What storage HDD?

[lorcav123]

What would you recommend, WD red or Seagate Ironwolf (2-3TB versions)? Which is more quieter and durable?

[Peter041098]

For what purpose? 

[The_Budget_Gamer]

Definitely get the WD.

[lorcav123]

10 hours ago, Peter041098 said:

For what purpose? 

Storage disk for music. pictures, videos...

46 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

doesnt matter as long as it's not the 3tb version

Why is that?

[lorcav123]

2 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

the 3TB version of any brand seems to have a disproportionate drive failure rate when compared to any other HDD capacity

any link for that?

 

Following this pages there seems there is no such difference:

 

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q3-2016/

 

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-stats-q2-2017/

 

 

[seagate_surfer]

For just storage on a single disk, you actually probably want to stay away from drives specifically engineered for NAS use. The reason for this is that part of what the firmware on those drives does to make it so good for NAS enclosures, can cause complications when used in a desktop as a single drive not in a RAID configuration: A feature which has to do with error recovery. Take our IronWolf, for example. It has an error recovery control which, when working in tandem in a RAID team with other drives, if the drive runs into errors, it will have a certain time limit to work on resolving them before the controller says "All right, buddy, you're getting bogged down there, pass that data to another member of the team and move on". This helps keep the RAID performance snappy, and works great from the perspective of a NAS enclosure, however as a single drive in a desktop, this can potentially cause errors to mount up faster than ideal on the drive. 

For regular desktop use, you'd be better off sticking to desktop-grade drives like our BarraCuda. However if it's the 24x7 rating and more robust features of the IronWolf you were after, then you could always give a look at the BarraCuda Pro line as well. They come with a 5 year limited warranty, 2 free years of rescue services, 300TB of data per year rating, and 24x7 workload rating.

Regardless of which route you decide to go in the end, thank you for considering Seagate!

[lorcav123]

On 02. 01. 2018. at 10:12 PM, seagate_surfer said:

For just storage on a single disk, you actually probably want to stay away from drives specifically engineered for NAS use. The reason for this is that part of what the firmware on those drives does to make it so good for NAS enclosures, can cause complications when used in a desktop as a single drive not in a RAID configuration: A feature which has to do with error recovery. Take our IronWolf, for example. It has an error recovery control which, when working in tandem in a RAID team with other drives, if the drive runs into errors, it will have a certain time limit to work on resolving them before the controller says "All right, buddy, you're getting bogged down there, pass that data to another member of the team and move on". This helps keep the RAID performance snappy, and works great from the perspective of a NAS enclosure, however as a single drive in a desktop, this can potentially cause errors to mount up faster than ideal on the drive. 

For regular desktop use, you'd be better off sticking to desktop-grade drives like our BarraCuda. However if it's the 24x7 rating and more robust features of the IronWolf you were after, then you could always give a look at the BarraCuda Pro line as well. They come with a 5 year limited warranty, 2 free years of rescue services, 300TB of data per year rating, and 24x7 workload rating.

Regardless of which route you decide to go in the end, thank you for considering Seagate!

So you are saying that difference will be if the disk fail from NAS drive it will be harder to recover data.

 

That shouldn`t be problem to me because I have disk with my backup files.

 

I prefer NAS disk for desktop use becasue longer warranty and durability.