Just don’t buy Seagate. Their drives consistently have the highest annualized failure rate on Backblaze reports ( https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/6-AFR-by-Manufacturer.png ), and is consistent with my experience in small anecdotal sample of roughly 30 drives. This results in a ripple effect where the failed drive adds more work to the other drives (array rebuild after replacement), thereby increasing their risk of failing, too.
If you look at the data, Seagate is also some of their oldest drives, and some of their most used. Likewise, they have almost no WD drives, yet that’s what you recommend below.
I’m not saying you should or should not buy Seagate drives, I’m just saying that’s not what you should be taking away from that data. What it seems to say is that Seagate drives are more likely to fail early, and if they don’t, they’ll likely last a while, even in a use case like Backblaze. Some capacities should be also avoided.
That said, I don’t think this data is applicable to an average home user. If you’re running a NAS 24/7, maybe, but if you’re looking for a single desktop drive (esp if it’s solid state), it’s useless to you because you won’t be buying those models (though failure rates by capacity apply since they likely use the same platters).
AFR is a percentage, 1 drive from a pool of 10 means 10%, 5 drives from 100 means 5%; so with regards to your point that they don’t have much WD drives, if they don’t have much WD, then each fail is even more detrimental on the chart, therefore making the data even more impactful. The data also showed the average across all manufactures and you can see clearly Seagate being consistently above the average quarter over quarter. The failure rate is annualized, so age of drive is also factored into the consideration.
When there’s a clear trend of higher failure rate represented as a percentage, I’m not going to volunteer my data, NAS or otherwise, as tribute to brand loyalty from a manufacture that’s gone downhill from the decades past.
The failure rate is annualized, so age of drive is also factored into the consideration.
Sort of. If we’re mostly seeing failures during the first year or two and high average age, that means their QC is terrible, but that’s something a consumer can work with by burning in drives. If average age is lower, that means drives are probably failing further into their life, which means a burn-in won’t likely detect the worst of it.
If Seagate were so unreliable, why would Backblaze be using so much of them? They used to use cheap consumer drives in the past, but if you look at the drives they have in service, they’re pretty much all enterprise class drives, so it’s not like they’re abusing customer warranties or anything.
While the top two companies of Enterprise HDDs were close in all categories, Seagate has proven itself a leader by being voted Market for the seventh year in a row; also picking up titles for Price, Performance, Reliability, Innovation, and Service and Support, sweeping the board for a two-year streak. Western Digital came in second for all categories trailed by Toshiba.
Backblaze places Toshiba as first for reliability, whereas this survey put them third.
Why the discrepancy? Idk, but there’s a good chance Backblaze is doing something wonky in their reporting, or they have significantly different environmental factors in their datacenters or something than average. Or maybe they’re not burning in their drives (or counting those as failures) and other IT pros are (and not counting those as failures). Maybe their goal is to reduce demand so they can get the drives cheaper. I really don’t know.
I’m not going to tell you what you should buy. I personally have WD drives in my NAS because I got a decent price for them years ago, but I wouldn’t hesitate to put Seagate drives in there either. Regardless, I’m going to test the drives when I get them.
It is pretty clear that you have less of an inclination against Seagate than my experience dictates me to. Stats can be twisted to tell anything, and my twist on what I’m seeing tells me to steer away from Seagate; your interpretation can most certainly differ.
A bit less than 20 years ago a new PC arrived in our home, and some of the letters on the drive inside it said “Seagate Barracuda”. And that drive lasted longer than the motherboard in that box (and the CPU’s integrated graphics started gradually failing a few years before that, so I was using a cheap discrete card).
Point is, I have good associations with the brand, sad that it’s become this bad.
Way back when SSD were prohibitively expensive for poor student me way back when, they came up with Momentus XT; I don’t know if they were the first hybrid HDD/SSD, but it was my first foray into flash storage. I had the earlier version with controller such that should the flash memory dies, I’d still have access to the HDD.
It, was, glorious…
I hear you. The brand is really not what we remembered them to be.
I had bad experiences with Seagate between 2002 and 2009. Multiple, sudden, premature drive failures under ideal operating conditions. I haven’t bought a Seagate drive in over 10 years.
WD enterprise grade hardware is still good for me, as of 2 years ago. Their customer service sucks but the hardware is still good
In general I tend to go for Toshiba or Hitachi (rebranded to a different name if I recall…) if I have a preference. I have some really old drives like 15+ years old still chugging along.
WD has been treating me well, but the most recent batch had been hgst he10 from server part deals from a couple years back so I can’t comment on the more recent drives.
Western Digital used to be great. Don’t know if they still are. I never had an issue with any of my HDDs from them (I only ever bought the high end stuff though)
Just don’t buy Seagate. Their drives consistently have the highest annualized failure rate on Backblaze reports ( https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/6-AFR-by-Manufacturer.png ), and is consistent with my experience in small anecdotal sample of roughly 30 drives. This results in a ripple effect where the failed drive adds more work to the other drives (array rebuild after replacement), thereby increasing their risk of failing, too.
If you look at the data, Seagate is also some of their oldest drives, and some of their most used. Likewise, they have almost no WD drives, yet that’s what you recommend below.
I’m not saying you should or should not buy Seagate drives, I’m just saying that’s not what you should be taking away from that data. What it seems to say is that Seagate drives are more likely to fail early, and if they don’t, they’ll likely last a while, even in a use case like Backblaze. Some capacities should be also avoided.
That said, I don’t think this data is applicable to an average home user. If you’re running a NAS 24/7, maybe, but if you’re looking for a single desktop drive (esp if it’s solid state), it’s useless to you because you won’t be buying those models (though failure rates by capacity apply since they likely use the same platters).
AFR is a percentage, 1 drive from a pool of 10 means 10%, 5 drives from 100 means 5%; so with regards to your point that they don’t have much WD drives, if they don’t have much WD, then each fail is even more detrimental on the chart, therefore making the data even more impactful. The data also showed the average across all manufactures and you can see clearly Seagate being consistently above the average quarter over quarter. The failure rate is annualized, so age of drive is also factored into the consideration.
When there’s a clear trend of higher failure rate represented as a percentage, I’m not going to volunteer my data, NAS or otherwise, as tribute to brand loyalty from a manufacture that’s gone downhill from the decades past.
Sort of. If we’re mostly seeing failures during the first year or two and high average age, that means their QC is terrible, but that’s something a consumer can work with by burning in drives. If average age is lower, that means drives are probably failing further into their life, which means a burn-in won’t likely detect the worst of it.
If Seagate were so unreliable, why would Backblaze be using so much of them? They used to use cheap consumer drives in the past, but if you look at the drives they have in service, they’re pretty much all enterprise class drives, so it’s not like they’re abusing customer warranties or anything.
Here’s a survey of IT pros from 2019, which gives Seagate the award for every single category for Enterprise HDDs:
Backblaze places Toshiba as first for reliability, whereas this survey put them third.
Why the discrepancy? Idk, but there’s a good chance Backblaze is doing something wonky in their reporting, or they have significantly different environmental factors in their datacenters or something than average. Or maybe they’re not burning in their drives (or counting those as failures) and other IT pros are (and not counting those as failures). Maybe their goal is to reduce demand so they can get the drives cheaper. I really don’t know.
I’m not going to tell you what you should buy. I personally have WD drives in my NAS because I got a decent price for them years ago, but I wouldn’t hesitate to put Seagate drives in there either. Regardless, I’m going to test the drives when I get them.
It is pretty clear that you have less of an inclination against Seagate than my experience dictates me to. Stats can be twisted to tell anything, and my twist on what I’m seeing tells me to steer away from Seagate; your interpretation can most certainly differ.
A bit less than 20 years ago a new PC arrived in our home, and some of the letters on the drive inside it said “Seagate Barracuda”. And that drive lasted longer than the motherboard in that box (and the CPU’s integrated graphics started gradually failing a few years before that, so I was using a cheap discrete card).
Point is, I have good associations with the brand, sad that it’s become this bad.
Way back when SSD were prohibitively expensive for poor student me way back when, they came up with Momentus XT; I don’t know if they were the first hybrid HDD/SSD, but it was my first foray into flash storage. I had the earlier version with controller such that should the flash memory dies, I’d still have access to the HDD.
It, was, glorious…
I hear you. The brand is really not what we remembered them to be.
What do you recommend instead?
I had bad experiences with Seagate between 2002 and 2009. Multiple, sudden, premature drive failures under ideal operating conditions. I haven’t bought a Seagate drive in over 10 years.
WD enterprise grade hardware is still good for me, as of 2 years ago. Their customer service sucks but the hardware is still good
In general I tend to go for Toshiba or Hitachi (rebranded to a different name if I recall…) if I have a preference. I have some really old drives like 15+ years old still chugging along.
In my home server my Seagates have been dying one after another, I have replaced each failed one with a Toshiba and they have been rock solid so far
WD has been treating me well, but the most recent batch had been hgst he10 from server part deals from a couple years back so I can’t comment on the more recent drives.
Western Digital used to be great. Don’t know if they still are. I never had an issue with any of my HDDs from them (I only ever bought the high end stuff though)