consumer drives in enterprise-class deployments may create massive confounding variables.

It’s entirely possible that the cheapest HGST drives include superior vibration dampening technology to the cheapest Seagate drives. This isn’t a problem in consumer systems where there are rarely more than two physical discs, and those discs don’t usually spin at the same time. It could be a profound problem when 45 drives are stacked in an enclosure. Compounding this issue is the fact that Backblaze’s previous reports have acknowledged that different drives are put under different workloads, with apparently no regard for whether or not the stated workload matches the manufacturer’s intended ratings for the disk. Price, not workload, governs Backblaze’s decision process.

None of this is meant to imply that Backblaze’s work is wrong, as such, but it’s not at all clear how applicable it is to every day consumers and would-buy reliability hawks. We can be reasonably certain that Seagate’s 3TB and 4TB drives don’t fail at anything like 25-40% in the real world, or else the entire internet would be on fire with self-reported problems. We checked, and it isn’t. Tweaktown wrote an article discussing many of these issues last year; it’s worth a read if you want to explore them in more detail.

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

[Fred Castellum]

There were complaints that the backblaze tests weren't representative of the current drives by the companies but the past statistics are really the closest we'll get to accurate drive durability info. I mean they have a massive amount of drives and they log data on a daily basis. I've read a bunch of their blog posts, even their own custom array box setups.

[helping]

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive-q4-2014/

There were complaints that the backblaze tests weren't representative of the current drives by the companies but the past statistics are really the closest we'll get to accurate drive durability info. I mean they have a massive amount of drives and they log data on a daily basis. I've read a bunch of their blog posts, even their own custom array box setups.

 

surely this is tongue in cheek

 

those tests were beaten to death by basically EVERY channel on YouTube.

the seagate part is true of the 3TB ST3kD00M drives

 

I have two of those fuckers ticking in my server right now.

[Charger]

so what you are saying is 40% of 3tb seagates died in 2014

[Vitalius]

There were complaints that the backblaze tests weren't representative of the current drives by the companies but the past statistics are really the closest we'll get to accurate drive durability info. I mean they have a massive amount of drives and they log data on a daily basis. I've read a bunch of their blog posts, even their own custom array box setups.

surely this is tongue in cheek

 

those tests were beaten to death by basically EVERY channel on YouTube.

 

Where are the WD 4 TB Drives?

 

There is only one Storage Pod of Western Digital 4 TB drives. Why? The reason is simple: price. We purchase drives through various channel partners for each manufacturer. We’ll put out an RFQ (Request for Quote) for say 2,000 – 4 TB drives, and list the brands and models we have validated for use in our Storage Pods. Over the course of the last year, Western Digital drives were often not quoted and when they were, they were never the lowest price. Generally the WD drives were $15-$20 more per drive. That’s too much of a premium to pay when the Seagate and HGST drives are performing so well.

Confidence in Seagate 4 TB Drives

 

You might ask why we think the 4 TB Seagate drives we have now will fare better than the 3 TB Seagate drives we bought a couple years ago. We wondered the same thing. When the 3 TB drives were new and in their first year of service, their annual failure rate was 9.3%. The 4 TB drives, in their first year of service, are showing a failure rate of only 2.6%. I’m quite optimistic that the 4 TB drives will continue to do better over time.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive-q4-2014/

 

How much weight should consumers put on these results?

The Backblaze data is interesting, but it’s still shot through with problems that limit just how much weight I’m willing to put on it. Backblaze has redesigned its storage pods several times since it began gathering data in an attempt to limit vibration. The company has an admitted habit of sourcing the absolute cheapest drives it can find, which virtually guarantees that some of the products its stocking are going to be used or refurbished units. Its relentless focus on price above all other characteristics makes sense for its own operating environment, but the company’s use of consumer drives in enterprise-class deployments may create massive confounding variables.

It’s entirely possible that the cheapest HGST drives include superior vibration dampening technology to the cheapest Seagate drives. This isn’t a problem in consumer systems where there are rarely more than two physical discs, and those discs don’t usually spin at the same time. It could be a profound problem when 45 drives are stacked in an enclosure. Compounding this issue is the fact that Backblaze’s previous reports have acknowledged that different drives are put under different workloads, with apparently no regard for whether or not the stated workload matches the manufacturer’s intended ratings for the disk. Price, not workload, governs Backblaze’s decision process.

None of this is meant to imply that Backblaze’s work is wrong, as such, but it’s not at all clear how applicable it is to every day consumers and would-buy reliability hawks. We can be reasonably certain that Seagate’s 3TB and 4TB drives don’t fail at anything like 25-40% in the real world, or else the entire internet would be on fire with self-reported problems. We checked, and it isn’t. Tweaktown wrote an article discussing many of these issues last year; it’s worth a read if you want to explore them in more detail.

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

 

so what you are saying is 40% of 3tb seagates died in 2014

40% of backblaze's Seagate 3TB drives died in 2014.

 

The honest truth is that while this isn't the best scientifically done test, it's literally the best information source we have for "who's consumer hard drives are the most reliable?"

If we were picking because of arbitrary reasons before, then this can just be another arbitrary reason. If it's wrong, it's just as wrong as every other arbitrary reason can be. If it's right, then yay, an arbitrary reason wasn't so arbitrary.

And, of arbitrary reasons, this reason is most likely (of those reasons) to not be arbitrary.

[-CLASSIFIED-]

so what you are saying is 40% of 3tb seagates died in 2014

based on most likely shit consumer refurbs that were already beat to death lol 

[helping]

 

 

 

Yes, I see that, but I would suggest not even bothering to so much as link those approximate statistics and stick instead to rolling dice.

 

Some of it flat out doesn't make sense, until they made an effort to clean it up the entire thing was a giant joke of a post.

 

I've already been heavily traumatized by the amount of times I see someone cite this thing as a reason to buy X drive over Y.

That post and mentality needs to die.

[-CLASSIFIED-]

Yes, I see that, but I would suggest not even bothering to so much as link those approximate statistics and stick instead to rolling dice.

 

Some of it flat out doesn't make sense

 

I've already been heavily traumatized by the amount of times I see someone cite this thing as a reason to buy X drive over Y.

storage fails no matter what so fuck it basically right? 

[Vitalius]

Yes, I see that, but I would suggest not even bothering to so much as link those approximate statistics and stick instead to rolling dice.

 

Some of it flat out doesn't make sense, until they made an effort to clean it up the entire thing was a giant joke of a post.

 

I've already been heavily traumatized by the amount of times I see someone cite this thing as a reason to buy X drive over Y.

Well, that's the problem isn't it?

If this data is wrong, it can be just as wrong as dice. 

If it's right, it can be way more right than dice. 

That's the gambit. If I choose to follow this data, and it's wrong, I'm fairing just as well as if I used dice. If I choose to follow this data, and it's right, I'm potentially fairing way better than just rolling dice.

Because dice doesn't give you the same results every time. Following a graph does. Matters of probability.

If there's something to cling to over chance, then you cling to it. Because chance can screw you over just as much as the thing can, but chance won't be as, or as often right, as the thing will if it is indeed right.

 

storage fails no matter what so fuck it basically right? 

You say that, but there are drives that live for a decade+.

[helping]

storage fails no matter what so fuck it basically right? 

Well yeah but what they're doing is like me trying to get a drug FDA certified by performing all of the tests in my bathroom using a "cool science experiments" kit aimed at preteens as my testing apparatus

 

some of their data suggests that companies like SG shouldn't be alive due to sheer failure rate (granted the 3TB one is partially true)

 

@Vitalius you could roll that dice argument if the prices and uses were the exact same, but they're certainly not. The entire thing reads like a "maybe, probably, lol"

 

It could hypothetically lead you to a worse decision because there's no certain way to tell which way data is skewed, to show worse or better.

[Charger]

storage fails no matter what so fuck it basically right?

basically my view of it all hard drives are shit just get what you want since at this point we all basically have brands we like or hate when it comes to things like hard drives.

[-CLASSIFIED-]

 

You say that, but there are drives that live for a decade+.

itll still fail at one point however. 

Well yeah but what they're doing is like me trying to get a drug FDA certified by performing all of the tests in my bathroom using a "cool science experiments" kit aimed at preteens as my testing apparatus

 

some of their data suggests that companies like SG shouldn't be alive due to sheer failure rate (granted the 3TB one is partially true)

LOL , yea id have to agree , their testing is inconsistent 

 

 

 

i have a 3tb wd green (worst of all wd hdds apparently) no issues in the year ive had it 

[Vitalius]

itll still fail at one point however. 

LOL , yea id have to agree , their testing is inconsistent 

Yes, but in a decade+ time, a 4TB drive will be useless to me as I'll have a 4PB drive. And files will take up a lot more space to fill the drive.

Why would I carry around a 4GB HDD when I have a 4GB USB drive and 4TB HDDs in my computer? Unless I'm making a crappy PC to use for some absurd reason, or something bad happens and I need it as a spare, I'm never going to use that drive again.

The goal isn't to survive forever. It's to survive until obsolescence (it's not useful anymore to use even though it's working). Which means I move my data to the newer 4PB drive and everything is hunky dory. Because I never lost data. My data was never in danger.

That's the goal.

@helping

True. But that's part of being an intelligent or conscientious consumer. Take the fact they probably bought refurbed drives into account with Seagate's numbers. They are still kinda high, even for that.

[Fred Castellum]

Well yeah but what they're doing is like me trying to get a drug FDA certified by performing all of the tests in my bathroom using a "cool science experiments" kit aimed at preteens as my testing apparatus

 

some of their data suggests that companies like SG shouldn't be alive due to sheer failure rate (granted the 3TB one is partially true)

 

@Vitalius you could roll that dice argument if the prices and uses were the exact same, but they're certainly not. The entire thing reads like a "maybe, probably, lol"

I remember there was another mass testing of drives with drive failure rate data posted somewhere. It was on some tech site but I don't remember the site name. 

 

The data suggested in the graph was pretty close to Backblaze's data results, except SG drives didn't have that colossal failure rate skew. It was like techbrand or something, I don't know how reputable the data was but that was something else to possibly go off of.

[helping]

That's the goal.

@helping

True. But that's part of being an intelligent or conscientious consumer. Take the fact they probably bought refurbed drives into account with Seagate's numbers. They are still kinda high, even for that

I remember there was another mass testing of drives with drive failure rate data posted somewhere. It was on some tech site but I don't remember the site name. 

 

The data suggested in the graph was pretty close to Backblaze's data results, except SG drives didn't have that colossal failure rate skew. It was like techbrand or something, I don't know how reputable the data was but that was something else to possibly go off of.

meh, it's whatever

I basically chose the drive based on use and price now, regardless of company. I don't really tend to flock to HGST because they're kinda like WD but they're not WD (like an EVGA card but it's not by EVGA)

 

I've learned enough to buy drives strictly in pairs (Sans SSD) and not have to ever really care about the possible differences.

For things like hard drives I'd put a high value on CS and RMA experience.

 

SG was standard practice, so nothing negative I guess. Have yet to try WD RMA.

[Fred Castellum]

But hey in the end, I gave my suggestion off of preference due to personal research and experience with the product and that's what your suppose to do right? Lol

 

The drive stores lots of data, moves lots of data at a good speed(90MB/s to 150MB/s, usually 120MB/s - 130MB/s consistently), is quiet, and has a acceptable warranty policy. By the time one of these go out I should technically speaking already have 2 x 6TB or 8TB drives to cover the data for backup purposes. 

 

What more could you possibly ask for?

 

If it was five years ago I would have said go all WD. I've had splendid luck with all my WD drives and would still continue to buy from them if prices were competitive at time of purchase.

[Vitalius]

@MyInnerFred

Please use MB for Megabytes and Mb for Megabits. Your post confuses me if you are meaning Megabits. 120-130 Mb/s is bad for an HDD (that's 15-16 MB/s).
 

@Vitalius you could roll that dice argument if the prices and uses were the exact same, but they're certainly not. The entire thing reads like a "maybe, probably, lol"
 
It could hypothetically lead you to a worse decision because there's no certain way to tell which way data is skewed, to show worse or better.

In regards to keeping data safe, I view price as no object, to a point (that point being reasonably higher prices for drives that are reasonably better). So I guess this is my personal gambit. This is why I get WD Reds. I don't get Pros because "moar speed" isn't necessary and isn't worth the price hike (again, balance).

Uses? Not sure what you mean there. Give an example. My post or the article reads like that?

This is true. But once your experience adequately doesn't reflect what the thing is telling you is true, you can discount it and go back to dice because, in that case, dice is better (since you've personally seen that the data is wrong). You could do that and the data have been right and you just personally unlucky. But that's unlikely enough to be worth the risk.

If I buy WDs and they repeatedly fail on me more than that graph dictates (to the point that it's beyond chance), then I stop using the graph. If it's only within margin of error, then it may as well be no different than dice, which is not a loss. 

So let's split it up in terms of probability. To illustrate why I do what I do and say what I say.

There are 3 possibilities. The graph is skewed positively (i.e. it's right), it's random (i.e. it's irrelevant), or it's skewed negatively (it advocates drives that will fail more than others).

Let's just say, since we can't know the probabilities of said possibilities to happen, they are equal thirds of happening. 

If it's positively skewed, I won, because I found a resource to buy reliable drives.
If it's random, I did not lose or win, because it is no different from Dice, and I have no other, better, resource to rely on.

If it's negative, I lost, but I will realize this at a point and go back to Dice. 

So 33% chance to lose and 67% to not lose (all that matters in the end). Compared to dice, which are completely random.

So the question: "Why wouldn't I use that data?" - "Because it could be wrong" isn't a valid answer imo. Risking it being wrong is worth the potential good of it being right. That's my point.

This is why I consider even information that is possibly skewed to have value. It's situational (if I have something more reliable and already tested to use, I'll use that ofc) though, and in this particular situation, going with the graph is a good decision in my eyes. At least until it's proven otherwise by my own personal testing.

[helping]

Speaking of failure, personal blog post.
 
Refabbed my headliner today, yo.
 
Got everything down super flush down to the gaskets. It's was a bit of a challenge since I had to basically tetris the thing out of my front door, and it's pretty fucking hard to wrap a layer of foam and cloth over a really awkwardly shaped piece of fiber board while having no room for messing up (glue adheres on contact) and having ZERO wrinkles.

 

It was even more of a pain in the ass to get it back in because I did all of this alone and had to hold it up while lining up a hook on the backside of it and slipping it between two B pillars (support beams that hold seat belts) that I couldn't remove because I don't have a goddamn elephant sized Torx bit. IDK WHY YOU WOULD USE TORX IN A CAR.

 

my hands are kill, cuts everywhere
 
came out "k" I think.

 

 

Still need to remove some glue off the back from when my dingus dad tried to spray it himself to repair it instead of doing it properly

Back seat of my car is surprisingly comfortable. I had a moment where it hit me that I never know how it feels to be a passenger in my car and don't know what music sounds like in the back seat.

 

The gray and black gives a good two-tone look over factory flat gray everywhere to my taste

struggles before

 

It looks a bit worse than it actually was because at this point parts of it started falling because I'd already taken out parts from the front of it before taking this picture.

 

Good fun/10

Hopefully I'll never have to do it to this car again.

 

Actual PC shit, Rosewill has a pretty cool system for mounting optical drives in SFF. Thing rotates and pulls out.