or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Western Digital Hard Drives Black vs AV-GP 4TB
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Digital Hard Drives Black vs AV-GP 4TB - Page 5

post #121 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

I love this thread.

post #122 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Someone asks you "I have the choice of these two hard drives. One is 5900rpm and the other is 5400rpm. Both are the same size and the same price. Which drive would give me tangible real world benefits over the other?" Which would you tell him to buy.

For more personal reference . . .

I would prefer lower power drives myself if they cost the same

A Skyline is more awesome than a Prius in the "faster is more awesome" line of reasoning

However, if I know that I'm *literally* going to be forced to drive either one in a school zone all the time, then I'll choose the Prius for the same price

I would choose red or green drives if I were buying now and they were cheaper or even the same price as seagate. Probably not if the seagate was much cheaper (which it usually has been for quite some time)

I'll always ignore how fast copying stuff from one drive to another is since I don't personally do that anymore, but along that reasoning . . . all hdds suck. Every single one. Seagate is not awesome, nor WD, etc. None of them are fast for large file operations. Flash based storage is awesome. PCIe is more awesome than SATA, but for the time being they already make 1TB SSDs. . . why not use something that is actually awesome rather than continually trying to prove something that only sucks slightly less than the suckiest option is awesome?

P.S. WD bought HGST
post #123 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

P.S. WD bought HGST

It's not going t be long before brand loyalty is merely an illusion.

I remember back when you could choose between, Seagate, WD, IBM, Hitachi, Samsung, Quantum, Conner, Micropolis, JTS (ugh)

JTS went under (thank heavens)
Micropolis went under (such a shame)
Conner got bought by Seagate.
Quantum Storage got bought by Maxtor
Maxtor got bought by Seagate.
Samsung Storage got bought by Seagate
IBM Storage got bought by Hitachi
Hitachi Storage got bought by WD

So everybody either went under or got bought by Seagate or WD. I know at some point Toshiba got into the game, but I honestly haven't ever encountered one of their drives in the wild.

I guess it's like shampoo, 50 brands, but no matter what you buy, it's coming from Unilever, Helene Curtis, or P&G. Actually scratch that... it's like buying a car... doesn't matter if its a Chevy, Olds, Cadillac, or Pontiac, you're still buying a GM. Car analogy FTW!
post #124 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'm not talking about anything else so lets just be clear about that now so we don't go 5 pages of pointless bickering.

Five pages as of now (and counting)...
post #125 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

For more personal reference . . .

I would prefer lower power drives myself if they cost the same

A legitimate choice.

Quote:
I'll always ignore how fast copying stuff from one drive to another is since I don't personally do that anymore, but along that reasoning . . . all hdds suck. Every single one. Seagate is not awesome, nor WD, etc. None of them are fast for large file operations. Flash based storage is awesome. PCIe is more awesome than SATA, but for the time being they already make 1TB SSDs. . . why not use something that is actually awesome rather than continually trying to prove something that only sucks slightly less than the suckiest option is awesome?/quote]

When I win the PowerBall... smile.gif
post #126 of 149
I started reading the entire thread but gave up somewhere around post #50 with all the silliness that ensued.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 5400 rpm drive for the purposes required for the vast majority of users in this forum. My original dual tuner Tivos only had 3900 rpm Quantum drives and they had no problem recording two streams at once while playing back a third previously recorded show. Granted, they were standard def streams, but I suspect they'd probably hold their own with HD content as well, the only major bottleneck being the IDE interface.

Mfusick is notorious for wanting maximum performance where it goes beyond the needs of the many. That's fine for him but not that big of a deal for the rest of us. I'm suprised he's even part of this discussion since he clearly thinks SSDs are the only drives anyone should be using.

I will agree that you should probably just go for the best deal you can find, regardless of the brand. There is no perfect drive on the market. As a wise man once said, "There are only two types of hard drives - dead and dying." Every drive will fail at some point. Some just take longer than others to reach this final conclusion.

FWIW, I've had hard drive failures with just about every brand, past and present.

That being said, anyone know of any good deals on 3-4TB drives? I've got several in my server that appear to be on their way out.
post #127 of 149
post #128 of 149

Fantastic article. I will read it more in depth later.

From the looks of it I don't think certain people will like the article or data.

Edit: Holy crap --- 25,000 drives? That's pretty solid.

blog-survival-drives-by-month.jpg

blog-fail-drives-manufacture.jpg
Edited by assassin - 1/21/14 at 9:47am
post #129 of 149
Quote:
Backblaze stores over 70 Petabytes of data for our customers.

That would be lot of blu-rays. eek.gif
post #130 of 149
Hahahahha.half my server is more prone to failure than the other half! Oh noes!!!!!...
post #131 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcain View Post

Hahahahha.half my server is more prone to failure than the other half! Oh noes!!!!!...

Mine too! Lol. I guess hitachi for the win ?
post #132 of 149
My deathstars are still humpin away, couple years later.
post #133 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Mine too! Lol. I guess hitachi for the win ?

I think based on the size of the data and type of study the statistical significance between Hitachi and WD is probably relatively small.

I do like the fact that if the WDs make it past the first few months they seem to be the most stable of all the companies whereas the Hitachi have a relatively constant (but slow) rate of failure. The first few months are covered obviously by the warranty.

I wonder if you followed this out to 5+ years how the WD and Hitachi would do. Would the WD then be better than the Hitachi based on the rate of failure?
post #134 of 149
Crap. I just ordered two 3TB Seagates because they were on sale at NCIX.
post #135 of 149
Interesting...curious about the fact they don't use the 3TB WD Greens...makes me a little nervous as I just got one. Guess we'll find out soon if it fails!
post #136 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by gewbert View Post

Interesting...curious about the fact they don't use the 3TB WD Greens...makes me a little nervous as I just got one. Guess we'll find out soon if it fails!

That's the problem with reliability studies like this. If it's not directly using the model you are then it's 100% irrelevant. It's entirely possible that the models they study from one brand are extremely reliable but another model you might buy are very unreliable but never tested it or studied. You can't generalize about every product an mfg makes based on some data that doesn't cover the entire line of products.

Reliability also changes over time. There is a such thing as bad batches or models. Often a bad model is also the first or earl model and small revisions to future generations increase reliability so that's why lots of older designs seem so reliable. They are tried and tested over a period of time.

It's interesting to me that nearly every study I ever seen in Hitachi always seems to place it at the top though. It's begging me to generalize about them. I'm going to be strong and stay agnostic.
post #137 of 149

Pretty interesting, but it is impossible to have more drives fail than you own. A 120.0% failure rate is impossible; you cannot have more drives fail than you own. The warranty replacement drive is a different drive and should be counted as such. This forces me to discount all their numbers, which is a little sad.


It also does not take into account that they could have had a bad batch. My own personal testing would show WD having a 100% failure rate after 1.5 years. However, I bought them all at the same time so I suspect I got a bad batch. So if they bought 1000 HDDs at the same time, and that one batch of drives had an issue, they would easily skew their results. Imagine if they would have bought HDDs from IBM during the DeathStar explosion days. Deskstar drives would be horribly bad instead of very good in their report.


I have Hitachi, WD, and Seagate drives in my HTPC. They all have the same failure rate in my experience...with the exception of the 1.5TB WD HDDs...those things were horrifyingly bad.
post #138 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

It's interesting to me that nearly every study I ever seen in Hitachi always seems to place it at the top though. It's begging me to generalize about them. I'm going to be strong and stay agnostic.

You had better not, else ajhieb will arrive and tell you how horrible you are as a person for doing so. If you post a personal opinion, one of his kittens dies! eek.gif
post #139 of 149
Hitachi for the win? They are a wholly owned subsidiary of WD smile.gif Due to regulatory approvals, WD was required to operate HGST as a competitor until at least two years (ending in March 2014) but really until the Chinese Ministry of Commerce approves the dissolution of the HGST brand name

They also had to sell assets to Toshiba allowing them to make 3.5" consumer drives smile.gif

Fun stuff http://www.wdc.com/en/company/pressroom/releases/?release=96593e40-7be2-4ebf-ad35-68cf58ab194d
post #140 of 149
It will be interesting to see if WD breaks Hitachi or adopts their policies.
post #141 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Pretty interesting, but it is impossible to have more drives fail than you own. A 120.0% failure rate is impossible; you cannot have more drives fail than you own.

You really need to learn some basic math before you make ridiculous statements like this. An annual failure rate above 100% is not impossible.
post #142 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Pretty interesting, but it is impossible to have more drives fail than you own. A 120.0% failure rate is impossible; you cannot have more drives fail than you own. The warranty replacement drive is a different drive and should be counted as such. This forces me to discount all their numbers, which is a little sad.


It also does not take into account that they could have had a bad batch. My own personal testing would show WD having a 100% failure rate after 1.5 years. However, I bought them all at the same time so I suspect I got a bad batch. So if they bought 1000 HDDs at the same time, and that one batch of drives had an issue, they would easily skew their results. Imagine if they would have bought HDDs from IBM during the DeathStar explosion days. Deskstar drives would be horribly bad instead of very good in their report.


I have Hitachi, WD, and Seagate drives in my HTPC. They all have the same failure rate in my experience...with the exception of the 1.5TB WD HDDs...those things were horrifyingly bad.

Fairly unlikely that a company like this is purchasing the majority of their drives in the same batch. They are probably expanding as needed and not stockpiling them all at once. So I don't think that applies.

I think if anything this study makes me take a second thought about buying a Seagate. I will probably still buy one though as they are usually the cheapest and I haven't been burned personally (yet).
post #143 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

You really need to learn some basic math before you make ridiculous statements like this. An annual failure rate above 100% is not impossible.

Show me this basic math.
post #144 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Show me this basic math.
Quote:
Failure Rates

Before diving into the data on failure rates, it’s worth spending a little time clarifying what exactly a failure rate means. At first glance, you might think that a failure rate of 100% is the worst possible. Every drive is failing! That’s not the whole story, though.


Imagine you have a disk drive supplier who provides drives that are 100% reliable for six months, but then all fail at that point. What’s the annual failure rate? If you have to keep 100 drives running at all times, you’ll have to replace the drive in every slot twice a year. That means that you’ll have to replace 200 drives each year, which makes your annual failure rate 200%. So, in theory at least, there is no worst possible failure rate. If every drive failed after one hour of use, the annual failure rate would be 876,000%. Fortunately, the drives that Backblaze gets are more reliable than that.

http://blog.backblaze.com/2013/11/12/how-long-do-disk-drives-last/
post #145 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Fairly unlikely that a company like this is purchasing the majority of their drives in the same batch. They are probably expanding as needed and not stockpiling them all at once. So I don't think that applies.

I think if anything this study makes me take a second thought about buying a Seagate. I will probably still buy one though as they are usually the cheapest and I haven't been burned personally (yet).

They had to start with a rather large batch of drives, unless they started by only giving a few KB of storage to everyone. Basically, the charts do not give us enough information and batch purchase size of each type would be very useful. If they started out by buying 2000 1TB drives and then had a high failure rate, that would be good info to know.

I buy my drives based on price for the size, and large size is needed due to port limitations. I really do not care who makes them.
post #146 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Show me this basic math.

Sigh. What a sad commentary on ignorance of basic math and apathy or inability to use the Internet to find easily available information.

annual failure rate = failures per year per number of device slots in use

Take the example where all the devices always have a lifetime of exactly 0.5 years. For every device slot in use, there will be 2 failures per year. So the annual failure rate would be 200%
post #147 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

You had better not, else ajhieb will arrive and tell you how horrible you are as a person for doing so. If you post a personal opinion, one of his kittens dies! eek.gif

Don't worry, mfusik, if I did say anything that might possibly be considered negative towards you, cybrsage would put on his white knight internet armor and come galloping in to rescue you. Evidently he thinks you're incapable of defending yourself, and having been banned from every other forum he's participated in, has nothing better to do.

Yes, that's poisoning the well. I know. I don't care. Drink up everybody.
post #148 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Show me this basic math.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=annual+failure+rate
post #149 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

Hitachi for the win? They are a wholly owned subsidiary of WD smile.gif Due to regulatory approvals, WD was required to operate HGST as a competitor until at least two years (ending in March 2014) but really until the Chinese Ministry of Commerce approves the dissolution of the HGST brand name

They also had to sell assets to Toshiba allowing them to make 3.5" consumer drives smile.gif

Fun stuff http://www.wdc.com/en/company/pressroom/releases/?release=96593e40-7be2-4ebf-ad35-68cf58ab194d

I'm hoping Hitachi stays Hitachi; I like them much better than WD. Hopefully WD doesn't ruin them or slow the spindle speed and put pretty colors on the labels. I like the Hitachi black and white label and squared off and shiny metal industrial case and looks. Most of all they perform really well and are seemingly extremely reliable. I've had bad luck with WD GREEN and I refuse to purchase the WD RED for its likeness unless its the cheapest.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Western Digital Hard Drives Black vs AV-GP 4TB