Technology

59719 readers

6164 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 another!
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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

510

Sony is killing off recordable Blu-ray, bidding farewell to disc burning | TechSpot (www.techspot.com)

submitted 4 months ago by fne8w2ah to c/technology

149 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Passerby6497 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Are we back to trusting Seagate again? Last I knew their spinning rust was t trust worthy. I've had 6 drives fail me in the last 2 decades, and all but one or two were Seagate, so I just assume their bad anymore and go with other suppliers.

[–] jordanlund 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Every drive I've had fail, personally or professionally, has been a Seagate drive.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Every drive I've had failed was WD. My Seagates have been mostly fine

[–] pikmeir 2 points 4 months ago

I've had both Seagate and WD drives fail. I just think drives fail rather commonly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Seagate does seem to have a higher failure rate, but they are also cheaper. From this article:

The oldest (average age of 92.5 months) hard drive Backblaze tested was a 6TB Seagate (ST6000DX000). Its AFR was 0.11 percent in 2021 and 0.68 percent in 2022. Backblaze said this was "a very respectable number any time, but especially after nearly eight years."

...

"In general, Seagate drives are less expensive and their failure rates are typically higher in our environment," Backblaze said. "But, their failure rates are typically not high enough to make them less cost-effective over their lifetime. You could make a good case that for us, many Seagate drive models are just as cost-effective as more expensive drives."

Their oldest drives are Seagate as well, so that's saying something.

Whether a drive will be reliable for you is less related to the manufacturer and more related to capacity and luck.

Here's an anecdote from Reddit:

I've had numerous hard drive failures over the years -- nothing atypical, I just use lots of drives, and like almost everything else, they have stochastic failures. But between Seagate and WD, the Seagate drives all at least let me know they were going to fail soon, via SMART monitoring, and gave me (just) ample time to get all of my data off of them before completely dying. My WD drives that failed did so instantaneously, without any prior indication of problems.

But this could also be luck, idk. My takeaway is:

Seagate has a little higher failure rate, which explains why they're often cheaper
Seagate may do a good job detecting errors with SMART
all drives fail and whether one will fail before another is more likely up to luck than any systemic issue by a manufacturer

[–] new_guy 1 points 4 months ago

I genuinely don't know. Their name was just the first one that came to my mind.