yea i upgrade my storage to wd and drive didnt die after 6 month. and according to people, if it doesnt die in 6 month, i can use this drive for next 30 years, even my older drives that click and have bad sectors, still can be used with caution after 20 years
Brands are not hard drives. Different models of hard drive have different failure rates. The lowest failure rate of any drive in the 2021 Backblaze report was ST6000DX000 (6TB Seagate drive) with only a 0.11% failure rate over years of testing. Their 2022 Q1 report shows 0 failures so far for this same drive.
I have 2x 4TB WDD Blue. Works fine.
Seagate 2TB retired after 10 years. Was getting louder over time but also make a metal on metal "ka'ching" sound every so often and it was only 2 years old.
I had this harddrive in my laptop which broke down, i got me an adapter and hooked it up to my new laptop, however I cant find any fiels on there, how can I recover them?
They are perfect for your OS drive and pretty much required now
They are great for a AAA gaymen drive
They are TERRIBLE for mass storage and long term storage
I think the problem with SSDs is the fact people jumped the gun and marketed them as something they will never be.
HDDs will always be the king of mass storage until they find a whole new storage system thats more reliable at the same cost (never SSDs).
Wrong, HDDs are disappearing in the customer space. HDDs are now a secondary option for OEM desktops. You cannot even get them for most modern laptops.
Even in the DIY, most motherboard SKUs only have 4-6 SATA ports while they are loading up on M.2 slots. It is only a matter of time before SATA meets PATA/Floppy in the retirement home.
Yeah but how much? Every year with the +2TB bumps, the prices scales somewhat linearly with the lower capacity drives, when they should be more logarithmic. It's always something crazy like $500 or $750.
What I'd fricking give for a $200-$300 20TB drive.
Yeah, I don't really need it right now, but I just absolutely revel in having that much potential storage space. I dunno, can't quite explain it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It sure feels liberating, I bought a Toshiba 18 TB a few months ago to replace the controversial ST3000DM001. The drive is pretty damn quick, with sequential writes/reads at around 250 MB/s. I can recommend the drive 🙂
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The ST3000DM001 is a hard disk drive released by Seagate Technology in 2011 as part of the Seagate Barracuda series. It has a capacity of 3 terabytes (TB) and a spindle speed of 7200 RPM. This particular drive model was reported to have unusually high failure rates, due to a parking ramp that was made from different materials. The failure rates were approximately 5.7 times higher in comparison to other 3 TB drives, for which Seagate faced a class-action lawsuit.[1
Sad. Glad I did this search
Waaay more performant, less I/O overhead and less opportunity for fragmentation on mechanical drives - traditional boomer wisdom is to use the default cluster size to avoid slack space, but to move to a more comfy 32/64KB you're 'wasting' maybe 5-10gbs every 100,000 files. In reality its better to think of it as pre-padding files to avoid fragmentation if they grow in size.
For NTFS the default is 4KB - this is fine for SSDs -- Their flash cell size usually aligns with 4KB and on some of the newer NVMEs you can even switch them to native 4K sector addressing instead of 512be legacy addressing to reduce strain on their NAND controller and lessen the need for a heatsink.
4KB default is a cancer on HDDs though - it was meant for frickold mechanicals from the early 2000s that need all the space they can get, but it will eventually devastate performance.
I've dealt with cheapskate clients that had all HDD-backed fleets of PCs, that had like 3-4 minute startup times, but didn't want to spend the money on SSD upgrades. Running a cluster size conversion on them overnight cut that boot time in half and made them bearable to use the rest of the time they were in service.
It really is one of those things that no-one does that needs to go into setup guides.
thank you for taking the time to share this enlightening.
I only se mechanical drives for torrenting. Will your recommendation improve performance and life span?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'd say it would definitely reduce seeks that would wear out the drive - e.g. a 67KB file on a 4KB drive is potentially 17 seeks/io requests/breakpoints for fragmentation, and but its 3 on a 32KB cluster drive, and 2 on a 64KB cluster drive. Whether or not its worth reformatting to do it is really up to you.
64KB versus 4KB might have some benefit, but it is definitely not even close to being something you would notice without testing. The reason it isn't talked about is because it makes very little difference.
I'd say it would definitely reduce seeks that would wear out the drive - e.g. a 67KB file on a 4KB drive is potentially 17 seeks/io requests/breakpoints for fragmentation, and but its 3 on a 32KB cluster drive, and 2 on a 64KB cluster drive. Whether or not its worth reformatting to do it is really up to you.
This is just a completely wrong understanding of how HDDS seek. No you are not saving your HDD by increasing cluster size to prevent "seeks that would wear out the drive". That is just full moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Hey its all real world observation - sorry you just have a bunch of stale plebbit 'forum wisdom' info....
2 years ago
Anonymous
>my anecdotes are so powerful they defeat the data!
Really?
2 years ago
Anonymous
t. plebbit / recieved knowledge / rick and morty homosexual
>btw go back
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sounds like you are coping because you got called out on your nonsense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>NOOOO MY HECKIN STACK EXCHANGE PAJEET FORUM CAN'T BE WRONG
Go benchmark it yourself gay.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I stopped arguing with people on the internet. It is far more satisfying to just fantasize about them being raped and then dismembered and eaten by Black folk
Sounds like youve done your research but modern hard drives are already smart enough to maximize their lifespan without tweaking things. Most end users will not notice the difference and enterprise drives are modified at the factory to suit a specific customers needs.
What a fricking moronic post.
The page size of most flash memory is 256-512KB. The physical sector size of most hard disks is 4KB. You have it completely backwards.
As such, I'm not even slightly surprised that two of the three replies agree with you - absolute state and all that.
The biggest problem with wdblue is they didn't take the place and price of wdgreen. Wdgreen are the scum of the hdd world with a 10x less mtbf. Why do they want to trick their customers into paying 5$ less for a drive that has 10x the chance to fail?
My case have "trendy" thing where the side is transparent, but HDDs are hidden in a stuffy metal box, and the only thing that moves air there is power supply fan. With 3 HDDs, it's hot enough to make my right hand sweat.
2 years ago
Anonymous
that heat is killing your drive
2 years ago
Anonymous
I was surprised by how hot hard drives can get if you actually monitor it.
Was building a NAS out of a shitty old Optiplex, and the hard drives almost got to 70 C.
Had to take the front and side panels off and cool it with a box fan for a while.
Current solution is some 120mm fans taped to it and powered by USB, which keeps them at 31 C.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yeah you have to be careful with that.
my shucked WDs run very hot (i had a fan pointed at them while testing in the enclosure).
even shucked and in my node 804 with a fan behind and in front its still hitting low 40s.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I went with some 'refurbished' drives that were probably pulled out of some server. 3 year warranty though, and they've been working fine for a few months now.
WD Blue used to be a good value until they stopped selling them and rebranded the WD Green as WD Blue. Now you are just buying overpriced WD Green. What a dumb homosexual you'd have to be to come shill this shit and think you won't get called out for it.
>According to the data, the most reliable drive is the ST6000DX000, which is a Seagate drive
I just checked and you are right. Backblaze reports only 1 failure of that hard drive in 2021 and none in their Q1 2022 report. 0.11% failure rate for 2021, which is higher than all the others tested. Sample size for that data is relatively low when compared to some of the other hard drives though, but still high enough to be taken seriously.
>Everyone talking about Seagate vs. WD >Everybody seeming to have forgotten how utterly GOD-tier Hitachi drives were when they still made them
I still have Hitachi drives (2.5) from 10 years ago that still work completely well with no errors or problems whatsoever. Only issue is that they're 5400 rpm, so slower than they could be. But reliable as frick. Absolute favorite.
Actually, there is a better drive, and this was pretty much universally agreed upon at the time, but I forget the specific model, but it was a Samsung Momentus drive back when Samsung briefly was into hard drives. I can't remember if it was Samsung who bought Hitachi's line of HDD's, or if it was Hitachi who bought Samsung's line of HDD's, but in either case, that Momentus drive(s) was reliable beyond all measure.
Mine is still working after literally 8 years of constant use and I've reused it as a storage in a new build. Could be faster/an SSD but it just werks.
LOLNO. That belongs to the Toshiba X300. The really sad thing is there's actually a lot of 60-128GB chinkshit SSDs that end up being SLOWER than even laptop 5200 RPM HDDs (only if short stroked) once they fill up due to outrageously DOGSHIT NAND controllers that only come with a few GBs of SLC cache. In fact morbidly popular Chromebooks don't even have SSDs, they essentially run off miniature versions of USB flash drives (ie eMMC).
Picrel regarding SSDs that are slower than HDDs. Basically the controller will "lag" and the entire SSD becomes unresponsive for up to entire seconds. While a HDD is only able to crank out 50-100 random read/write IOPS, if short stroked, will only have a consistent read/write latency of only ~10-20ms. Although it should be pointed out that the process of short stroking involves crucifying 80-90% of the entire capacity of the HDD to prevent the actuator ARM from moving very little (why read/write latency remains consistently at ~10-20ms) so the value aspect of using a HDD over an SSD goes down the drain when comparing to non-chinkshit SSDs.
Hdds are losing market share to ssds in consumer markets. Datacenters are buying more hard drives than ever because they have a demand for high capacity, low price and speed is not as important as reliability. So far no other storage technology even comes close to beating hard drives for this.
LOLNO. That belongs to the Toshiba X300. The really sad thing is there's actually a lot of 60-128GB chinkshit SSDs that end up being SLOWER than even laptop 5200 RPM HDDs (only if short stroked) once they fill up due to outrageously DOGSHIT NAND controllers that only come with a few GBs of SLC cache. In fact morbidly popular Chromebooks don't even have SSDs, they essentially run off miniature versions of USB flash drives (ie eMMC).
Hi anons I'm a complete brainlet but I want to buy a good external HDD to backup some stuff, ideally large size like 10 TB.
What should I buy? Money isn't a problem
Literally just go by the reviews, m8. Unless you're a datacenter with specific needs and an exclusive contract with the manufacturers themselves, go by the reviews. Look at the ratio of positive to negative, scrutinize the negatives particularly and determine if they're from simple incompetence or legitimate problems/flukes, and then decide.
Seriously, it ain't that hard, bro. But truth be told, HDD tech is so matured at this point that barring notable exceptions, you're going to be fine no matter what you get.
But if you're that concerned, go with Toshiba, as shown here. I have a Toshiba 6TB and it's worked with no problems at all for almost 5 years now. It was a little noisy at first, but it's calmed down now. Toshiba's are good.
Alternatively the Seagate model here
According to the data, the most reliable drive is the ST6000DX000, which is a Seagate drive
>According to the data, the most reliable drive is the ST6000DX000, which is a Seagate drive
I just checked and you are right. Backblaze reports only 1 failure of that hard drive in 2021 and none in their Q1 2022 report. 0.11% failure rate for 2021, which is higher than all the others tested. Sample size for that data is relatively low when compared to some of the other hard drives though, but still high enough to be taken seriously.
How cheap are you?
WD blue is the best HDD ever. they do not fricking break and they cost like, a dollar!
mine broke in like 5 years
doubt.
mine did in 2
you just avoided his question, he just found you out. you're a fricking cheap poor loser. red is the best kind of drive, blue is for cheap europeans
>red is the best kind of drive
shingle merchant located
agree, have 2 rn
yea i upgrade my storage to wd and drive didnt die after 6 month. and according to people, if it doesnt die in 6 month, i can use this drive for next 30 years, even my older drives that click and have bad sectors, still can be used with caution after 20 years
My fist hdd that made click noises was a wdd blue 1tb
I still use the same 500gb seagate that just werks
Piece of trash made me lost some good stuff
just werks
And yet it's Seagate with the 50% failure rate in actual usage in datacenters. Hmmmmmm. I wonder if you're a lying c**t.
Brands are not hard drives. Different models of hard drive have different failure rates. The lowest failure rate of any drive in the 2021 Backblaze report was ST6000DX000 (6TB Seagate drive) with only a 0.11% failure rate over years of testing. Their 2022 Q1 report shows 0 failures so far for this same drive.
this board needs IDs
im buying a WD blue. they are the best hard drives ever
irony
I have 2x 4TB WDD Blue. Works fine.
Seagate 2TB retired after 10 years. Was getting louder over time but also make a metal on metal "ka'ching" sound every so often and it was only 2 years old.
Same here. I hear a a bit of whizzing when heads are moving in one drive, but working great for 5 years already.
I had this harddrive in my laptop which broke down, i got me an adapter and hooked it up to my new laptop, however I cant find any fiels on there, how can I recover them?
Do I need some recovery tool
i dont know
I have WD Red with almost 5 years power on hours
Seagate now make 20TB drives - insane
I thought SSD's were supposed to make HDD's obsolete
wait till this guy sees the 1tb micro sd card
enjoy your smr meme
smr isnt a meme. just wait till you see what seagate has coming next, youllliterally shit your pants laughing at what its called anon.
What is it called?
I cant tell you yet or I'll get fired for breaching my confidentiality agreement
b***h pussy
pussy b***h
I do not like you.
oh my god!!!!!!!!
those are garbage
>those are garbage
you could fit 100 of them in the space of a 3.5" hdd
do it then!!!!!!!!!!! see what happens
the WD blue HDDs are the best, ever
They are perfect for your OS drive and pretty much required now
They are great for a AAA gaymen drive
They are TERRIBLE for mass storage and long term storage
I think the problem with SSDs is the fact people jumped the gun and marketed them as something they will never be.
HDDs will always be the king of mass storage until they find a whole new storage system thats more reliable at the same cost (never SSDs).
most normies aren't data hoarders though
ok but Seagate doesnt market high capacity drives to normies. Datacenters are "datahoarders"
Wrong, HDDs are disappearing in the customer space. HDDs are now a secondary option for OEM desktops. You cannot even get them for most modern laptops.
Even in the DIY, most motherboard SKUs only have 4-6 SATA ports while they are loading up on M.2 slots. It is only a matter of time before SATA meets PATA/Floppy in the retirement home.
I remember reading something about the industry starting to build NVMe HDDs
This is only for interface purposes on rackmounts on a SAN/NAS box. They aren't for desktop computers.
Yeah but how much? Every year with the +2TB bumps, the prices scales somewhat linearly with the lower capacity drives, when they should be more logarithmic. It's always something crazy like $500 or $750.
What I'd fricking give for a $200-$300 20TB drive.
You can get an 18 TB drive for around 300 bucks now. Expect 20 TB to be that cheap within two to three years.
Yeah, I don't really need it right now, but I just absolutely revel in having that much potential storage space. I dunno, can't quite explain it.
It sure feels liberating, I bought a Toshiba 18 TB a few months ago to replace the controversial ST3000DM001. The drive is pretty damn quick, with sequential writes/reads at around 250 MB/s. I can recommend the drive 🙂
>The ST3000DM001 is a hard disk drive released by Seagate Technology in 2011 as part of the Seagate Barracuda series. It has a capacity of 3 terabytes (TB) and a spindle speed of 7200 RPM. This particular drive model was reported to have unusually high failure rates, due to a parking ramp that was made from different materials. The failure rates were approximately 5.7 times higher in comparison to other 3 TB drives, for which Seagate faced a class-action lawsuit.[1
Sad. Glad I did this search
>What I'd fricking give for a $200-$300 20TB drive.
well, $200-300 according to you
but with optical your data is the speed of LIGHT!! EPIC
WD BLUES ARE THE BEST HARD DRIVES, EVER!
Blue is a great cost/value line. I wouldn't boot a system from it, but it makes an excellent data disk.
I use WD Red Pro (c) (tm)
seethe, poorgay
What's the difference
What about WD purple?
What about WD green?
>green
Those got rebranded as WD Blue years ago. If you want a green for some braindead reason, buy a blue.
this bad boy
>gets all the goodies of portable drive (shock proof, G sense, and haptic sens)
>runs cool, runs pretty ok, and guaranteed CMR
I have a 20 year old Samsung HDD running in my XP machine that is dead silent. Does Samsung even make HDDs anymore?
Samsung never made hdds. Look closer and youll see the label says seagate
Tell me you homosexuals are using at least 32KB cluster sizes on these things, you don't deserve glorious mecha drives if you don't.
what is the significance of 32kb clusters?
Waaay more performant, less I/O overhead and less opportunity for fragmentation on mechanical drives - traditional boomer wisdom is to use the default cluster size to avoid slack space, but to move to a more comfy 32/64KB you're 'wasting' maybe 5-10gbs every 100,000 files. In reality its better to think of it as pre-padding files to avoid fragmentation if they grow in size.
For NTFS the default is 4KB - this is fine for SSDs -- Their flash cell size usually aligns with 4KB and on some of the newer NVMEs you can even switch them to native 4K sector addressing instead of 512be legacy addressing to reduce strain on their NAND controller and lessen the need for a heatsink.
4KB default is a cancer on HDDs though - it was meant for frickold mechanicals from the early 2000s that need all the space they can get, but it will eventually devastate performance.
I've dealt with cheapskate clients that had all HDD-backed fleets of PCs, that had like 3-4 minute startup times, but didn't want to spend the money on SSD upgrades. Running a cluster size conversion on them overnight cut that boot time in half and made them bearable to use the rest of the time they were in service.
It really is one of those things that no-one does that needs to go into setup guides.
thank you for taking the time to share this enlightening.
I only se mechanical drives for torrenting. Will your recommendation improve performance and life span?
I'd say it would definitely reduce seeks that would wear out the drive - e.g. a 67KB file on a 4KB drive is potentially 17 seeks/io requests/breakpoints for fragmentation, and but its 3 on a 32KB cluster drive, and 2 on a 64KB cluster drive. Whether or not its worth reformatting to do it is really up to you.
64KB versus 4KB might have some benefit, but it is definitely not even close to being something you would notice without testing. The reason it isn't talked about is because it makes very little difference.
This is just a completely wrong understanding of how HDDS seek. No you are not saving your HDD by increasing cluster size to prevent "seeks that would wear out the drive". That is just full moron.
Hey its all real world observation - sorry you just have a bunch of stale plebbit 'forum wisdom' info....
>my anecdotes are so powerful they defeat the data!
Really?
t. plebbit / recieved knowledge / rick and morty homosexual
>btw go back
Sounds like you are coping because you got called out on your nonsense.
>NOOOO MY HECKIN STACK EXCHANGE PAJEET FORUM CAN'T BE WRONG
Go benchmark it yourself gay.
I stopped arguing with people on the internet. It is far more satisfying to just fantasize about them being raped and then dismembered and eaten by Black folk
Funny
Sounds like youve done your research but modern hard drives are already smart enough to maximize their lifespan without tweaking things. Most end users will not notice the difference and enterprise drives are modified at the factory to suit a specific customers needs.
What a fricking moronic post.
The page size of most flash memory is 256-512KB. The physical sector size of most hard disks is 4KB. You have it completely backwards.
As such, I'm not even slightly surprised that two of the three replies agree with you - absolute state and all that.
The biggest problem with wdblue is they didn't take the place and price of wdgreen. Wdgreen are the scum of the hdd world with a 10x less mtbf. Why do they want to trick their customers into paying 5$ less for a drive that has 10x the chance to fail?
Speaking of HDD, mine is clicking. I wanted to return it to store, but I was too lazy and now it's too late. Am I fricked or it's a normal thing?
failure is imminent.
have you even checked the SMART warnings?
>have you even checked the SMART warnings?
I have. It says "Good".
My case have "trendy" thing where the side is transparent, but HDDs are hidden in a stuffy metal box, and the only thing that moves air there is power supply fan. With 3 HDDs, it's hot enough to make my right hand sweat.
that heat is killing your drive
I was surprised by how hot hard drives can get if you actually monitor it.
Was building a NAS out of a shitty old Optiplex, and the hard drives almost got to 70 C.
Had to take the front and side panels off and cool it with a box fan for a while.
Current solution is some 120mm fans taped to it and powered by USB, which keeps them at 31 C.
yeah you have to be careful with that.
my shucked WDs run very hot (i had a fan pointed at them while testing in the enclosure).
even shucked and in my node 804 with a fan behind and in front its still hitting low 40s.
I went with some 'refurbished' drives that were probably pulled out of some server. 3 year warranty though, and they've been working fine for a few months now.
For me it's Seagate.
seagate deez nuts homie
NO
a seagate HD just flew over my house
I have a wd blue 1tb for 7 years
I have no backups I'm afraid it may die soon
What do I buy for backups?
Anyone has suggestions?
WD Blue
(°ロ°) !
had a quantum bigfoot 25 years ago, shit was loud as frick
Whats the name for a corporate glowie?
I- I don't like them 😀
I will just say that hard drives are and always will be infinitely more fascinating than SSD's. Boring shit. But great speed though.
WD10EZEX chad reporting in
EZEX is true never obsolete
They sell it for 10? years
i hear they get gimped to 5400 rpm
what a scam
WD Blue is the warmest HDD
nice
a WD disk died on me trying to replace my dvd drive, i didn't even touch the disk itself
Static electricity is a b***h.
WD Blue used to be a good value until they stopped selling them and rebranded the WD Green as WD Blue. Now you are just buying overpriced WD Green. What a dumb homosexual you'd have to be to come shill this shit and think you won't get called out for it.
Only homosexuals buy Western Digital.
11 years and my 1 TB WD Green is still working and using it rn.
i have one of these from work along with another 500gb drive and a seagate 1tb.
the WD blue took as long as the 1tb to finish because its slow trash.
>the WD blue took as long as the 1tb to finish because its slow trash.
That's because blues are just rebranded greens. See
. They are okay for basic tasks, but they spin down a lot and take forever to spin up.
So what's the trick? How can I acquire a REAL blue one (new obviously, don't want someone's secret ex-CP stash) in 2022 without being israeliteed?
just shuck some WDs.
alternatively pay up or deal with SMR drives.
there are no real blue ones, moron
they are a rebrand
According to the data, the most reliable drive is the ST6000DX000, which is a Seagate drive
>According to the data, the most reliable drive is the ST6000DX000, which is a Seagate drive
I just checked and you are right. Backblaze reports only 1 failure of that hard drive in 2021 and none in their Q1 2022 report. 0.11% failure rate for 2021, which is higher than all the others tested. Sample size for that data is relatively low when compared to some of the other hard drives though, but still high enough to be taken seriously.
>which is lower than all the others tested.
fixed
a WD Blue drive just flew over my house
a Hitachi drive just flew under my house
FRICK ssd's
a barracuda drive just swam under my house
>Everyone talking about Seagate vs. WD
>Everybody seeming to have forgotten how utterly GOD-tier Hitachi drives were when they still made them
I still have Hitachi drives (2.5) from 10 years ago that still work completely well with no errors or problems whatsoever. Only issue is that they're 5400 rpm, so slower than they could be. But reliable as frick. Absolute favorite.
lucky, the 2 i had didnt live more than 5 years
Actually, there is a better drive, and this was pretty much universally agreed upon at the time, but I forget the specific model, but it was a Samsung Momentus drive back when Samsung briefly was into hard drives. I can't remember if it was Samsung who bought Hitachi's line of HDD's, or if it was Hitachi who bought Samsung's line of HDD's, but in either case, that Momentus drive(s) was reliable beyond all measure.
Maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about.
Mine is still working after literally 8 years of constant use and I've reused it as a storage in a new build. Could be faster/an SSD but it just werks.
LOLNO. That belongs to the Toshiba X300. The really sad thing is there's actually a lot of 60-128GB chinkshit SSDs that end up being SLOWER than even laptop 5200 RPM HDDs (only if short stroked) once they fill up due to outrageously DOGSHIT NAND controllers that only come with a few GBs of SLC cache. In fact morbidly popular Chromebooks don't even have SSDs, they essentially run off miniature versions of USB flash drives (ie eMMC).
i dont get these speeds out of my x300 more around 190 mbs but my wd gold gets 250+
Picrel regarding SSDs that are slower than HDDs. Basically the controller will "lag" and the entire SSD becomes unresponsive for up to entire seconds. While a HDD is only able to crank out 50-100 random read/write IOPS, if short stroked, will only have a consistent read/write latency of only ~10-20ms. Although it should be pointed out that the process of short stroking involves crucifying 80-90% of the entire capacity of the HDD to prevent the actuator ARM from moving very little (why read/write latency remains consistently at ~10-20ms) so the value aspect of using a HDD over an SSD goes down the drain when comparing to non-chinkshit SSDs.
WD Black is better
Running since 2011 with only Disk warning so far
> Let's talk about dying Tech
Hdds are losing market share to ssds in consumer markets. Datacenters are buying more hard drives than ever because they have a demand for high capacity, low price and speed is not as important as reliability. So far no other storage technology even comes close to beating hard drives for this.
there are still uses for tape drives too moron. do zoomers really?
see
If you think Western digital blue has the same quality as gold then you are out of your mind.
It just works.
idk if it is because the topic(HDDs...) but this whole thread has a 2010 feeling that is cozy
Hi anons I'm a complete brainlet but I want to buy a good external HDD to backup some stuff, ideally large size like 10 TB.
What should I buy? Money isn't a problem
Literally just go by the reviews, m8. Unless you're a datacenter with specific needs and an exclusive contract with the manufacturers themselves, go by the reviews. Look at the ratio of positive to negative, scrutinize the negatives particularly and determine if they're from simple incompetence or legitimate problems/flukes, and then decide.
Seriously, it ain't that hard, bro. But truth be told, HDD tech is so matured at this point that barring notable exceptions, you're going to be fine no matter what you get.
But if you're that concerned, go with Toshiba, as shown here. I have a Toshiba 6TB and it's worked with no problems at all for almost 5 years now. It was a little noisy at first, but it's calmed down now. Toshiba's are good.
Alternatively the Seagate model here
Surely is way better than Seagate Barracuda Green
Pre-flood Hitachi. Those things were cheap and rock solid.
Does anyone else's WD drive make a screeching scraping sound when power down? I have a 2TB and 4TB WD Blues and they both do it.
This seagate is still going strong
this is more than i thought it would be but not even close hours wise
Giggity
WD drives are the best brand, the only ones I've bought for 20 years and not a single one broke on me.