I would not risk 36TB of data on a single drive let alone a Seagate. Never had a good experience with them.
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
246 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
61081 readers
3079 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Only ssd for me
Yeah, but I can't afford 2TB of SSD, and I need to expand soon.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’m going to remind you that these fuckers are LOUD, like ROARING LOUD, so might not be suitable for your living room server.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What about the writing and reading speeds?
If you care about that, spinning rust is not the right solution for you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It has some.
load more comments
(1 replies)
OK...what's this HAMR technology and how does it play compared to the typical CMR/SMR performance differences?
Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording. It uses a laser to heat the drive platter, allowing for higher areal density and increased capacity.
I am ignorant on the CMR/SMR differences in performance
I fear HAMR sounds like a variation on the idea of getting a coarser method to prepare the data to be written, just like on SMR. These kind of hard drives are good for slow predictable sequential storage, but they suck at writing more randomly. They're good for surveillance storage and things like that, but no good for daily use in a computer.
My poor memory is telling me the heat is used to make the bits easier to flip, so you can use a weaker magnetic field that only affects a smaller area, allowing you to pack in bits more closely. It shouldn't have the same problem as SMR.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm still not buying a seagate.
Why?
I bought a seagate. Brand new. 250gb, back when 250gb on one hard drive cost a fuckton.
It sat in a box until I was done burning the files on my old 60gb hard drive onto dvd-r's.
Finally, like 2 months later, I open the box. Install the drive. Put all the files from dvds onto the hard drive.
And after I finished, 2 weeks later it totally dies. Outside of return window, but within the warranty period. Seagate refused to honor their warranty even though I still had the reciept.
That was like 2005. Western Digital has now gotten my business ever since. Multiple drives bought. Not because the drives die, but because datawise I outgrow them. My current setup is 18TB and a 12TB. I figure by 2027 I'll need to update that 12TB to a 30TB. Which I assume will still cost $400 at that point.
Return customer? No no. We'll hassle our customer and send bad vibes. Make him frustrated for ever shopping our brznd! Gotta protect that one time $400 purchase! It's totally worth losing 20 years of sales!
I've had a lot of seagates simply because they're the cheapest crap on the market and my budget was low. But unfortunately, crap is what you get.
As @[email protected] said, infant mortality is a concern with spinning disks, if I recall (been out of reliability for a few years) things like bearings are super sensitive to handling and storage, vibrations and the like can totally cause microscopic damage causing premature failure, once they're good though they're good until they wear out. A lot of electronics follow that or the infant mortality curve, stuff dying out of the box sucks, but it's not unexpected from a reliability POV.
Shitty of Seagate not to honour the warranty, that'd turn me off as well. Mine is pettier, when I was building my nas/server I initially bought some WD reds, returned those and went for some Seagate ironwolf drives because the reds made this really irritating whine you could hear across the room, at the time we had a single room apartment so was no good.
- Seagate drives are generally way more reliable now than the pre-TB days.
- There is always a risk of premature failure with all hard drives (see the bathtub curve). You should never have only one copy of any data you aren’t okay with losing.
FYI: Backblaze is a cloud storage provider that uses HDDs at scale, and they publish their statistics every year regarding which models have the highest and lowest failure rates.
Backblaze... failure rates
Take this data with a grain of salt. They buy consumer drives and run them in data centers. So unless your use case is similar, you probably won't see similar results. A "good" drive from their data may fail early in a frequent spin up/down scenario, and a "bad" drive may last forever if you're not writing very often.
It's certainly interesting data, but don't assume it's directly applicable to your use case.
Sure, YMMV for any statistical study but it’s also the best source that exists for stats on consumer Hard Drives tested at scale.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Or just read their raw charts. Their claims don't tend to line up with their data. But their data does show that Seagate tends to fail early
All that tells you is that Seagate drives fail more in their use case. You also need to notice that they've consistently had more Seagate drives than HGST or WD, which have lower failure rates on their data. Since they keep buying them, they must see better overall value from them.
You likely don't have that same use case, so you shouldn't necessarily copy their buying choices or knee-jerk avoid drives with higher failure rates.
What's more useful IMO is finding trends, like failure rate by drive size. 10TB drives seem to suck across the board, while 16TB drives are really reliable.
Ye, Seagate is cheap, that's the value. I've had a tonne myself and they're terrible for my use too
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I've bought 2 Seagate drives and both have failed. Meanwhile, I still have my 2 15yo WD drives working.
I hope I didn't just jinx myself. Lol
I get it, I’ve had the opposite experience with wd, but they were 2.5” portable drives. All my desktop stuff works perfectly still 🤞
I’ve got the opposite experience, with WD.
You know who uses loads of Seagate drives? Backblaze. They also publish the stats. They wouldn’t be buying Seagate drives if they were significantly worse than the others.
The important thing is to back up your shit. All drives fail.
Same here. I have a media server and just spent an afternoon of my weekend replacing a failed Seagate drive that was only used to to backup my more important files nightly that was purchased maybe 4-5 years ago. In the past 10 years, this is the third failed Seagate drive I've encountered (out of 5 total) while I have 9 WD drives that have had zero issues. One of them is even dedicated to torrents with constant R/W that is still chugging along just fine.
Click...click...click...click...
They have had reliability issues in the past.
What brand is currently recommended? WD is taking the enshittification highway...
Latest story I know of: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/clearly-predatory-western-digital-sparks-panic-anger-for-age-shaming-hdds/
Got a source on that? According to Backblaze, Seagate seems to be doing okay (Backblaze Drive Stats for Q1 2024 https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q1-2024/), especially given how many models are in operation.
I wouldn't call those numbers okay. They have noticeably higher failure rates than anybody else. On that particular report, they're the only ones with failure rates >3% (save for one Toshiba and one HGST), and they go as high as 12.98%. Most drives on this list are <1%, but most of the Seagate drives are over that. Perhaps you can say that you're not likely to encounter issues no matter what brand you buy, but the fact is that you're substantially more likely to have issues with Seagate.
Looks like another person commented above you with some stuff. I recall looking this up a year ago and the ssd I was looking at was in the news for unreliability. It was just that specific model.
Nearly all brands have produced unreliable and a reliable series of hard drives.
Really have to look at them based on series / tech.
None of the big spinning rust brands really can be labeled as unreliable across the board
Backblaze.com gives stats on drive failures across their datacenters:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q3-2024/
Seagate's results stick out. Most of the drives with >2% failure rates are theirs. They even have one model over 11%.
Why would Backblaze use so many Seagate drives if they’re significantly worse? Seagate also has some of the highest Drive Days on that chart. It’s clear Backblaze doesn’t think they’re bad drives for their business.
I can only speculate on why. Perhaps they come as a package deal with servers, and they would prefer to avoid them otherwise.
There are plenty of drives of equivalent or more runtime than the Seagate drives. They cycle their drives every 10 years regardless of failure. The standout failure rate, the Seagate ST12000NM0007 at 11.77% failure, has less than half that average age.
Seconding this. Anecdotally from my last job in support, every drive failure we had was a Seagate. WDs and samsungs never seemed to have an issue.