Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #68653 > unrolled thread

Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-22 05:49 +0000
    Re: Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-01-22 15:47 +0100
      Re: Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-01-22 10:04 -0500
      Re: Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-23 09:18 +1300
        Re: Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-01-22 15:18 -0800
      Re: Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-23 00:59 +0000
        Re: Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-01-23 14:52 +0100

#68653 — Oh, Seagate, how far you'd plummeted

<https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/>

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#68660

Lewis wrote:
> <https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/>

Well... My first thought was "...How mch has HGST payed them to give 
their disks that good rate?" - Then I began to think of my own disk 
problems thrugh the years from 1993 till today...

Failures 3,5":
Seagate: 1, 1 250gb SATA-II/300
WD: 3, 2x 200gb ATA + 1 320gb SATA-II/300
IBM/Hitachi/HGST: +40 disks of various types & sizes from 40-1000gb.

Failures 2,5":
Seagate: 2, 1x 160gb SATA-II/300 + 1x 500gb SATA-II/300
Toshiba: 1, 1x 250gb ATA
Fujitsu: 1, 1x 500gb SATA-II/300
WD: 0,
Samsung: 2, 2x 250gb SATA-II/300
IBM/Hitachi/HGST: 0,

External branded USB disks:
Seagate: 0,
WD: 0,

Right now I have apprx. 30 HDs from 100gb to 3,0tb - all Seagate and WD. 
- So I don't know what to think about Backblaze's 'rating'....

Cheers, Erik Richard

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-daneRE@MOVEstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
Openoffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68664

On 1/22/15, 9:47 AM, ErikRS wrote:
>
> Lewis wrote:
>> <https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/>
>
> Well... My first thought was "...How mch has HGST payed them to give
> their disks that good rate?" - Then I began to think of my own disk
> problems thrugh the years from 1993 till today...
>
> Failures 3,5":
> Seagate: 1, 1 250gb SATA-II/300
> WD: 3, 2x 200gb ATA + 1 320gb SATA-II/300
> IBM/Hitachi/HGST: +40 disks of various types & sizes from 40-1000gb.
>
> Failures 2,5":
> Seagate: 2, 1x 160gb SATA-II/300 + 1x 500gb SATA-II/300
> Toshiba: 1, 1x 250gb ATA
> Fujitsu: 1, 1x 500gb SATA-II/300
> WD: 0,
> Samsung: 2, 2x 250gb SATA-II/300
> IBM/Hitachi/HGST: 0,
>
> External branded USB disks:
> Seagate: 0,
> WD: 0,
>
> Right now I have apprx. 30 HDs from 100gb to 3,0tb - all Seagate and WD.
> - So I don't know what to think about Backblaze's 'rating'....
>
> Cheers, Erik Richard
>

I dunno, maybe it's just been dumb luck.

The only HD failure I've ever experienced was the 30 MEG (not gig!) 
Seagate in my first computer-- a Leading Edge in the mid to late 80's. 
Since then, dozens and dozens o computers at home and in my small 
business-- some with multiple HDs-- and never a hiccup...

-- 
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.
				- Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68696

In article <m9r2iv$r31$1@solani.org>, ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid>
wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
> > <https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/>
> 
> Well... My first thought was "...How mch has HGST payed them to give 
> their disks that good rate?" - Then I began to think of my own disk 
> problems thrugh the years from 1993 till today...
> 
> Failures 3,5":
> Seagate: 1, 1 250gb SATA-II/300
> WD: 3, 2x 200gb ATA + 1 320gb SATA-II/300
> IBM/Hitachi/HGST: +40 disks of various types & sizes from 40-1000gb.
> 
> Failures 2,5":
> Seagate: 2, 1x 160gb SATA-II/300 + 1x 500gb SATA-II/300
> Toshiba: 1, 1x 250gb ATA
> Fujitsu: 1, 1x 500gb SATA-II/300
> WD: 0,
> Samsung: 2, 2x 250gb SATA-II/300
> IBM/Hitachi/HGST: 0,
> 
> External branded USB disks:
> Seagate: 0,
> WD: 0,
> 
> Right now I have apprx. 30 HDs from 100gb to 3,0tb - all Seagate and WD. 
> - So I don't know what to think about Backblaze's 'rating'....

It's a load of bollocks - just another idiotic and inaccurate
statistically manipulated "survey" on a few drives, then claiming the
results are "proof" for every drive. Like anything else, some drives
fail quickly while others from the same company will go on happily for
decades. Whether or not a drive fails depends on MANY MANY factors,
almost none of which you can control.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68705

On 2015-01-22 20:18:02 +0000, Your Name said:

> It's a load of bollocks - just another idiotic and inaccurate
> statistically manipulated "survey" on a few drives, then claiming the
> results are "proof" for every drive. Like anything else, some drives
> fail quickly while others from the same company will go on happily for
> decades. Whether or not a drive fails depends on MANY MANY factors,
> almost none of which you can control.

I too agree that statistics are poorly sourced and endlessly 
manipulated to produce meaningless rubbish.

However when using 4,595 drives of one specific make/model, for and 
average period of 2.6 years, if they have a .6% failure rate (27.6 
drives) that is noteworthy.  Sure we have to ask how much *each and 
every individual drive* was used.  And if the *average* is 2.6 years 
does that mean some have been used for 20 years and others for 20 
minutes?  Well if it's a specific made/model, it's doubtful. 
Nevertheless the 27.6 drives that failed; were they part of the first 
run of such machines?  Or all those manufactured at one facility?

Elsewhere we have 1,163 of another model, average 2.2 years and a 
whopping 43.1% failed.  That's 500 DRIVES.  We can again make the 
number softer as I did above, but still that's 500 DRIVES!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68711

Okay, so one time? In band camp? ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> was all, like:

> Lewis wrote:
>> <https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/>

> Well... My first thought was "...How mch has HGST payed them to give 
> their disks that good rate?" - Then I began to think of my own disk 
> problems thrugh the years from 1993 till today...

I haven't had a Hitachi/HGST drive die on me yet. I had *horrible*
results with Western Digital about 10 years ago and even worse results
with their support, so it's been about a decade since I bought anything
from Western Digital since I had a greater than 100% failure rate over
the course of about 3 years.

Seagate has been good to me until recently, as long as I never touch
their "desktop" drives and only buy bare drives. that said, I've had a
sudden rash of failed Seagates in the last 6 months. I think all the 2TB
drives are dead.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68742

Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> was all, like:
>
>> Lewis wrote:
>>> <https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/>
>
>> Well... My first thought was "...How mch has HGST payed them to give
>> their disks that good rate?" - Then I began to think of my own disk
>> problems thrugh the years from 1993 till today...
>
> I haven't had a Hitachi/HGST drive die on me yet. I had *horrible*
> results with Western Digital about 10 years ago and even worse results
> with their support, so it's been about a decade since I bought anything
> from Western Digital since I had a greater than 100% failure rate over
> the course of about 3 years.
>
> Seagate has been good to me until recently, as long as I never touch
> their "desktop" drives and only buy bare drives. that said, I've had a
> sudden rash of failed Seagates in the last 6 months. I think all the 2TB
> drives are dead.

The problem is that when Seagate bought Samsung HD division they 
marketed the Samsung Spinpoint disks as 'Seagate Desktop' and 'Seagate 
External Desktop' and not 'seagate Barracuda' and 'Seagate Expansion 
Desktop'... Now I think they have got hold on these problems...

In my one MacPro I have 2x 3tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 and a 1,5tb 
Seagate Constellation (systemdisk). Hereto I have 2x 3tb USB3.0 Seagate 
Expansion Desktop as backup to the internal 3tb disks.

In my other MacPro I have a 1tb Seagate Constellation (systemdisk) a 1tb 
Barracuda 7200.12 and a 320gb Barracuda 7200.11 (for Windows). These 
disks are all now +4 years old. To this MacPro I have a 1tb Seagate 
Barracuda 7200.12 in a FW800 enclosure as system backup + 2x 2tb WD 
Elements and 1x 3tb WD Elements as file backup. All external disk are 
also +4 years old and all working just fine.

I use both MacPros rather heavily for music recording/editing. Just 
working and have never had anyh problem with these. Sometimes I have one 
of the Mps working 24/7 - making real hard rendering when I go to sleep. 
- It requires quite a lot of both computer and disks rendering +20x 1 
hour recordings.:-)

Cheers, Erik Richard

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-daneRE@MOVEstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
Openoffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web