I'm not sure what else to tell you.
Toshiba drives are rebranded Hitachi drives, made at the WD plant (which also owns HGST [Hitachi] )
There is some conclusions you might make about the Toshiba being good, since the Hitachi models have traditionally been very good.
The recent backblaze study showed this pretty clear I thought.
There was some dispelling of the blog here : http://www.avsforum.com/t/1515424/dispelling-backblazes-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/0_100
Specifically pointing out a lot of errors in the data, and some defense for Seagate being the first and oldest drives and the ones used in the original POD enclosures that were later revised and improved twice for vibration and heat dissipation concerns. The article basically is trying to suggest the Seagates did the worst because they were the oldest and subjected to the harshest conditions, while the newer drives were younger and installed into the better environments in the revised storage pods and since there was a clear difference there the data is not that strong.
But, If you notice HITACHI drives were used heavily and for a long time and still had the very best reliability. Probably because they are a trickle down product of Hitachi enterprise and they have good vibration resistance, but I'm just guessing at that.
Backblaze did test over 25,000 hard drives in this study : http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/
And the Hitachi was a substantial enough number, while the WD was mostly 1TB versions totally different than the 2TB/3TB/4TB models people are buying now. They only test 346 WD RED's and only with average age of .5 years, so in my opinion that is not long enough or enough drives to draw a substantial conclusion.
The same for Toshiba which they only tested 58 hard drives, and average age only .7 years. Not enough data IMO.
But if we look at the 12,956 Hitachi models with average age of them being 2 years old I think this is enough data to draw a conclusion. If you were going to draw any conclusions at all from that study and blog it would be that Hitachi are good. (at least those Hitachi models) That conclusion makes more sense to me than any conclusion you could make about Seagate, WD, Toshiba or Samsung.
If the price were right, we would be buying nothing but Hitachi drives. They have been rock solid, and have had a remarkably low failure rate.
That is thousands of each model Hitachi and every single model had a lower failure rate than any other brand/model combo.
It's hard to make a strong conclusion from the limited amount of WD drives they used, and the 1TB GREEN's they used don't really apply to today's WD drives so that would be a major jump to make.
But the Hitachi seems like it might translate and suggest Hitachi is pretty reliable.
I have seen a few other studies showing Hitachi was tops in reliability previously too, and aside from the "deathstar" model that was notoriously bad (flawed) I have generally always viewed Hitachi as a great HDD maker. My gut tells me the best, but again this is all subjective opinion that no one can prove either way with certainty.
I think what sucks is there is such a limited amount of data on all this stuff that the consumer ends up needing to make so many judgement because no clear answers exist.
I can't say with authority Hitachi is high endurance, so at the end of the day it's each buyers own decision. But Toshiba being a rebadge of Hitachi models is probably a postive, and not a negative IMO. That is what I was suggesting.
Toshiba 7200rpm based on Hitachi design and made in the WD plant for $99 is good deal if you ask me. I think he would do well with those.
If he wanted a 4TB model I think for $169 the Hitachi 4TB makes the most sense since it's 7200rpm, it's 2million MTBF rated and it has 5 year warranty. For $169 I am not sure you can get much cheaper, perhaps a WD GREEN (yuck) or a Seagate 4TB (only 5900rpm too) and both have only 2 year warranty. A WD RED would likely cost as much ($169) and it's only 5400rpm, only 3 year warranty and only 1million MTBF rated.
The study had lots of problems, but if Hitachi is shown reliable I am not sure you can discount that. If the study and data was more ideal, would that somehow lower Hitachi reliability ? I don't see how. The jury might still be out on WD and Seagate, it seems Seagate was disadvantaged, and WD isn't widespread enough to draw a strong conclusion. But Hitachi was, and the conclusion is obvious to me.
Can we get back to helping GCS pick out his hard drives ?
That was really the important thing going on. I think those Toshiba are a good choice for under $100 each. That's all I was saying. There is lots of reasons to think so. I also think the 4TB Hitachi with 5 year warranty for $169 is a good deal here : http://www.microcenter.com/product/425448/Deskstar_7K4000_4TB_7,200_RPM_SATA_60Gb-s_Internal_Hard_Drive_-_Bare_Drive
But $70 for 1 more TB is a lot. But it's a 4TB and a Hitachi and has a 5 year warranty so if you were going to spend the money on a 4TB drive I would think that beats out a Seagate or a WD pretty clearly.