Seagate Unveils 10TB HDD Whopper With Helium

[ZetZet]

Indeed yet only the seagate consumer drives crap out massively.

Like I said though, the failure rates on the 7200.11 drives are similar to the rma numbers. Go ahead and Google seagate 7200.11.

I know Seagate had failures with their hard drives. However at the moment, there is absolutely no reason to talk shit about Seagate products. 

[Sauron]

Given the failure rates of 3tb and higher hdds I think I'll pass for now

[LAwLz]

No they are considered bad because they have released several models with an insanely high failure rate. The 7200.11 being the worst (the one I had), but the 14 model apparently sucked donkey too.

I don't know why people are so much against the backblaze numbers. They are some of the most reliable as they are all tested similarly in very large numbers.

Apparently 4tb drives looks to be a lot more reliable than 3tb drives.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-for-q2-2015/

Why are people against BackBlaze numbers so much? Because they are extremely stupid.

The BackBlaze numbers only show a single thing, and that's that running consumer drives in storage centers is a ridiculously stupid thing to do.

The numbers means absolutely nothing for consumers. The RMA rates do however.

 

 

BackBlaze is the only place you will find numbers that looks anything like that.

 

 

If I used AMD cards as a hammer when building a house would you take my seriously if I said AMD cards were unreliable and I broke 60& of them within a week? I certainly wouldn't, and that's why I think BackBlaze are morons for even putting the numbers out there. It just leads to people like you spreading misinformation.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Seagate are still generally considered bad, but only because people keep saying they are bad without checking facts first.

 

 

Last year Seagate had the lowest failure rates of any HDD manufacturer. These are the % of drives RMA'd within a year after purchase:

Seagate - 0.68%

Western Digital - 1.09%

HGST - 1.16%

Toshiba - 1.34%

 

 

The top most unreliable hard drives, and their RMA rates were:

WD Red WD60EFRX - 4,58%

Toshiba 3 To DT01ACA300 - 3,40%

WD Green 4 To WD40EZRX - 2,93%

WD SE 3 To WD3000F9YZ - 2,78%

Hitachi Ultrastar A7K2000 - 2,14%

 

Nice, 4TB HGST Deskstar NAS with a 0.00% percent failure rate (I just got one of those last week lol).

[Betabot]

Don't know if I'm lucky or not, but haven't had a drive fail on me every. In fact, I don't think I've seen a drive fail around me. There was this one USB that a friend owned, it was a weird brand I think though, it died (with his school assignment too haha).

 

Currently got about 3 WD Drives (+2 External ones, +5 portable) and 2 Seagate drives, no problems so far.

 

Also got a 120GB portable drive from ages ago that hasn't died yet, and a weird seagate round USB thing that was top of the line ages ago. It was 3.5GB haha

 

OT:

Hopefully they can keep increasing the limits of both HDDs and SSDs, so that we can keep up with the demands of local content, and be able to get it all cheaper as well.

[ShadowCaptain]

Helium...I wonder if all your songs go squeaky 

[azurezeed]

Good competition is good

[Notional]

Why are people against BackBlaze numbers so much? Because they are extremely stupid.

The BackBlaze numbers only show a single thing, and that's that running consumer drives in storage centers is a ridiculously stupid thing to do.

The numbers means absolutely nothing for consumers. The RMA rates do however.

 

 

BackBlaze is the only place you will find numbers that looks anything like that.

 

 

If I used AMD cards as a hammer when building a house would you take my seriously if I said AMD cards were unreliable and I broke 60& of them within a week? I certainly wouldn't, and that's why I think BackBlaze are morons for even putting the numbers out there. It just leads to people like you spreading misinformation.

 

No, the number say that you should never use Seagate consumer drives for anything demanding ever. Consumer drives from the other manufacturers are not nearly as bad. Not even close in fact. And yes the drives that fails spectacularly, also fail really bad for consumers. Both the 7200.11 and .14 has huge failure rates for consumers. There's a reason why they have specific wiki mentions of their crappiness.

 

That example broke my brain with stupid. The drives are being used for their purpose, albeit driven harder than they are made for. Your example is void and makes no sense. They didn't use the drives as hammers or support under a table leg, they were used for their purpose: Storing data and read/write data. Come on. At least make up a dumb car analogy instead.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Don't know if I'm lucky or not, but haven't had a drive fail on me every. In fact, I don't think I've seen a drive fail around me. There was this one USB that a friend owned, it was a weird brand I think though, it died (with his school assignment too haha).

 

Currently got about 3 WD Drives (+2 External ones, +5 portable) and 2 Seagate drives, no problems so far.

 

Also got a 120GB portable drive from ages ago that hasn't died yet, and a weird seagate round USB thing that was top of the line ages ago. It was 3.5GB haha

 

OT:

Hopefully they can keep increasing the limits of both HDDs and SSDs, so that we can keep up with the demands of local content, and be able to get it all cheaper as well.

 

Only two drives I have ever had fail on me were both WD Blacks.

[terrytek]

i'd rather buy one of these over hgst's version. i trust seagate more.

[alexyy]

Except it wasn't as bad as you are picturing it. I can bet there still are people today who run that infamous 7200.11 and don't even know what's wrong with it.

Funnily enough I do it's lasted 3 years now and it's currently I'm my htpc it's a trooper.

[It's me!]

Anyone that blindly listens to the backblaze results is missing the key point - all they did is prove exactly why you do not use client drives in a datacenter. Period. It was idiocy to do so, and if you look at their new stats you will notice that they woke up, and the idiots are now using datacenter drives.

[Fetzie]

No, the number say that you should never use Seagate consumer drives for anything demanding ever. Consumer drives from the other manufacturers are not nearly as bad. Not even close in fact. And yes the drives that fails spectacularly, also fail really bad for consumers. Both the 7200.11 and .14 has huge failure rates for consumers. There's a reason why they have specific wiki mentions of their crappiness.

That example broke my brain with stupid. The drives are being used for their purpose, albeit driven harder than they are made for. Your example is void and makes no sense. They didn't use the drives as hammers or support under a table leg, they were used for their purpose: Storing data and read/write data. Come on. At least make up a dumb car analogy instead.

You are driving a manual transmission car, you slam the clutch every time you change gear, and then complain that the transmission breaks.

Better:)

[Notional]

You are driving a manual transmission car, you slam the clutch every time you change gear, and then complain that the transmission breaks.

Better:)

 

At worst you can call it stress testing the drives, nothing more. Still does not explain the extremely poor reliability on the drives, that is NOT an issue on the consumer drives from the competitors. No one has yet to explain to me why that is?

 

But I would like to hear what people would recommend of 2-3TB drives that are NOT in the Red Pro, Black, RE, enterprise price range.

[Nineshadow]

Nothing from Seagate has been up to par in a long time. Sure my WD 2 TB black is dying, but at least it's 5+ years old, and I get to do some backup. That was not possible with my Seagate 1 TB drive. I would never trust 10 TB data to Seagate.

I have an old Seagate Barracuda from 2006 that hasn't failed to this day.

[Nineshadow]

At worst you can call it stress testing the drives, nothing more. Still does not explain the extremely poor reliability on the drives, that is NOT an issue on the consumer drives from the competitors. No one has yet to explain to me why that is?

 

But I would like to hear what people would recommend of 2-3TB drives that are NOT in the Red Pro, Black, RE, enterprise price range.

And where do you have those numbers on poor reliability? Please tell me not Blackblaze , we all know that is BS.

Anyway , Seagate does have some problems , especially on their 1.5TB drives and the Barracuda Green family. Still , they are a lot cheaper then their counterparts.

 

About Blackblaze, we all know that they have so so many more Seagate drives than WD or Hitachi drives, and they know they fail more. Why? This is what their CTO said :

 

 Double the reliability is only worth 1/10th of 1 percent cost increase. I posted this in a different forum:

Replacing one drive takes about 15 minutes of work. If we have 30,000 drives and 2 percent fail, it takes 150 hours to replace those. In other words, one employee for one month of 8 hour days. Getting the failure rate down to 1 percent means you save 2 weeks of employee salary - maybe $5,000 total? The 30,000 drives costs you $4m.

The $5k/$4m means the Hitachis are worth 1/10th of 1 per cent higher cost to us. ACTUALLY we pay even more than that for them, but not more than a few dollars per drive (maybe 2 or 3 percent more).

Moral of the story: design for failure and buy the cheapest components you can. :-)

Using the analysis above, this means that a drive that offered double the reliability of the 4TB Seagates (which currently cost around $160) is only worth an additional $.016 (yeah, sixteen cents) to Backblaze.

A quick check of Western Digital and Hitachi (now owned by WD) 4TB spindles reveals that retail prices of these are roughly $30 - $50 more than the Seagate alternative.

[Notional]

I have an old Seagate Barracuda from 2006 that hasn't failed to this day.

 

I have 2: My original SATA gen1 80GB and SATA gen2 250GB. It wasn't until later the problems started with faulty firmwares and massively defective series. 7200.11 is from 2008 I believe.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Threads about Seagate are always a great way to grow my ignore list.

 

The Seagate hate brigade is possibly the most misinformed and repugnant niche of hatekids on the entire internet.

[Notional]

And where do you have those numbers on poor reliability? Please tell me not Blackblaze , we all know that is BS.

Anyway , Seagate does have some problems , especially on their 1.5TB drives and the Barracuda Green family. Still , they are a lot cheaper then their counterparts.

 

About Blackblaze, we all know that they have so so many more Seagate drives than WD or Hitachi drives, and they know they fail more. Why? This is what their CTO said :

Using the analysis above, this means that a drive that offered double the reliability of the 4TB Seagates (which currently cost around $160) is only worth an additional $.016 (yeah, sixteen cents) to Backblaze.

A quick check of Western Digital and Hitachi (now owned by WD) 4TB spindles reveals that retail prices of these are roughly $30 - $50 more than the Seagate alternative.

 

Their numbers are more than representative enough to make a comparison though. However, here is another source describing the utter clusterfrack of the entire product line of 7200.11 with an RMA failure rate of up to 40% after 1½ years. (which is a lot higher than what backblaze is showing) http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050374/seagate-barracuda-7200-drives-failing

 

The good thing about percentages is that they get more precise the higher number you base them on https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/

 

Whether you (or any other) take backblaze's first hand experience serious or not, the fact is that some consumer models of Seagate has been a disaster. This includes 7200.11, 7200.14 (maybe specifically the 3TB version). Read more here about the 7200.11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagate_Barracuda#Firmware_bugs

 

To put things into perspective, I actually reset my drive and got it working again, with a USB to serial adapter, hyperterminal to manually control the engine and board on the drive, and got it up and running again so I could firmware update it. Only to have it fail miserably with the clicking sound of death half a year later. Nothing can fix that. For those interested, it was basically done like this:

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

-snip-

I don't know what to say. You really don't see any problem with what you are doing here? You are ignoring actual facts from actual consumers using the drives for the intended workloads (the source I linked, showing Seagate to be the most reliable brand), and then you build your entire opinion on a company which has the strategy of "let's just torture the drives until they die and then replace them. It's cheaper than getting proper storage to begin with"? They are using consumer drives for 24/7 data center usage.

 

You wanted a car analogy so here goes. If you were to buy a car you intended to drive with to and from work, which of these sources would you use to determine which car would be the least likely to break down:

1 - Statistics showing how often each car breaks down. The data is collected from regular consumers who use it for the same purpose you use it for.

2 - Top Gear testing which car survives having caravans dropped on the roof.

 

My source is the former. Your source is the latter.

And congratulations, you know about the 7200.11 bug. The 7200.11 was a really shitty drive. The DRIVE was shitty, but not Seagate. All companies can release a bad product every once in a while, but you can't judge an entire company based on a single product, and ignore like 50 other products which have been as good or better than their competitors.

 

The Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 had a 12.67% RMA rate. Do you think that means we should say AMD cards are very unreliable and you shouldn't get one? Or do you think we should say that particular card was not good but the rest of their cards have been very solid and should be considered?

[Sharkyx1]

Yet with Mushkin releasing a $500 4TB SSD, and FixStar releasing 10TB and 13TB SSDs.

A 4Tb HDD can be had for <$100 now right? My 3tb barracuda was 93$ two years ago

I would not trust an SSD with that much space for a while, in 10 years when SSD start dying en mass and we actually know what their average lifespan is I would consider it