Building a new gaming system and I've looked at WD, Seagate, etc. and all have a high percentage of reviews with failure rates from DOA to within 1 year. Are there any reliable drives out there? Was thinking of two 2 TB drives in a 10 Raid Configuration, but I can't find a single model that makes me comfortable.
Any Reliable 1 to 2 TB SATA 6Gb/s Internal Drives?
- Thread starter kdberg52
- Start date
Solution
Spectre694
Dignified
- Feb 28, 2014
- 2,907
- 0
- 13,960
Hitachi (now HGST) would be the best. But were are you getting your numbers from even seagate is only hitting around 12%
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/
WD, Seagate, and Hitachi are reputable drive makers, I have used all with no problems some for years and years on end. The sheer quantity of drives that these manufactures produce and the unpredictability of electronic gear in general is bound to cause some failures. If your gear is working as intended you probably won't write a review, but if its doa, your probably going to complain, hence the higher amount of negative reviews. You're probably going to have to just cross your fingers and hope you get good drives, and using a raid redundancy array is always a good idea just in case!
JobCreator
Honorable
- Apr 18, 2013
- 1,077
- 0
- 11,660
Hitachi!?!? Ewwww! Dell and HP use junk Hitachi drives because they're cheap as hell. Junk.
If you want reliability, I would say the WD Enterprise (Re) or Velociraptor drives. Seagate Constellation drives are also an option, but I would prefer WD over Seagate.
If you want reliability, I would say the WD Enterprise (Re) or Velociraptor drives. Seagate Constellation drives are also an option, but I would prefer WD over Seagate.
Spectre694
Dignified
- Feb 28, 2014
- 2,907
- 0
- 13,960
Not the OEM ones. I'll agree with you there those are junk.
I should have been more clear the higher capacity desktop drives and their enterprise ones are what I was referring too. Those are a different beast all together.
I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve with this RAID configuration.
Your best bet for a boot drive and somewhere to install games is a good SSD.
For data storage in a home PC, I would suggest you just get a big desktop drive and back it up to an external.
RAID 10 requires minimum 4 drives.
With 2 drives you can have RAID 0 (striping) or RAID 1 (mirroring).
RAID on a motherboard chipset introduces delays that negate any performance increase from striping (RAID 0 or RAID 10).
If the motherboard dies you will lose the contents of the RAID array, so that negates any data security benefit of mirroring (RAID 1 or RAID 10).
It is just not worth it.
To look at drive failure rates you need to look at the type of drive and how it was used.
Standard desktop drives from Seagate, Western Digital and Hitatchi are all fine for desktop PCs.
There are been some reports of high failure rates when used in enterprise storage environments, but this is not what the drive was designed for.
Enterprise drives are rated for a higher workload but are unnecessary for a home PC.
RAID drives limit the time to wait for error recovery and don't park the heads when idle. Great for RAID, not great from desktop PCs.
Your best bet for a boot drive and somewhere to install games is a good SSD.
For data storage in a home PC, I would suggest you just get a big desktop drive and back it up to an external.
RAID 10 requires minimum 4 drives.
With 2 drives you can have RAID 0 (striping) or RAID 1 (mirroring).
RAID on a motherboard chipset introduces delays that negate any performance increase from striping (RAID 0 or RAID 10).
If the motherboard dies you will lose the contents of the RAID array, so that negates any data security benefit of mirroring (RAID 1 or RAID 10).
It is just not worth it.
To look at drive failure rates you need to look at the type of drive and how it was used.
Standard desktop drives from Seagate, Western Digital and Hitatchi are all fine for desktop PCs.
There are been some reports of high failure rates when used in enterprise storage environments, but this is not what the drive was designed for.
Enterprise drives are rated for a higher workload but are unnecessary for a home PC.
RAID drives limit the time to wait for error recovery and don't park the heads when idle. Great for RAID, not great from desktop PCs.
uplink-svk
Distinguished
- Mar 9, 2013
- 2,300
- 5
- 20,965
I'm rigging my clients with WD RED Pro, and they're holding up purrfectly 
. WD RED has a bit high error ratio to my liking. Also RE4 are great, but immensly expensive.
. WD RED has a bit high error ratio to my liking. Also RE4 are great, but immensly expensive.
anbello262
Distinguished
- Sep 27, 2013
- 1,179
- 3
- 19,915
I believe that most drive failures are usually caused by other faulty components in the PC.
The only HDDs I've seen fail so far in my life were on cheap PSUs that died every few months, and that probably happened to many users...
If used correctly, the failure rate would probably be a lot lower.
The only HDDs I've seen fail so far in my life were on cheap PSUs that died every few months, and that probably happened to many users...
If used correctly, the failure rate would probably be a lot lower.
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,291
- 4,145
- 174,240
Remember, anything can fail.
Protect what you value.
The value of raid-1 and it's variants like raid-5 is that you can recover from a drive failure quickly. It is for servers that can not tolerate any interruption.
Modern hard drives have a advertised mean time to failure on the order of 500,000+ hours. That is something like 50 years. SSD's are similar.
With raid-1 you are protecting yourself from specifically a hard drive failure. Not from other failures such as viruses, operator error,
malware,raid controller failure fire, theft, etc.
For that, you need external backup. If you have external backup, and can tolerate some recovery time, you do not need raid-1
Protect what you value.
The value of raid-1 and it's variants like raid-5 is that you can recover from a drive failure quickly. It is for servers that can not tolerate any interruption.
Modern hard drives have a advertised mean time to failure on the order of 500,000+ hours. That is something like 50 years. SSD's are similar.
With raid-1 you are protecting yourself from specifically a hard drive failure. Not from other failures such as viruses, operator error,
malware,raid controller failure fire, theft, etc.
For that, you need external backup. If you have external backup, and can tolerate some recovery time, you do not need raid-1
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Intel SSD 320 series fried diode (?) CR3, one contact, should I remove it?
- Started by kornsoud
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 7
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC
- Latest: ohio_buckeye
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram