Seagate 4TB drives

[kaneandtaker]

I'm planning to get 2 Seagate's 4TB drives for storage in RAID 1. Are 4TB drives recommended though? I have a friend telling me that drives more than 3TB would be too unreliable. Also, is Seagate's drives reliable?

[Hazy125]

Two 2tb drives in RAID 1 is more reliable than a 4tb because of the redundancy you get with RAID. Older versions of windows have troubles with anything more than 3tb because they didn't anticipate drives larger than 2.2tb, a UEFI BIOS doesn't really get affected by this though, only legacy motherboards and older operating systems. That being said, I have a 3tb seagate barracuda as my primary drive and have 700gb of unallocated space so it only allows for 2tb of storage and I haven't been bothered to find a solution to this problem yet

[GeneralBear]

i have a 4tb desktop hdd seagate right now i lvoe it i plan to get 3 more and do 2 diffrent raid 1 configs

[Hazy125]

i have a 4tb desktop hdd seagate right now i lvoe it i plan to get 3 more and do 2 diffrent raid 1 configs

Why don't you look at RAID 10(1+0)

[IdeaStormer]

I'm planning to get 2 Seagate's 4TB drives for storage in RAID 1. Are 4TB drives recommended though? I have a friend telling me that drives more than 3TB would be too unreliable. Also, is Seagate's drives reliable?

 

Should be fine, I don't see why 4TB is any less reliable than 3TB unless there's some solid facts on that. Sure there's more drive (space/platter) but in the end its a drive and that's what its made to do, store data.

[I'm Batman]

it will be fine bro ;)

[alpenwasser]

I'm planning to get 2 Seagate's 4TB drives for storage in RAID 1. Are 4TB drives recommended though? I have a friend telling me that drives more than 3TB would be too unreliable. Also, is Seagate's drives reliable?

In case of a of a drive failure you do of course face the potential of losing

more data if you don't have a backup.

But short of engineering or production issues/errors they really shouldn't be

more or less reliable than their smaller brethren (of the same model line, of

course).

 

Having said that, no matter how reliable drives you buy (even top grade enterprise

ones), if you have important data on it make sure to have at least one backup. Ideally

your approach against data loss should be multi-tiered though (see this post for a

bit more on that).

As for the reliability of Seagate: If you google around for any HDD manufacturer you

can easily find horror stories about people having many disks fail within a very

short time frame or even be DOA. The thing with those stories is that as long as the

drives are manufactured in the same batch (this can also mean that the components

they use come from the same production run), shipped to the retailer together, stored

together and sent to the end-user together whatever damages one single drive during

that process (manufacturing error, shipping damage, etc.) has a pretty decent chance

of affecting all the drives present at the same time at the same location.

So even though the overall reliability of the drives may be extremely high a few

customers getting many defective drives at the same time will of course cause a bit

of a stir.

HDDs these days are pretty damn reliable. If there really was a large-scale problem

with either manufacturer we'd here about it pretty damn quickly considering they

ship millions of drives each year (there was a case of Seagate having problems

with one of their drive lines a few years back, and boy did that make some noise).

Bottom line: Plan with disk failures in mind.

[GeneralBear]

Why don't you look at RAID 10(1+0)

never heard of it do i need dedicated raid cards for it?

[Hazy125]

never heard of it do i need dedicated raid cards for it?

Yeah, I doubt you would be able to find a software solution for it. It's basically two RAID 1 arrays in a Raid 0 configuration, so it's quicker because it's RAID 0 and you have to lose an entire RAID one array to lose your data... However if it does happen then you lose all your data across all your drives

[GeneralBear]

Yeah, I doubt you would be able to find a software solution for it. It's basically two RAID 1 arrays in a Raid 0 configuration, so it's quicker because it's RAID 0 and you have to lose an entire RAID one array to lose your data... However if it does happen then you lose all your data across all your drives

yeah i want to do 2 raid 1s over a raid 5 for the redundancy but tempted to go raid 6 as a cmpramise as i  can softwhere it dont got the cash for a 300$ raid card plus going in my main rig right now

[Hazy125]

yeah i want to do 2 raid 1s over a raid 5 for the redundancy but tempted to go raid 6 as a cmpramise as i  can softwhere it dont got the cash for a 300$ raid card plus going in my main rig right now

I personally think you lose too much storage space using RAID 6

[RandomNOOB]

I personally think you lose too much storage space using RAID 6

This is a 4drive setup. You will loose 2 drives in all the scenario mentioned abov(minus raid5). Softraid 6 is a good place to start if you want to expand i the future. If you dont thing/want to do that, raid 10 is the thing for you.