Expired Hot Deals

[Amazon.ca] WD 8TB My Book Desktop External Hard Drive, USB 3.0 $199.99

Member
Sep 29, 2010
288 posts
351 upvotes
pbtech wrote: "Seagate confirms that we do not utilize Shingled Magnetic Recording technology (SMR) in any IronWolf or IronWolf Pro drives – our NAS solutions family"
This is not the same thing. Western Digital did this with their NAS/Red drives.
Also from Same URL:
Some Seagate Barracuda Compute and Desktop disk drives use shingled magnetic recording (SMR) technology which can exhibit slow data write speeds. But Seagate documentation does not spell this out.
Ok, I'm done arguing. It's clear that you're only going to keep cherry-picking facts and ignoring any facts that don't fit your ideological bend.
Jr. Member
Jun 14, 2017
111 posts
111 upvotes
The fact is that your advice of "Western Digital > Seagate" isn't shared by any major purchaser of hard disks and Backblaze has abandoned them entirely. I think you know that your "advice" isn't actually trying to be helpful to anybody but is instead you trying to grind your ax. You are entitled to have your own illogical opinion but please don't waste space on forums like this when you don't have anything helpful to share.
Deal Addict
Aug 13, 2009
1083 posts
118 upvotes
pdipps wrote:
Again, Backblaze has said in one of their reports that it was really a cost issue, NOT a quality one. Not sure what else there is to discuss if you ignore that fact.

And honestly, I'm not "brand loyal" to WD. To be honest HGST/Hitachi, Kingston and Crucial have been great too. I'm more anti-Seagate than anything else.
pbtech wrote: The fact is that your advice of "Western Digital > Seagate" isn't shared by any major purchaser of hard disks and Backblaze has abandoned them entirely. I think you know that your "advice" isn't actually trying to be helpful to anybody but is instead you trying to grind your ax. You are entitled to have your own illogical opinion but please don't waste space on forums like this when you don't have anything helpful to share.
It's kinda funny that pdipps keep posting that one point and you keep referencing the same Blackblaze issue without acknowledging pdipp's point. IDK man you're grinding really hard on your axe too. Grinning Face With Smiling Eyes
Member
Sep 29, 2010
288 posts
351 upvotes
kazkira wrote: It's kinda funny that pdipps keep posting that one point and you keep referencing the same Blackblaze issue without acknowledging pdipp's point. IDK man you're grinding really hard on your axe too. Grinning Face With Smiling Eyes
Lol. I've addressed his points from a bunch of different angles. Not sure what else to say. Face With Tears Of Joy
Member
User avatar
Aug 14, 2009
475 posts
77 upvotes
Toronto
Seagate vs WD, I don't really care all that much. From 2008-2016, I primarily bought WD and since then I've mostly purchased Seagate. Whatever PMR/CMR drive that offers the best deal is the one I'll go for and lately that's been Seagate.

All HDDs will eventually fail and if you are serious about your data, you'll have a plan in place to mitigate against this fact. Ensure you have multiple back-up copies of your important data - with at least one copy off-site - so that when the inevitable failure occurs nothing has been lost. I personally have everything on a NAS with everything backed up on archival HDDs (both on-site and off-site) as well as a complete copy backed up in the cloud.
Last edited by Fac1 on Jul 2nd, 2020 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 25, 2003
4274 posts
5603 upvotes
Vancouver
pbtech wrote: The fact is that your advice of "Western Digital > Seagate" isn't shared by any major purchaser of hard disks and Backblaze has abandoned them entirely. I think you know that your "advice" isn't actually trying to be helpful to anybody but is instead you trying to grind your ax. You are entitled to have your own illogical opinion but please don't waste space on forums like this when you don't have anything helpful to share.
And same goes for you.
"A fool and his money are soon parted" Thomas Tusser (1524-1580)
Member
Sep 29, 2010
288 posts
351 upvotes
Fac1 wrote: Seagate vs WD, I don't really care all that much. From 2008-2016, I primarily bought WD and since then I've mostly purchased Seagate. Whatever PMR/CMR drive that offers the best deal is the one I'll go for and lately that's been Seagate.

All HDDs will eventually fail and if you are serious about your data, you'll have a plan in place to mitigate against this fact. Ensure you have multiple back-up copies of your important data - with at least one copy off-site - so that when the inevitable failure occurs nothing has been lost. I personally have everything on a NAS with everything backed up on archival HDDs (both on-site and off-site) as well as a complete copy backed up in the cloud.
While I agree that's the best option, that's not 100% practical for everyone. Also, some people may not be as comfortable with cloud backups. i know I'm not.

Personally, I have all my backups on my RAID'ed NAS. The likelihood of 2 HDDs dying at the exact same time is low (but possible) - my hope is that I can hotswap/rebuild the RAID array before a second HDD dies. If the NAS hardware dies, It's the kind of NAS where I can throw the drives in another spare enclosure (same model) and be up in a a few minutes.

(not meant to be a disagreement, just pointing out my level of risk perception and mitigation :) )
Member
User avatar
Aug 14, 2009
475 posts
77 upvotes
Toronto
pdipps wrote: While I agree that's the best option, that's not 100% practical for everyone. Also, some people may not be as comfortable with cloud backups. i know I'm not.

Personally, I have all my backups on my RAID'ed NAS. The likelihood of 2 HDDs dying at the exact same time is low (but possible) - my hope is that I can hotswap/rebuild the RAID array before a second HDD dies. If the NAS hardware dies, It's the kind of NAS where I can throw the drives in another spare enclosure (same model) and be up in a a few minutes.

(not meant to be a disagreement, just pointing out my level of risk perception and mitigation :) )
Yeah, I don't disagree. It depends on your risk tolerance and how irreplaceable the content is. Data that can be easily replaced isn't worth backing up, but much of my media collection would be completely irretrievable in the event of failure, hence why I go to this extent.
Jr. Member
Jun 14, 2017
111 posts
111 upvotes
kazkira wrote: It's kinda funny that pdipps keep posting that one point and you keep referencing the same Blackblaze issue without acknowledging pdipp's point. IDK man you're grinding really hard on your axe too. Grinning Face With Smiling Eyes
I didn't address the point because it wasn't relevant to the argument of "Western Digital > Seagate". Whatever reason Backblaze has for not using WD in their facilities, it doesn't back up his claim; It actually seems to support the opposite. Backblaze factors in price/performance/quality just like we do at RFD and they haven't bought anything WD in 5 years now.
The only ax I'm trying to grind is with spreading misinformation. Hard disks have long become a commodity and like virtually everybody above says, selections should be made on individual models and not "WD > Seagate". That is how you end up buying NAS drives with SMR technology inside of them....adhering to blind brand loyalty like pdiggs recommends.
Deal Addict
Mar 24, 2011
1017 posts
193 upvotes
Vancouver
is it better to just buy 1 new myBook and consolidate all my old myBooks? 4 for example I have.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
26832 posts
12310 upvotes
pdipps wrote: WD is always better than seagate.
No it's not.
It's in fact the opposite right now since WD snuck in SMR into their NAS drives.
Seagate only SMRs their desktop (and external) drives.
pbtech wrote: It is sort of like saying that you can only trust Ford vehicles and that all GM models will die prematurely. Imagine saying such things when there is only one other minor car manufacturer and nearly half the world is driving GMs already.
Everyone knows that a Beige Corolla is the best anyways.

These arguments are especially difficult to understand in the modern times when companies like BackBlaze report meaningful statistics on the subject. A Western Digital model was the failure-rate leader for both 2018 and 2019, but that doesn't change the stance of people like pdipps.
Exactly.
Every size of hard drives has different failure rates. Overall Seagate might be a touch higher overall spanning everything from 4TB on, but based on cost alone I'll take an extra 1-2 failure.
That's literally 2 more failed drives out of 100.
I don't hear that argument very often from people that have decades of experience in the IT field. It is usually people that have suffered one or two drives and have a total sample size of < 10. I am shocked how many people will propagate this false information.
Edit: I completely agree with the 2 comments before me....very good advice.
Exactly. I have 100x Seagates spinning in the next room.
I'm not loyal to Seagate either. I have a bunch of these drives since 8TB externals were SMR. Waiting on $180 again so I can buy my next 10.
pdipps wrote: Seagate had a noticable higher fail rate.
How do you define noticeable? The only "noticeable" to me was the 3TB Seagates.
Since then, the 4TB was excellent. Every other drive beyond 4TB has had a variance of 1-2% which isn't "noticeable" to anyone that doesn't have 100+ drives.
2% on even 10 drives (which is an absurd number for most) means you're losing an extra 0.2 drive. ONE person out of a group of 5 people with 10 drives will lose one extra drive.
That and the only drives I've ever had die across all of my PC's, NAS's, and even the PC's of friends and family I end up fixing have ALWAYS* been Seagates (*and a few Toshiba drives)
Even though my stable is mostly Seagates I've killed more Samsungs than anyone. I hated the F1 series.
WD is behind that.
I have WD drives in NAS's that have been running for 10+ years. No issues.
I still have a couple of 200GB IDE Seagates in operation today.

I'd rather pay the extra $10-15 and keep my data, thanks.
That's hilarious because I'll save $10 every day of the week.
Out of a block of 24 drives, that's $240. I can literally afford to buy one extra cold spare and a steak to mitigate the 2% extra failure rate.

pdipps wrote: It's less brand loyalty, than it is avoiding poor quality.
Please explain where this "poor quality" is coming from.
The only widely published drive failure data based on consumer drives is Backblaze.
For most Seagates, it's 1-2% difference. And even this is variable based on drive generation. WD has had high numbers too.
- Most of my SSDs are Kingston or Crucial. also great, reliable.
Funny enough the only SSD I've killed so far is a Crucial.
This includes a couple dozen Chinese SSDs.
pdipps wrote: EDIT: looks like 2019 doesn't have any WD, but Seagates failure rate is 0.96%-3.32%. HGST failure rates are 0.4%-0.79%. HGST worst failures are better than Seagate's best. Seagate's worst drives are 8.3x more likely to fail than HGST's best
Have a look at drive days too. Seagate damn near has more failures than HGST has deployed drives in some cases.
Seagate was 80% of Backblazes stable.

Not that HGST exists now (since they're now owned by WD) typically speaking HGST was FAR more expensive than Seagate.
Even if they had a whopping 3% more failures, per 100 drives, you're losing 3 drives. At a $10 difference, you could buy those 3 extra drives.
Typically speaking, HGST was FAR more than $10 for identical sizing so you're losing money out of the gate.

pdipps wrote: then the premium for reliability would be worth it.
If this was closer to 10%? Sure.
3%? Not worth it.
I can't remember the source (prob book or podcast), but basically Dell's whole model (and most manufacturers have copied it to keep up) was to basically build JiT with whatever the cheapest available at the time was. That's how they stay price competitive.
And that's how we ended up with a 10/100 ethernet on a notebook in 2019.
If the failure rate is 3%, and the cost for better drives >3%, then they keep using the cheaper drives. They don't care about your data, they care about fulfilling the warranty - which only includes replacing the drive, not recovering your data.
That's because it makes sense.
And they do care about your data. That's why they're using cheap drives. Build a ridiculously large redundant array so a drive failure won't wipe out anything.
This is in contrast to someone buying a more expensive drive and putting all their eggs in one basket thinking that because it's a "premium" (which I use lightly) drive it's going to protect them.

pbtech wrote: As noted above, Western Digital has snuck SMR drives into their Red line for NAS devices. I am not aware of Seagate doing anything so underhanded and ill-advised and surely this is not a reason to recommend WD.
Exactly. This is 100% scummy on WD's part because they did this to a NAS drive.
Seagate's NAS drives currently are NOT SMR.
RolandCouch wrote: Is the SMR vs CMR thing a big deal for someone who is mainly just using this to store file/photos and to access/play media?
Depends on your use case.
If you frequently delete old media and replace with new media, SMR is probably not for you (depending on how fast you acquire the new media).
This is because the "shingling" makes the old media "move" by rewriting it somewhere else to fit the new media.
This is obviously bad because you're rearranging your entire hard drive when you delete something and put something new on it .

However, if you're a "write once, read many" (aka a data hoarder that doesn't delete anything) there's nothing wrong with SMR.
Once it's written, an SMR drive is just as fast as a PMR drive when it comes to reads.
pdipps wrote: Some Seagate Barracuda Compute and Desktop disk drives use shingled magnetic recording (SMR) technology which can exhibit slow data write speeds. But Seagate documentation does not spell this out.
These aren't NAS drives. Everyone is angry because WD specifically put SMR into their NAS line.
Desktop/Compute is meant for "general purpose" where you're not constantly dumping a giant mass of new data onto where old data used to exist.
Generally there's enough of a buffer to accommodate smaller amounts of data while the drive is being rearranged which is fine for general purpose use.

pentexplorer wrote: is it better to just buy 1 new myBook and consolidate all my old myBooks? 4 for example I have.
No. It's better to have more copies of your data, not less.
In your case it's a good idea to buy 1 new drive to store your data, but use your 4 existing drives as backups for this one new drive.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 12, 2014
549 posts
1350 upvotes
vancouver
people that constantly say seagate is worse, how many seagate drives actually failed for you?
out of so many years i've only had 1 hard drive fail and that was a hitachi.
Deal Addict
Mar 24, 2011
1017 posts
193 upvotes
Vancouver
death_hawk wrote: No it's not.
It's in fact the opposite right now since WD snuck in SMR into their NAS drives.
Seagate only SMRs their desktop (and external) drives.


Everyone knows that a Beige Corolla is the best anyways.



Exactly.
Every size of hard drives has different failure rates. Overall Seagate might be a touch higher overall spanning everything from 4TB on, but based on cost alone I'll take an extra 1-2 failure.
That's literally 2 more failed drives out of 100.


Exactly. I have 100x Seagates spinning in the next room.
I'm not loyal to Seagate either. I have a bunch of these drives since 8TB externals were SMR. Waiting on $180 again so I can buy my next 10.


How do you define noticeable? The only "noticeable" to me was the 3TB Seagates.
Since then, the 4TB was excellent. Every other drive beyond 4TB has had a variance of 1-2% which isn't "noticeable" to anyone that doesn't have 100+ drives.
2% on even 10 drives (which is an absurd number for most) means you're losing an extra 0.2 drive. ONE person out of a group of 5 people with 10 drives will lose one extra drive.


Even though my stable is mostly Seagates I've killed more Samsungs than anyone. I hated the F1 series.
WD is behind that.


I still have a couple of 200GB IDE Seagates in operation today.



That's hilarious because I'll save $10 every day of the week.
Out of a block of 24 drives, that's $240. I can literally afford to buy one extra cold spare and a steak to mitigate the 2% extra failure rate.




Please explain where this "poor quality" is coming from.
The only widely published drive failure data based on consumer drives is Backblaze.
For most Seagates, it's 1-2% difference. And even this is variable based on drive generation. WD has had high numbers too.


Funny enough the only SSD I've killed so far is a Crucial.
This includes a couple dozen Chinese SSDs.



Have a look at drive days too. Seagate damn near has more failures than HGST has deployed drives in some cases.
Seagate was 80% of Backblazes stable.

Not that HGST exists now (since they're now owned by WD) typically speaking HGST was FAR more expensive than Seagate.
Even if they had a whopping 3% more failures, per 100 drives, you're losing 3 drives. At a $10 difference, you could buy those 3 extra drives.
Typically speaking, HGST was FAR more than $10 for identical sizing so you're losing money out of the gate.



If this was closer to 10%? Sure.
3%? Not worth it.


And that's how we ended up with a 10/100 ethernet on a notebook in 2019.


That's because it makes sense.
And they do care about your data. That's why they're using cheap drives. Build a ridiculously large redundant array so a drive failure won't wipe out anything.
This is in contrast to someone buying a more expensive drive and putting all their eggs in one basket thinking that because it's a "premium" (which I use lightly) drive it's going to protect them.



Exactly. This is 100% scummy on WD's part because they did this to a NAS drive.
Seagate's NAS drives currently are NOT SMR.



Depends on your use case.
If you frequently delete old media and replace with new media, SMR is probably not for you (depending on how fast you acquire the new media).
This is because the "shingling" makes the old media "move" by rewriting it somewhere else to fit the new media.
This is obviously bad because you're rearranging your entire hard drive when you delete something and put something new on it .

However, if you're a "write once, read many" (aka a data hoarder that doesn't delete anything) there's nothing wrong with SMR.
Once it's written, an SMR drive is just as fast as a PMR drive when it comes to reads.



These aren't NAS drives. Everyone is angry because WD specifically put SMR into their NAS line.
Desktop/Compute is meant for "general purpose" where you're not constantly dumping a giant mass of new data onto where old data used to exist.
Generally there's enough of a buffer to accommodate smaller amounts of data while the drive is being rearranged which is fine for general purpose use.




No. It's better to have more copies of your data, not less.
In your case it's a good idea to buy 1 new drive to store your data, but use your 4 existing drives as backups for this one new drive.
Well it's just taking up space, maybe I can look into 2 x 10tb as raid or Nas?
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
26832 posts
12310 upvotes
pentexplorer wrote: Well it's just taking up space, maybe I can look into 2 x 10tb as raid or Nas?
Depending on how important your data is, 3-2-1
3 copies of your data on 2 different types of media with 1 of them being offsite.
May not be worth it for all your data, but anything ultra important should be this.
Newbie
Jun 11, 2020
6 posts
1 upvote
Toronto
pdipps wrote: While I agree that's the best option, that's not 100% practical for everyone. Also, some people may not be as comfortable with cloud backups. i know I'm not.

Personally, I have all my backups on my RAID'ed NAS. The likelihood of 2 HDDs dying at the exact same time is low (but possible) - my hope is that I can hotswap/rebuild the RAID array before a second HDD dies. If the NAS hardware dies, It's the kind of NAS where I can throw the drives in another spare enclosure (same model) and be up in a a few minutes.

(not meant to be a disagreement, just pointing out my level of risk perception and mitigation :) )
Just a reminder that raid is not a backup. it is for keeping the systems up and running during a drive failure (well most levels). I assume you have the NAS for backups only so that's fine, as long as the NAS itself is the backup and not the extra drives in the NAS. Ideally you would have a cold storage for your backups too.

In regards to having 2 drives die at the same time (within 1 month of each other), that has been common for me, especially if they are the same model and from the same batch running in the same system reading and writing the same data.

Top