A new HDD failure report

[Robert17]

Something to consider; discuss.

 

[HankB]

Looks like HGST is the one to go with and add WD to Seagate for brands to avoid.

 

[wingman99]

That is interesting HGST, is a wholly owned supplementary to Western Digital.

 

[HankB]

That is interesting HGST, is a wholly owned supplementary to Western Digital.

That's right! I had forgotten about that. Google tells me that was about 4 years ago. Apparently WD is preserving the HGST brand. I wonder if HGST is operated separately.

I suppose if the WD brand becomes tarnished they could sell production previously branded as WD under the HGST brand. For that matter, I wonder if the Seagate brand suffers. We know about it. Does the average person ordering from Amazon or the egg know about the record that Seagate has earned? I'm guessing that big builders like HP and Dell know better than we do as they can track warranty returns and support requests.

 

[satrow]

HGST 5,700rpm drives fail less frequently than Seagate 7,200rpm drives.

Why is a datacenter still using/buying consumer drives anyway?

 

[EarthDog]

I like these, but as I said in the last iteration of this thread, the results have to be taken with a grain of salt...

Remember the usage model these drives see are nowhere close to how most home users utilize these drives. These are beat up on day in and day out vs our drives at home aren't even close to the activity they see.

 

[wingman99]

HGST 5,700rpm drives fail less frequently than Seagate 7,200rpm drives.

Why is a datacenter still using/buying consumer drives anyway?

Google uses exclusively consumer level drives with there servers.

 

[dyckah]

HGST 5,700rpm drives fail less frequently than Seagate 7,200rpm drives.

Why is a datacenter still using/buying consumer drives anyway?

it says somewhere on that page that the price point on the consumer drives is more than worth the higher failure rate to them.