Any HDDs I find have a ton of complaints about them - is it really that bad?

[FIXXX]

 So I've been looking around for an HDD or two of 2-3 TB capacity. Just regular 3.5 ones, for local storage of media.

Amazon should most of them as having 4+ stars - but there are a lot of complaints on every single one I've looked at.

 

Can anyone show me a success story of a model or line of HDDs I can get and not have crippling doubts about? 

Important to note that I would gladly return if it was broken or defective - but I'll be receiving it via a reshipping service so i'll get it ~1-2 weeks after it effectively arrives - and returning it from here will cost me 30-40% of the original cost of the product  

That's why I'd like not to risk.

[Enderman]

WD red?

[MrKickkiller]

1 minute ago, FIXXX said:

 So I've been looking around for an HDD or two of 2-3 TB capacity. Just regular 3.5 ones, for local storage of media.

Amazon should most of them as having 4+ stars - but there are a lot of complaints on every single one I've looked at.

 

Can anyone show me a success story of a model or line of HDDs I can get and not have crippling doubts about? 

Important to note that I would gladly return if it was broken or defective - but I'll be receiving it via a reshipping service so i'll get it ~1-2 weeks after it effectively arrives - and returning it from here will cost me 30-40% of the original cost of the product  

That's why I'd like not to risk.

Stats on various models of HDD's: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q1-2017/
Collected by a vary MAJOR player in the server world

[ARikozuM]

People are more likely to give negative reviews than positive which is why it's important for everyone to submit honest reviews. 

 

What's your use case?

[dadasmithywinkle]

The loudest voices are the negative ones. 

 

I prefer Seagate and Western Digital when it comes to hard drives but thats just my opinion.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, MrKickkiller said:

Stats on various models of HDD's: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q1-2017/
Collected by a vary MAJOR player in the server world

They don't use standard server disks, not valid as an authoritative source. 

[ProjectBox153]

WD Blues have served me well. I have two old ones in my NAS that are still running great, even at about 10 years old. My newest drive is a 3TB Seagate Barracuda that is in my other server. 

[MrKickkiller]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

They don't use standard server disks, not valid as an authoritative source. 

How does 'not using server disks' not count as a non-authoritive source?

These guys are running LOTS of hard drives in a hot, shaky production environment and are collecting stats on their failure rates?
You'd rather hear/ read all the negative feedback users leave on a store page? This way you get the good and the bad. You know that X drives failed in a period of Y days.

[ProjectBox153]

Just now, MrKickkiller said:

How does 'not using server disks' not count as a non-authoritive source?

These guys are running LOTS of hard drives in a hot, shaky production environment and are collecting stats on their failure rates?
You'd rather hear/ read all the negative feedback users leave on a store page? This way you get the good and the bad. You know that X drives failed in a period of Y days.

I've heard bad things about them as a source for information about drives. 

[MrKickkiller]

Just now, Jamiec1130 said:

I've heard bad things about them as a source for information about drives. 

Well I rather see numbers with a slight bias, than having to read upset feedback from average Joe's that just lost all their important backups / data.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, MrKickkiller said:

How does 'not using server disks' not count as a non-authoritive source?

These guys are running LOTS of hard drives in a hot, shaky production environment and are collecting stats on their failure rates?

Choosing drives that aren't meant for servers environments is not proper practice for a server enterprise. They used WD Blues and Blacks along with some Greens (all disks that were not designed for server use (vibration, heat) and taking the failure rate as appropriate. These are not indicative of true usage as they aren't buying themselves (they ran a campaign quite a few times with bonuses for people (like you and I) to send them drives). 

[tlink]

5 minutes ago, MrKickkiller said:

How does 'not using server disks' not count as a non-authoritive source?

These guys are running LOTS of hard drives in a hot, shaky production environment and are collecting stats on their failure rates?
You'd rather hear/ read all the negative feedback users leave on a store page? This way you get the good and the bad. You know that X drives failed in a period of Y days.

because you're using them outside of spec. shooting 2000 cars into space and then saying  "this car brand is better since more cars survived!" is a similar logic. (but a hyperbole to describe the point im making)

[MrKickkiller]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Choosing drives that aren't meant for servers environments is not proper practice for a server enterprise. They used WD Blues and Blacks along with some Greens (all disks that were not designed for server use (vibration, heat) and taking the failure rate as appropriate. These are not indicative of true usage as they aren't buying themselves (they ran a campaign quite a few times with bonuses for people (like you and I) to send them drives). 

So..

OP is looking for (probably) a consumer hard drive.

And you're distrusting a company that basically tortures consumer hard drives?

 

I get that those numbers might be slightly biased, but they still highlight a faulty drive model better than just reading all the angry comments on the Amazon pages? Especially since those come from people that backed up their data to that drive and probably just lost it all due to poor handling or just general failure. As said before in this thread. A very loud negative minority.

[Enderman]

11 minutes ago, MrKickkiller said:

Stats on various models of HDD's: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q1-2017/
Collected by a vary MAJOR player in the server world

Backblaze is a useless potato that nobody should listen to.

[FIXXX]

I remember reading the backblaze testing sheet a few years back and didn't realize they ran them afterward. 

Looks like HGST appear to be quite solid, with a good pool and low failure rates overall.

 

Btw, not basing on only backblaze, but this HGST point is in the air for several years, back when 3 TB was max.

[ProjectBox153]

2 minutes ago, FIXXX said:

Looks like HGST appear to be quite solid, with a good pool and low failure rates overall.

And run SUPER loud, as well. 

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, FIXXX said:

I remember reading the backblaze testing sheet a few years back and didn't realize they ran them afterward. 

Looks like HGST appear to be quite solid, with a good pool and low failure rates overall.

 

Btw, not basing on only backblaze, but this HGST point is in the air for several years, back when 3 TB was max.

If you're looking for a 3TB HDD for file storage and videos, I'd recommend the WD Blue, Hitachi Deskstar, or WD Black for single drives. If you want to do RAID, the Seagate NAS or WD Red would be the go-to drives. 

[FIXXX]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

If you're looking for a 3TB HDD for file storage and videos, I'd recommend the WD Blue, Hitachi Deskstar, or WD Black for single drives. If you want to do RAID, the Seagate NAS or WD Red would be the go-to drives. 

Yup, just regular storage.

I'd like to stop deleting stuff I watched just because space is at a premium  especially since high capacity HDDs aren't REALLY that expensive.

[Belgarionbg]

4 minutes ago, FIXXX said:

That's why I'd like not to risk.

Yeah, about that. There is no such thing as no risk. There are way too many stats but the truth is only one.

Any hard disk can break at any point in time. And being model for hundreds of dollars or super cheap one is of no importance.

 

The way to choose nowadays is by liking it. Has it got the necessary volume, speed and interface - then buy it.

About the pricey return - this is why I don`t buy pc parts online.

But I guess this is not the best way for everyone. In this case go with WD, after many years of reading hundreds of forums and blogs most of the people have luck with them.

In my case I use SG (even though I knew it was bad choice, but it was cheaper at the time), my first one failed in just 7 days, so I got my replacement and it`s still alive after 3 years, although I`m using it for torrents nonstop (over 100TB traffic for now).

[MysticalRainXIV]

Seagate has one of the best warranties in the business if that means anything, 5 years AFAIK, but I've ran both WD drives and Seagate drives for almost a decade and they havent failed yet

[ARikozuM]

9 minutes ago, MrKickkiller said:

So..

OP is looking for (probably) a consumer hard drive.

And you're distrusting a company that basically tortures consumer hard drives?

Yes, because they're buying random drives and setting them wherever they please. They purchase random drives from whichever vendor they can find that has inexpensive disks. They've lost credibility right there. 

9 minutes ago, MrKickkiller said:

I get that those numbers might be slightly biased, but they still highlight a faulty drive model better than just reading all the angry comments on the Amazon pages? Especially since those come from people that backed up their data to that drive and probably just lost it all due to poor handling or just general failure. As said before in this thread. A very loud negative minority.

That's why you don't go for drives that don't have a statistically high number of reviews. Don't go for the drives that have 100 reviews. Don't rely on the reviews on one website. Get your data from multiple sources before making a purchasing decision. 

[Belgarionbg]

1 minute ago, MysticalRainXIV said:

Seagate

Yep, they were the best choice back in the time. Up until the 500GBs model and above. I still have two 80GB working, after 12, or is it 13 years, hmm. I have to check.

Nowadays is WD or HGST  for less risk.

And backup everything of importance. At least twice.

[FIXXX]

3 minutes ago, Belgarionbg said:

About the pricey return - this is why I don`t buy pc parts online.

For example a Toshiba DT01ACA300 3TB drive here is worth 2393 of our local currency, and that's very very cheap as compared to other 3TB models.

On amazon, converted to our currency - the price is 1451. That strikes me as very high price difference. Especially since trying to return something here is as if you're personally stealing their jewelry and selling it for drugs. It's tough.

[MysticalRainXIV]

Just now, Belgarionbg said:

Yep, they were the best choice back in the time. Up until the 500GBs model and above. I still have two 80GB working, after 12, or is it 13 years, hmm. I have to check.

Nowadays is WD or HGST  for less risk.

And backup everything of importance. At least twice.

Ive had great luck with the two FireCuda 2TB drives I've run in Raid 0 (dont ask why) 

[WWicket]

Rarely see any drives fail in a 'consumer-use' type setting, except with refurb. drives... Seagate, WD, Hitachi... doesn't matter.