Seagate VS Hitachi VS Western Digital

[via]

i am deciding between a few different brands of hard drive to go with. it seems like every where you go, everyone has an opinion on what drive to go with..? specifically, the WD Blue 1TB, Seagate Barracuda 1TB, and Hitachi Ultrastar 1TB. here is a chart from backblaze.

[Comessy]

CHART IS RIGGED

 

SEAGATE IS BAE

[Excon]

People hate on Seagates because of 1 false study. Ive been running Seagate drives for 5 years, 24/7 in servers without issue and will never switch

[KRImSIN]

Seagate and Western digital are best.

[CoolaxGaming]

I dont trust blackblaze that much....

[MetaDrow]

All three are pretty good, Linus is running 20+ 6TB Seagate Enterprise drives for their servers if that doesn't give them some credit.

From my experience:

Hitachi: I have a 7+ year old drive that is pretty reliable, no problems but performance is average.

Seagate: Sequential are consistent from what I noticed. Their SSHDs are very good, "learns" the most used like the OS and startup programs like a SSD as expected, my preferred 2.5" drives

WD: The Blacks seems slightly faster to load things like games but could be because I try to keep my drives maintained and defragged. The Greens don't heat up much but the 8 seconds before standby is annoying. My preferred 3.5" drives

[Ryoku]

i am deciding between a few different brands of hard drive to go with. it seems like every where you go, everyone has an opinion on what drive to go with..? specifically, the WD Blue 1TB, Seagate Barracuda 1TB, and Hitachi Ultrastar 1TB. here is a chart from backblaze.

 

I've always gone with seagate and haven't had any issues, pretty sure the 1.5tb I have connected to my wii u is like 7+ years old.

[WoodenMarker]

A quote I might end up using more than once: 

Ah yes, that infamous Backblaze dataset. It is interesting raw data, yes, but it really
should have been processed by professional statisticians before being released to the
general public. Raw data is raw data, nothing inherently wrong with that, but it really
doesn't say all that much in and of itself without taking into account all the various
variabilities which occurred during the gathering of this dataset. But unfortunately,
Backblaze didn't bother doing that.

Anyway, I shall just post the link to a thread in which return rates for various hardware
components were given to a French hardware site by a French retailer.

The HDD section specifically (numbers in parentheses are numbers from previous dataset):

 - Toshiba 1,15%

- Seagate 1,44% (vs 1,65%)
- Western 1,55% (vs 1,44%)
- Samsung 2,24% (vs 1,30%)
- Hitachi 2,40% (vs 3,45%)

Data is from 2013.

Link to thread: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/108284-huge-list-of-failure-rates-on-pc-components-french-but-i-translated-nearly-everything/

Look at it this way: If there really was a serious problem with any one HDD manufacturer's
quality, they would long ago have lost all OEM contracts (just imagine Dell or HP buying
a few million drives and having a quarter of them fail, that HDD company would lose that
contract faster than they could say "lawsuit"), and since that's where the big money is,
they would have gone out of business sooner rather than later. Since that hasn't happened
so far, we can quite safely assume that for the most part there are no major faults with
any specific manufacturer. They might on occasion screw up, but by and large, there really
isn't that much of a difference between manufacturers these days.

[CubiX]

People hate on Seagates because of 1 false study. Ive been running Seagate drives for 5 years, 24/7 in servers without issue and will never switch

for thousandth time ... the old seagate HDD's usused to be good ... but now .. they realy suck and the article/chart is really not missleading . that's the truth sorry  

[alpenwasser]

I dont trust blackblaze that much....

 

Honestly, I don't think they're outright faking the data, but as I said in the post which

WoodenMarker has linked, it really should be processed by professional statistics people

and then the conclusions should be released. They could still release the raw data (being

upfront with their source material and all that), but the big issue is that people take a

look at those charts and draw their conclusions without doing all the things which should

be done when drawing conclusions from raw data.

Of course, we don't even have the info we'd need to do that (conditions under which each

drive was run, drive loads, drive temps, vibrations and so on and so forth), and I'm not

even sure Backblaze collects or evaluates that data, so it's kinda impossible to draw

actually meaningful conclusions from this dataset as far as I can tell (I'm not a statistics

expert either, but I know enough about it to be aware that raw data in and of itself often

needs to be properly processed and analyzed before one is able to draw relevant conclusions

from it).

I remember when the first of these came out, Backblaze actually stated that they'd continue

to buy and use Seagate drives. So they themselves looked at their own numbers and went

"Yeah, that actually doesn't say all that much..."

 

A quote I might end up using more than once:

Hehe, yeah, I have it in my permanent link collection too, along with some other sources

on storage reliability and all that.

[TheMcSame]

That chart uses flawed results. 

 

Personally I'd go like this 

 

Hitachi > WD > Toshiba 2.5" > Toshiba 3.5" > Seagate

 

Hitchi - Very reliable, sometimes cheaper than other options.

 

WD - Very reliable, not always the cheaper option.

 

Toshiba 2.5" - Reliable and usually cheaper than other options

 

Toshiba 3.5" - Questionable, I've heard of issues with these but no personal experience.

 

Seagate - Known for questionable reliability, some people swear by them but my experiences with them (as well as Samsung's HDDs) hasn't been great.

 

 

 

Go with what ever you want, just make sure you do some research about the product you want to buy before you buy it.