Expired Hot Deals

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

Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
27311 posts
12961 upvotes
Telebizz wrote: 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.
This is why I like ZFS and scrubbing.
Typically speaking, the drives are at rest in other file systems. When a drive fails, all the other drives are now running at 100% to recover.
This sudden "burst" usually "thins the herd" causing any drive that was about to fail to tip over the edge.
Member
Sep 29, 2010
346 posts
393 upvotes
Telebizz wrote: 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.
True. If i was unclear, my backup system has RAID :)
Member
Sep 29, 2010
346 posts
393 upvotes
AllanT232 wrote: 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.
I've had 5 die. Three in a NAS, two in a desktop/laptop. Those are the only seagate drives I've ever owned.
Member
Sep 29, 2010
346 posts
393 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: 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.
I mostly agree with this, if you're Backblaze - you have redundancy and the cost benefit on the failure rate makes sense. They say this in the report.

For people buying ONE drive, with no redundancy, it's a totally different beast.

3% of 100 drives means 3 drives die, but the other 97 drives has spread a copy of the data out across them until the RAID array rebuilds.

3% of 1 drive means there's a 3% chance that your one drive which has all the data will die completely. That has very different implications.

death_hawk wrote: 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.

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.
I'm less bothered by this, because I have used non-NAS drives in NAS's for years without any issues. My NAS hardware supports this, so, not an issue. (Also, have done the cost benefit on this too - at the time, I could by over 5 non-NAS drive for the cost of 4 NAS drives, so even if it had a 25% failure rate in that configuration (unlikely), I came out ahead.

What bothers me though, is the deceptive stuff of SMR at all. By ALL of the companies that did it. WD did it, Seagate did it, Toshiba did it. That's a larger, customer-hostile cultural problem. That said, for now, I'd still trust WD over Seagate, but I'll be watching WD with a critical eye too.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
27311 posts
12961 upvotes
pdipps wrote: 3% of 1 drive means there's a 3% chance that your one drive which has all the data will die completely. That has very different implications.

3% is still basically a rounding error.
There's a 1 in 33 chance you're losing data.
Bumping that to 1 in 100 still means there's a 1 in 100 chance you're losing data.
This is basically gambling but with memories and tax returns at this point because you're probably not losing, but there's a tiny chance you can.


I'm less bothered by this, because I have used non-NAS drives in NAS's for years without any issues. My NAS hardware supports this, so, not an issue. (Also, have done the cost benefit on this too - at the time, I could by over 5 non-NAS drive for the cost of 4 NAS drives, so even if it had a 25% failure rate in that configuration (unlikely), I came out ahead.
Me too (non NAS drives in a NAS) but this 100% bothers me.
SMR isn't meant to be used as a NAS drive.
What bothers me though, is the deceptive stuff of SMR at all.
SMR isn't deceptive. It has a place. A NAS isn't one of them which is why WD sucks in this regard.
I use SMR all the time. There's nothing wrong with it if you know how to leverage it.
By ALL of the companies that did it. WD did it, Seagate did it, Toshiba did it. That's a larger, customer-hostile cultural problem. That said, for now, I'd still trust WD over Seagate, but I'll be watching WD with a critical eye too.
I'm not brand loyal. I go with whoever will give me the best drive for the best price.
Just recently I switched to these drives despite having 100+ Seagates. Why? 8TB Seagates were SMR. I still have a dozen of them but not in a NAS.
I actually kind of regret my purchase. I should have bit the bullet and bought 30x of the 10TBs when they were still Barracuda Pros.
Member
Sep 29, 2010
346 posts
393 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: 3% is still basically a rounding error.
I guess we'll agree to disagree there. For the extra few bucks, bringing it down to 1% is worth it for me in a one drive configuration. And like I mentioned elsewhere, every Seagate drive I've owned has died on me.
death_hawk wrote: SMR isn't meant to be used as a NAS drive.
SMR isn't deceptive. It has a place. A NAS isn't one of them which is why WD sucks in this regard.
a) I'd rather avoid SMR altogether
b) SMR isn't deceptive, but not telling your customers is. I'd say they're all equally culpable on this one.
death_hawk wrote: I'm not brand loyal. I go with whoever will give me the best drive for the best price.
Yeah, I'm not brand loyal either. I've said multiple times on here that I'm only for avoiding Seagates.

And I don't always go with best price, it's cost vs risk/benefit. There's plenty of sketchy manufacturers that make drives cheaper, but I'm not interested.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
27311 posts
12961 upvotes
pdipps wrote: I guess we'll agree to disagree there. For the extra few bucks, bringing it down to 1% is worth it for me in a one drive configuration.
I mean... no one should be running a 1 drive configuration for anything important anyways....
And like I mentioned elsewhere, every Seagate drive I've owned has died on me.
What's your sample size?
a) I'd rather avoid SMR altogether
Why? It's fine if the price reflects it and your use case works.
Write once, read many it performs just fine.
b) SMR isn't deceptive, but not telling your customers is. I'd say they're all equally culpable on this one.
Not really. Only WD is guilty of this.
Seagate publishes which drives have SMR and didn't sneak anything in.
And I don't always go with best price, it's cost vs risk/benefit. There's plenty of sketchy manufacturers that make drives cheaper, but I'm not interested.
Is there someone new I don't know about?
I will 100% take cheap drives. There's a reason I shuck. Cheap drives that have no warranty.
Member
Sep 29, 2010
346 posts
393 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: What's your sample size?
5. Not a huge sample size, but 5/5 dead is a good reason for me to not use Seagate.
death_hawk wrote: Why? It's fine if the price reflects it and your use case works.
Write once, read many it performs just fine.
I don't have any use cases like this.
death_hawk wrote: Not really. Only WD is guilty of this.
Seagate publishes which drives have SMR and didn't sneak anything in.
Incorrect.

https://blocksandfiles.com/2020/04/15/s ... p-hdd-smr/

at the time of writing:
Public Seagate documentation for these Barracudas and the Desktop HDD do not mention SMR. For example,

The Barracuda 8TB (ST8000DM004) data sheet does not mention SMR.
The Barracuda 8TB (ST8000DM004) product manual does not mention SMR.
A 5TB Desktop HDD (ST5000DM000) product manual does not mention SMR.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
27311 posts
12961 upvotes
pdipps wrote: 5. Not a huge sample size, but 5/5 dead is a good reason for me to not use Seagate.
To be a hypocrite I've condemned Samsung for about the same amount of failures.
I don't have any use cases like this.
Really? In terms of large scale storage that's about all I have.
Incorrect.

Hmm.
ST8000DM001 did mention SMR.
Apparently they've pulled back on that with the 004.
/r/datahoarder is also angry about this it seems.
I withdraw my previous comment.

EDIT: It's funny because the official community rep agrees, but marketing won:
https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/co ... s/dw7lknu/
Member
Sep 29, 2010
346 posts
393 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: To be a hypocrite I've condemned Samsung for about the same amount of failures.
Yeah, I mean, we're most shaped by individual experiences. oh well. :)
death_hawk wrote: Really? In terms of large scale storage that's about all I have.
I mean, it's also that I don't trust it in my NAS's RAID configuration. Rebuilding volumes when I hotswap a bigger drive in takes forever as it is. No way I'd chance it with SMR. And I move/use the data around a lot.
death_hawk wrote:
Hmm.
ST8000DM001 did mention SMR.
Apparently they've pulled back on that with the 004.
/r/datahoarder is also angry about this it seems.
I withdraw my previous comment.

EDIT: It's funny because the official community rep agrees, but marketing won:
https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/co ... s/dw7lknu/
lol. no worries, it's not your fault.

It really feels like all manufacturers tried to slide it in without letting us know. Kind of shitty thing to do, really. Hopefully the backlash will teach them something.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
27311 posts
12961 upvotes
pdipps wrote: I mean, it's also that I don't trust it in my NAS's RAID configuration. Rebuilding volumes when I hotswap a bigger drive in takes forever as it is. No way I'd chance it with SMR. And I move/use the data around a lot.
Yeah for rebuilding it'd be horrible.
Also for me I'd rather just build new and move than try to transition.
Rebuilding takes FAR too long especially with drive sizes where they are.
It really feels like all manufacturers tried to slide it in without letting us know. Kind of shitty thing to do, really. Hopefully the backlash will teach them something.
Marketing for sure has to quit winning, especially when it wins over spec sheets.
The "suggestion" from Seagate to contact the manufacturer is also unacceptable. Specs should be publicly listed. Not hidden.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 7, 2007
6449 posts
1093 upvotes
Mississauga, ON
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 :) )
The rebuilding process is where a drive will likely die the most. Get a backup for that backup, and put it in the cloud if possible. Backblaze is relatively cheap for unlimited storage.
There's a sucker born every minute.

Top