I have seen a lot about certain Seagate hdds being rather unreliable. This was even mentioned in the tek. However, I am under the assumption that this is a problem with certain, specific models, likely related to the manufacturing process they use on those drives. So I have to assume that the reliability of different models from Seagate will differ rather greatly. With this in mind, I am interested in the reliability of their new shingled, archive hdds. 8th for $300? Yes, please. However, because of the bad rep that they have right now as far as reliability goes, buying something from them specifically for archiving purposes seems...... well, like not a very good move. Considering that this is specifically meant for archiving, I don't imagine that they would be too unreliable, unless you read/write too often, which they likely can't handle all that well.
I imagine that it is still too early to expect reliability tests to abound, but I am curious none the less and want to know what everyone else thinks about this.
You don't seem to have read anything that I said in the OP. Yes. Failure rates on current Seagate things are rather high, however that changes from model to model, as evident by the graph you posted. So seeing as how the Archive line isn't the ones tested, it is likely that they would have different failure rates than the ones tested. See what I am getting at here?
Well here is a tip just dont buy seagate as it looks like thay have just been useing spit and tissue paper to make there drives lately (seagate drives have been going down hill for a long time)
But the archives are made for one thing, archiving. That means reliability and price per gig (at the cost of performance, obviously). That is what makes this an interesting topic for me. Seagate has a bad name for reliability and then makes a line of drives specifically for reliability. Knee-jerk reaction is to steer clear, but I don't know. The price is very alluring.
Just buy the HGST and save your digital sanity.
I have a 3TB HGST 7k3000 in my PC and will probably get another one or a 4TB version. Very satisfied with it so far and Barnacules has a few 4TB ones in his NAS if I recall correctly.
On the other hand, every Seagate HDD I ever had (4x 500GB Barracuda 7200.11 I think and 1x 250 Momentus 5400.6) either spontaneously died (all Barracudas) or is about to die (the Momentus). My 8yo 500GB WD MyBook is still running strong, in comparison.
I'd put my money on HGST.
Meanwhile, I have 5 Seagate hdds and none of them have given me any issues. Luck of the draw, I guess.
Absolutely. Some might get a bad charge, some might have a terrible delivery guy who throws HDDs around. You'll never know what awaits you. And in the end I can only share my own experience.
While it is luck of the draw, the fact is that you can mitigate some of the importance of the luck element by buying drives that have been reported as being reliable. The law of large numbers comes into play here. Lots of people have used HGST drives and almost all of them are reporting them as extremely reliable. Lots of people have also used Seagate drives and based on what I've heard, it is split down the middle. The fact that so many people have bought the drives means that you can rule out luck and random chance as influences in the results and have more reliable data.
I hope that makes some modicum of sense.
Sure, but that doesn't negate what I have been saying this entire thread. It is possible that the Archive line is more reliable than Seagate's current drives.
Very true. It is possible. The issue is that they haven't been tested and the HGST drives have. Once more reliability data is available it will be easier to make the distinction.
