External hard drive advice please

[Wolf K]

I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.

Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?

Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.

Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.

All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.

Thank you,

[Jason]

Post by Wolf K
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Anecdotal evidence (mine): WD drives I've owned have outlasted Seagate.
(Don't know about Lacie.)

Some online reliability analyses support that. I can't find the link to
the one I read most recently, published by an outfit that runs server
farms so has LOTS of data. I buy a drive or two in a year - they buy
thousands.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Jason

Post by Wolf K
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Anecdotal evidence (mine): WD drives I've owned have outlasted Seagate.
(Don't know about Lacie.)

Anecdotal evidence (mine): 67% of failed drives were WD!

But seriously, that's 2 out of 3 failed drives total, so that doesn't
mean a thing.

Despite this 'bad' experience, my latest purchases have been WD. Two
1TB WD Elements USB drives (2.5") and a 4TB 'Red' WD40EFRX disk (3.5")
in a Synology NAS.

I especially like the 1TB WD Elements USB drives. Very small and nice
looking.

I just saw that the drive in my laptop is a Seagate, so wish me luck!
:-)

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Jason

Post by Wolf K
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Anecdotal evidence (mine): WD drives I've owned have outlasted Seagate.
(Don't know about Lacie.)

Anecdotal evidence (mine): 67% of failed drives were WD!
But seriously, that's 2 out of 3 failed drives total, so that doesn't
mean a thing.
Despite this 'bad' experience, my latest purchases have been WD. Two
1TB WD Elements USB drives (2.5") and a 4TB 'Red' WD40EFRX disk (3.5")
in a Synology NAS.
I especially like the 1TB WD Elements USB drives. Very small and nice
looking.
I just saw that the drive in my laptop is a Seagate, so wish me luck!
:-)

I'm trying to get a WD Green 2TB working in an early 2009 Xserve.
I managed to get a WD Green 1TB working in the same Xserve by
putting a link from 5 to 6 but that didn't work with the 2TB.
Any ideas?

[Paul]

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Jason

Post by Wolf K
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Anecdotal evidence (mine): WD drives I've owned have outlasted Seagate.
(Don't know about Lacie.)

Anecdotal evidence (mine): 67% of failed drives were WD!
But seriously, that's 2 out of 3 failed drives total, so that doesn't
mean a thing.
Despite this 'bad' experience, my latest purchases have been WD. Two
1TB WD Elements USB drives (2.5") and a 4TB 'Red' WD40EFRX disk (3.5")
in a Synology NAS.
I especially like the 1TB WD Elements USB drives. Very small and nice
looking.
I just saw that the drive in my laptop is a Seagate, so wish me luck!
:-)

I'm trying to get a WD Green 2TB working in an early 2009 Xserve.
I managed to get a WD Green 1TB working in the same Xserve by
putting a link from 5 to 6 but that didn't work with the 2TB.
Any ideas?

Is that the Spread Spectrum jumper ?

Do all Macs need that, or only a few ?

That's probably not the Force150 jumper, which is mainly for
older VIA chipsets. My VIA VT8237S doesn't need that jumper.

Check the jumper block definition for the drive,
to see what you're doing to it.

Paul

[Peter Jason]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?

I'd had a portable LaCie for a few years as a portable backup unit. No
Trouble.

Post by Wolf K
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

[JT]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has
both Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are
the smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per
terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie
the better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Wolf,

Seagate bought LaCie in 2014.

So I would assume Seagate drives are in all LaCie devices.

Exception: LaCie make external NAS enclosures that the end-user

provides the hard drives.

In that case you can put in whatever drives you want.


JT

--

[Bob_S]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the smallest
ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Consumer grade Seagate drives are not something I purchase anymore because
of all the failures. WD drives fail too but my experience of over 20 years
using WD drives is that they are more reliable in an office environment. I
use their NAS units, MyBook and stand-alone hard drives in PC that I build
for clients - or myself. Look into the WDC Red models - they are
workhorses....

LaCie has a good reputation but are they more reliable? They were initially
built for a niche market (photographers) that wanted a portable, ruggedized
drive. They gave the public what they perceived to be a ruggedized storage
medium. But I've heard and read articles that the case is great but the
drive inside wasn't really any better. As technology evolved, a lot of the
manufacturers addressed the market with a portable hard drive that was truly
ruggedized such as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B005GHTEV8/ezruggedharddrives-20

You did not state what the drive will be used for. Does physical size
matter? Is it storing video's, will it be used for streaming, large files,
image backups, etc.. Does it need to be shirt pocket size or will a larger
drive in a case connected by USB or be part of a network (wireless or
wired)?

Bob S.



For that

[critcher]

Post by Bob_S

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has
both Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Consumer grade Seagate drives are not something I purchase anymore
because of all the failures.  WD drives fail too but my experience of
over 20 years using WD drives is that they are more reliable in an
office environment.  I use their NAS units, MyBook and stand-alone hard
drives in PC that I build for clients - or myself.  Look into the WDC
Red models - they are workhorses....
LaCie has a good reputation but are they more reliable?  They were
initially built for a niche market (photographers) that wanted a
portable, ruggedized drive.  They gave the public what they perceived to
be a ruggedized storage medium.  But I've heard and read articles that
the case is great but the drive inside wasn't really any better.  As
technology evolved,  a lot of the manufacturers addressed the market
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B005GHTEV8/ezruggedharddrives-20
You did not state what the drive will be used for.  Does physical size
matter?  Is it storing video's, will it be used for streaming, large
files, image backups, etc..  Does it need to be shirt pocket size or
will a larger drive in a case connected by USB or be part of a network
(wireless or wired)?
Bob S.
For that

They also do a MyMirror drive with two 2TB drives in it which can be
arranged as required.

[Wolf K]

On 2018-03-14 21:46, Bob_S wrote:
[...]

Post by Bob_S
You did not state what the drive will be used for.  Does physical size
matter?  Is it storing video's, will it be used for streaming, large
files, image backups, etc..  Does it need to be shirt pocket size or
will a larger drive in a case connected by USB or be part of a network
(wireless or wired)?
Bob S.

Backup. The backup drive I had failed (Seagate). Two drives, because the
odds of them both failing at the same time are 1/4 the odds of either
one failing. With reliable drives, that should be close to "never".

[VanguardLH]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.

Like Corsair, Lacie doesn't manufacture anything. They take components
from other brands and put their label on it. You won't know whose drive
you get inside unless you disassemble the case. Like Corsair, Lacie can
stipulate any requirements they want so they could, for example, demand
better quality components. The same manufacturing plant may be used by
several brands but the contractor can stipulate greater or lesser
quality, performance, or whatever they want for the market they target.
Corsair does the same: they use components made by someone else but
regulate the quality of those components. Corsair and Lacie are
resellers, not manufacturers.

In Lacie's case, they are a premium division of Seagate. See:
https://www.lacie.com/company/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaCie

If you want to pay for assurance in quality then go with Lacie and pay
more; else, rely on your own ability to pick the best components
matching the depth of your pocket. I've put WD drives into USB cases
and they still work. I've bought prebuilt Seagate USB drives and it
still works after years as my external storage media for backup copies.

While some Seagate consumers condemn Seagate for some poor quality
models, research shows the same happens with some Western Digital
models, too. I general stick to WD but Seagate is okay. Lacie is just
Seagate with stricter specifications and a higher price tag.

You mentioned "external" but gave no mention of just how the drive will
be connected. You also make no mention if you're willing to buy the
drives and put them into your choice of cases or if you want to buy
pre-built USB drive products. You never bothered to mention if you are
asking HDDs or SSDs. "External drive" says nothing about WHAT you are
looking for.

[Wolf K]

On 2018-03-14 21:54, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]

Post by VanguardLH
You mentioned "external" but gave no mention of just how the drive will
be connected. You also make no mention if you're willing to buy the
drives and put them into your choice of cases or if you want to buy
pre-built USB drive products. You never bothered to mention if you are
asking HDDs or SSDs. "External drive" says nothing about WHAT you are
looking for.

External = USB 3.0. I'm also considering NAS (which would make backup of
my wife's stuff a lot easier....)

[Frank Slootweg]

Wolf K <***@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]

I'm also considering NAS (which would make backup of my wife's stuff a
lot easier....)

Highly recommended! A long time I did without [1], but when I had one,
I wished I bought one earlier.

I had a WD MyCloud which failed [2] in a bit over three years (just
out of warranty! :-)). I now have a Synology DS115j with a 4TB WD 'Red'
disk. I'll take the Synology over the WD MyCloud any day. Way more
flexible/ capable.

[1] Which is a bit silly, because - in a previous life - I
professionally supported multi-million dollar Five-Nines NASs.

[2] So realize that a NAS can fail too, so your need an extra level of
backup. That can be mirroring or something else. I use extra offsite
backup.

[VanguardLH]

Post by Wolf K

Post by VanguardLH
You mentioned "external" but gave no mention of just how the drive
will be connected. You also make no mention if you're willing to
buy the drives and put them into your choice of cases or if you want
to buy pre-built USB drive products. You never bothered to mention
if you are asking HDDs or SSDs. "External drive" says nothing about
WHAT you are looking for.

External = USB 3.0. I'm also considering NAS (which would make backup
of my wife's stuff a lot easier....)

Providing whatever backup software you use supports NAS drives. Those
aren't the same as mapped drives which are emulated local devices or
defined as shares. For example:

https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/display/KNOW7/Why+MIG+isnt+available+for+3rd+party+NAS+devices

If the NAS host (it is a host, not just a drive) supports shares then
whatever you're using now will probably work as long as it supports UNC
pathing. Don't know if any of your hosts run or will run some *NIX
variant. Windows uses a proprietary protocol to share files. Some
Linux make easy the connection to Windows shares (e.g., Ubuntu) while
some do not (you need to setup SMB).

You sure you want to rely solely on a NAS host for your backups?
Problems can arise with networking which results in loss of network
access. What if the host you want to restore is so screwed up that it
cannot to anywhere on your network? If you're going with NAS, that
doesn't preclude you from using an internal drive to save backups. I
bought a separate drive that is only for saving backups. I have a local
copy that gets transferred (restored) faster than anything over a
network and doesn't rely on the network. I would consider using NAS as
a secondary copy, like if my desktop PC got fried, including the backup
drive. The router or modem could go dead and you'll no longer be able
to reach those backups on NAS (and I won't bother with slow wi-fi). Of
course, if your mobo has no additional drive headers and no room for
another daughtercard then an internal drive is not an option.

I save the first backup copy to my internal HDD (for fastest and easiest
access), a second copy to my USB drive, and monthly I save offline the
full backup to removable media (discs or flash). I don't use cloud
storage for image backups but I do use it for data-only storage. I use
Syncback to store just data files into the cloud folder (OneDrive) as a
big .zip file. Only data files on the system partition are put into the
cloud. The rest are either on removable media or on a separate internal
HDD but not backed up because they are reproducible (gotten from other
media, were downloaded, games, ISO images of discs, or temporary) or
they are non-critical (e.g., photos that already have an online copy).
Because ransomware can go anywhere you can, I wouldn't consider shares
on a NAS drive as a secured location. I don't know if any NAS hosts
support FTP. You don't need NAS to have FTP. Each host can run its own
FTP server and use each other for offline storage. Some backup programs
support secondary copies to an FTP server. The ransomware could still
see the NAS host but wouldn't have the proper login credentials to get
at its files. From a very cursory check, some NAS hosts support FTP.
From Slootweg's mention, looks like [some of] the Synology NAS hosts
will support FTP; see:

https://www.synology.com/en-us/knowledgebase/DSM/tutorial/File_Sharing/How_to_access_files_on_Synology_NAS_via_FTP

I didn't bother to check at what price levels the Synology models
started supporting FTP or which other-brand NAS hosts support FTP. If
the storage location is always accessible and without any authentication
then ransomware can get at your backups.

[Frank Slootweg]

VanguardLH <***@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

Post by VanguardLH
I don't know if any NAS hosts
support FTP. You don't need NAS to have FTP. Each host can run its own
FTP server and use each other for offline storage. Some backup programs
support secondary copies to an FTP server. The ransomware could still
see the NAS host but wouldn't have the proper login credentials to get
at its files. From a very cursory check, some NAS hosts support FTP.
From Slootweg's mention, looks like [some of] the Synology NAS hosts
https://www.synology.com/en-us/knowledgebase/DSM/tutorial/File_Sharing/How_to_access_files_on_Synology_NAS_via_FTP
I didn't bother to check at what price levels the Synology models
started supporting FTP or which other-brand NAS hosts support FTP. If
the storage location is always accessible and without any authentication
then ransomware can get at your backups.

Mine is a Synology DS115J. It's for a single 3.5" drive. That
entry-level NAS already has FTP support, so probably all Synology NAS
have it.

The NAS itself was only 89 Euro, about USD 110. A 4TB WD 'Red' disk
for it was 159 Euro, about USD 195. It's a very nice and even pretty box
and it and the disk are very quiet.

[Java Jive]

Post by VanguardLH
Providing whatever backup software you use supports NAS drives. Those
aren't the same as mapped drives which are emulated local devices or
https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/display/KNOW7/Why+MIG+isnt+available+for+3rd+party+NAS+devices

If anything can't work with a NAS, then ditch that anything, not the
idea of using a NAS - they are excellent.

I've had a couple of Zyxel NSA221s* for getting on for a decade, and
even though they are not as fast as they could or should be, and even
though the interface is perhaps sluggish and not well thought out,
nevertheless they have revolutionised my backup system. For each PC in
current use, every night when there has been use I back up the data
partition to the main NAS using DeltaCopy, and every month or so I
backup the system partition using Ghost to the data partition, which in
turns means that that backup will be copied to the NAS by DeltaCopy when
it next runs. Overnight, the first NAS is backed up to the second.

Also I've got them to run GetIPlayer and GetFlashVideos, which means
that they can download BBC Radio and ITV TV programmes overnight. I
used to be able to download BBC TV programmes as well, but so far I've
not been able to compile FFMPEG v3 on the NAS, which version GetIPlayer
now requires.

* Note: Better and faster models are available, see ...

https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/nas/bar/1-filecopy-write?task=archiveon

... before choosing to buy one, check that it supports modern standards:
Samba (Windows-style shares)
NFS (Linux-style shares)
FTP (useful extra)
SATA III hard disks
USB 3
Gigabit Ethernet or better.

Post by VanguardLH
If the NAS host (it is a host, not just a drive) supports shares then
whatever you're using now will probably work as long as it supports UNC
pathing.

UNC paths are certainly simplest, but you can also assign a drive letter
to a share in the old-fashioned way.

Post by VanguardLH
Don't know if any of your hosts run or will run some *NIX
variant. Windows uses a proprietary protocol to share files. Some
Linux make easy the connection to Windows shares (e.g., Ubuntu) while
some do not (you need to setup SMB).

SMB is more commonly referred to as Samba. Linux PCs share via NFS,
Windows via Samba, but most NASs that I've seen, and nowadays many Linux
distros, support both either out of the box or after a simple
installation of the necessary client and/or server.

Post by VanguardLH
You sure you want to rely solely on a NAS host for your backups?

Why ever not?

Post by VanguardLH
Problems can arise with networking which results in loss of network
access. What if the host you want to restore is so screwed up that it
cannot to anywhere on your network?

There are two answers to that. The first is save an image of the system
partition to the data partition, then, if you have to restore the system
partition, the latest backup is already there on the PC. If the whole
HD dies, then get a large enough USB stick to hold the restoration
software and the image, and boot from that. Also Ghost can work over
the network booting from a USB stick into W98, while more recent
software can do likewise using the Windows PXE. I regularly use the
former for the oldest of my two desktops.

Post by VanguardLH
The router or modem could go dead and you'll no longer be able
to reach those backups on NAS (and I won't bother with slow wi-fi).

This is a totally specious argument which has got nothing to do with
using a NAS If a router or a switch dies, you'd just replace it, as
you'd have to do anyway.

Post by VanguardLH
Of
course, if your mobo has no additional drive headers and no room for
another daughtercard then an internal drive is not an option.

And anyway this suffers from the disadvantage that if your laptop is
lost or stolen, or perhaps also if its mobo fries, you've lost all your
data, with no backup elsewhere.

Post by VanguardLH
Because ransomware can go anywhere you can, I wouldn't consider shares
on a NAS drive as a secured location.

Ransomware for Windows couldn't work direct on a NAS if, as most are, it
is Linux-based, however I suppose that perhaps it could encrypt the
shares over the network.

Post by VanguardLH
I don't know if any NAS hosts
support FTP.

All that I've seen.

More generally, I think your seeming distrust of NASs is misplaced and
based on ignorance. However, I accept that, as supplied, some NASs need
some user tweaking, even hacking, to make them better, as did my own.

[VanguardLH]

Post by Java Jive

Post by VanguardLH
Providing whatever backup software you use supports NAS drives. Those
aren't the same as mapped drives which are emulated local devices or
https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/display/KNOW7/Why+MIG+isnt+available+for+3rd+party+NAS+devices

If anything can't work with a NAS, then ditch that anything, not the
idea of using a NAS - they are excellent.

"Working" with NAS means also using that resource when the instance of
Windows under which you do the backups is NOT available. All the
networking support of Windows may not be there; that is, not all
restores are made within the same instance of Windows used to create the
backups. You need to make sure any recovery CD, USB drive, boot-time
image, or whatever you use to perform a recovery when Windows is
unusable will itself support the NAS host. All the time spent doing
backups is wasted and misleading if you cannot recover from those
backups image, especially if the OS is no longer usable.

[Java Jive]

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Java Jive
If anything can't work with a NAS, then ditch that anything, not the
idea of using a NAS - they are excellent.

"Working" with NAS means also using that resource when the instance of
Windows under which you do the backups is NOT available. All the
networking support of Windows may not be there; that is, not all
restores are made within the same instance of Windows used to create the
backups. You need to make sure any recovery CD, USB drive, boot-time
image, or whatever you use to perform a recovery when Windows is
unusable will itself support the NAS host. All the time spent doing
backups is wasted and misleading if you cannot recover from those
backups image, especially if the OS is no longer usable.

So tell us something we don't know! The above applies whatever backup
system is employed, and none of it is a reason not to use a NAS.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Wolf K
External = USB 3.0. I'm also considering NAS (which would make backup of
my wife's stuff a lot easier....)

You might be interested in how I back up *my* wife's stuff. I
automatically run a bat file every morning that copies her documents
folder (which isn't very big) over the local network to my machine. So
when I backup mine, hers gets backed up too.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Wolf K
External = USB 3.0. I'm also considering NAS (which would make backup of
my wife's stuff a lot easier....)

You might be interested in how I back up *my* wife's stuff. I
automatically run a bat file every morning that copies her documents
folder (which isn't very big) over the local network to my machine. So
when I backup mine, hers gets backed up too.

In the context of wifes and NAS: On SWMBO's laptop, File History is
enabled and makes backup to a (SMB) Network Share on the NAS. And of
course such a share could also be on my laptop.

The advantage of File History is that the backup 'device' does not
have to be up all the time, so in the laptop to laptop scenario, her
laptop will just queue the stuff to be backed up, until my laptop is up.

N.B. File History is *not* a complete backup by any stretch of the
imagination, but for what it does, i.e. for example backing up your
Documents Library and other Libraries, it's quite OK.

[Wolf K]

A request.

Thanks to Bob S and Vanguard for asking clarification questions.

[Bob_S]

Post by Wolf K
A request.
Thanks to Bob S and Vanguard for asking clarification questions.

Wolf,

Get the Synology NAS box (like the model DS218j - there are others:

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/145-7657060-6887327?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=synology+DS21

and grab two 4TB WD NAS (Red) hard drives. All items shown on the above
link.

The Synology NAS boxes are great and pairing it up with the two Red drives
should be a great solution for your backup needs and streaming and photo
storage, etc. The Synology has (free) apps you can download and install to
meet just about everything you can dream of to do with it. It will even
send you emails when it does something like an update notification, pending
hard drive failure etc.

You can get larger drives if you need them but the Synology DS218j ($170)
and two 4TB WDC Red drives ($250) for a total of $419 is not a bad deal.
Shop the prices but stay with the DS218j model unless you really need/want
the extra features. I have a DS115j at a clients home office that is used
for Ftp'ing his customer database for off-site backup every night. Been in
place for 3 years and not a problem. You will like the Synology - period.

[Wolf K]

Post by Wolf K
A request.
Thanks to Bob S and Vanguard for asking clarification questions.

Wolf,

[...]

Thanks to all for your advice and information, it ranged well beyond the
scope I envisaged.

I've decide to go to a couple of 2TB WD My Passport drives in addition
to the current one, all as back-up targets, so that at any time I will
have three full backups of data. Probability of failure of all three at
once will be 1/9th of probability of failure of any one of them, which
IMO is low enough. :-)

[Jason]

Post by Wolf K
so that at any time I will
have three full backups of data

Consider storing at least one of the 3 drives far away
from the other(s). If your desk catches fire and all three
are right there.......

[Paul]

Post by Jason

Post by Wolf K
so that at any time I will
have three full backups of data

Consider storing at least one of the 3 drives far away
from the other(s). If your desk catches fire and all three
are right there.......

If your desk catches fire <===

You're not supposed to be drinking Flaming
Sambuca and posting to USENET at the same time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_beverage

Paul

[Wolf K]

Post by Jason

Post by Wolf K
so that at any time I will
have three full backups of data

Consider storing at least one of the 3 drives far away
from the other(s). If your desk catches fire and all three
are right there.......

Nice one. Point to you. :-)

[mechanic]

Probability of failure of all three at once will be 1/9th of
probability of failure of any one of them, which IMO is low
enough. :-)

Eh?

[nospam]

Probability of failure of all three at once will be 1/9th of
probability of failure of any one of them, which IMO is low
enough. :-)

Eh?

math is hard.

[Wolf K]

Probability of failure of all three at once will be 1/9th of
probability of failure of any one of them, which IMO is low
enough. :-)

Eh?

If I remember probability theory correctly, then if each device has the
same probability of failure, then the probability that two will fail at
the same time is (1/2)^2. If there are three, it will be (1/3)^2. And so
on. This is the reason that a RAID system is more reliable than any of
the drives in it.

If I've misremembered the probability math, kindly correct it (and save
me the work of checking it myself. :-) )

TIA

[Chris]

Post by Wolf K

Probability of failure of all three at once will be 1/9th of
probability of failure of any one of them, which IMO is low
enough. :-)

Eh?

If I remember probability theory correctly, then if each device has the
same probability of failure, then the probability that two will fail at
the same time is (1/2)^2. If there are three, it will be (1/3)^2. And so
on. This is the reason that a RAID system is more reliable than any of
the drives in it.
If I've misremembered the probability math, kindly correct it (and save
me the work of checking it myself. :-) )

It's not quite right. The probability of three independent disks all
failing at the same is the cube of the individual probability: P(A)^3

If the individual probability is (not at all realistic) 0.1 (10%), then the
probability of all three is 0.001 (0.1%).

RAID is a bit complicated as the probability of a failure is highly
correlated. Firstly, the potential risk failure is if *any* of the disks
fail, which is the sum of the probabilities which for a 5 disk array is 5 x
0.1 = 0.5 (50%). Again not realistic.

Probability increases with age of the disk, so a 5 year old drive is more
likely to fail than a brand new one. This is where correlated failures
occur, particularly with RAID5, as when a disk fails the array needs to be
rebuilt putting a large strain on the existing (likely old) disks which can
cause another one of them to fail. The array is now dead and unrecoverable
which is one reason why RAID5 is not recommended.

In terms of raw disk failure probabilities RAID arrays are no more reliable
than separate disks, however, the redundancy and checksums allow for
seamless recovery from failures.

This is why a RAID is not a backup.

[Paul]

Post by Chris

Post by Wolf K

Probability of failure of all three at once will be 1/9th of
probability of failure of any one of them, which IMO is low
enough. :-)

Eh?

If I remember probability theory correctly, then if each device has the
same probability of failure, then the probability that two will fail at
the same time is (1/2)^2. If there are three, it will be (1/3)^2. And so
on. This is the reason that a RAID system is more reliable than any of
the drives in it.
If I've misremembered the probability math, kindly correct it (and save
me the work of checking it myself. :-) )

It's not quite right. The probability of three independent disks all
failing at the same is the cube of the individual probability: P(A)^3

In addition to the P cubed thing, there's also a
slightly more refined analysis you can do.

It takes into account the MTTR (Mean Time To Repair).

The idea is, when one disk fails, you buy another, and
spend time transferring the results to the new disk.
The system has a window of exposure, while one disk
is out of commission. The longer the time to resolve
this, the more of a factor it could represent to a
complete loss of service. Repairing (replacing) a single disk
when it fails, raises the availability of the system.

The result then, is a state diagram or other kind of
analysis model, that takes all the states, their probabilities
into account.

(Has some illustrations about carrying out such an analysis)

http://www.engr.usask.ca/classes/EE/445/notes/notes11.pdf

The duration of the MTTR is important too, as it affects the
possibility of complete failure. In the systems we developed
at work, this value was set to 72 hours, representative
of humans "taking the long weekend off" and not realizing
something was broken.

In the real world, frequently duplicated systems have
sufficient redundancy for "normal" kinds of requirements.
Going triplicated, you have to watch for unexpected factors
having a higher probability of happening, than the
narrow set of things you're studying. For example, with
three disks, say the AC power goes off and you're
denied access to the data (for a short time). That could
represent an event of importance if you absolutely
needed access to the data at all times (say it was
a long list of family phone numbers or something).

I was hoping to find a worked case of a parallel triplicated
system, but no such luck.

Paul

[mechanic]

Post by Chris
It's not quite right. The probability of three independent disks
all failing at the same is the cube of the individual
probability: P(A)^3

Yes, that's what I had in mind - although the assumption of
independence must be questionable, that's what did for Three Mile
Island, as the enquiry revealed (if I'm remembering correctly).

[Wolf K]

Post by mechanic

Post by Chris
It's not quite right. The probability of three independent disks
all failing at the same is the cube of the individual
probability: P(A)^3

Yes, that's what I had in mind - although the assumption of
independence must be questionable, that's what did for Three Mile
Island, as the enquiry revealed (if I'm remembering correctly).

Yes, I made a mistake. Should really check my notions more often, this
brain is almost 80 years old, and beginning to, er, ah, um, what was the
question again?

G'day,

[Wolf K]

Post by Chris

Post by Wolf K

Probability of failure of all three at once will be 1/9th of
probability of failure of any one of them, which IMO is low
enough.:-)

Eh?

If I remember probability theory correctly, then if each device has the
same probability of failure, then the probability that two will fail at
the same time is (1/2)^2. If there are three, it will be (1/3)^2. And so
on. This is the reason that a RAID system is more reliable than any of
the drives in it.
If I've misremembered the probability math, kindly correct it (and save
me the work of checking it myself.:-) )

It's not quite right. The probability of three independent disks all
failing at the same is the cube of the individual probability: P(A)^3

[...]

Thanks, appreciated. :-)

[nospam]

Post by Chris
RAID is a bit complicated as the probability of a failure is highly
correlated. Firstly, the potential risk failure is if *any* of the disks
fail, which is the sum of the probabilities which for a 5 disk array is 5 x
0.1 = 0.5 (50%). Again not realistic.

it depends on the raid.

with raid 0, *any* failure loses the array. raid 0 is for speed, not
redundancy.

with raid 6, *two* drives can fail at the same time and no data is lost.

Post by Chris
Probability increases with age of the disk, so a 5 year old drive is more
likely to fail than a brand new one. This is where correlated failures
occur, particularly with RAID5, as when a disk fails the array needs to be
rebuilt putting a large strain on the existing (likely old) disks which can
cause another one of them to fail. The array is now dead and unrecoverable
which is one reason why RAID5 is not recommended.

while that's true, the reason raid 5 is not recommended is due to the
chance of an unrecoverable bit error, which with the density of modern
hard drives, is statistically a near-guarantee to occur, and if that
happens during a rebuild, the array is lost.

Post by Chris
In terms of raw disk failure probabilities RAID arrays are no more reliable
than separate disks, however, the redundancy and checksums allow for
seamless recovery from failures.

a raid is significantly more reliable for all sorts of reasons, other
than raid 0 which is used for speed, not reliability.

Post by Chris
This is why a RAID is not a backup.

no, a raid is not a backup because it's a single device.

the advantage of a raid (other than raid 0) is uptime. if a drive
fails, the raid stays running and users can continue to access their
data.

a business cannot afford downtime while a new drive is obtained and
they restore from a backup. a home user probably can.

[Wolf K]

Post by Bob_S

Post by Wolf K
A request.
Thanks to Bob S and Vanguard for asking clarification questions.

Wolf,
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/145-7657060-6887327?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=synology+DS21
and grab two 4TB WD NAS (Red) hard drives.  All items shown on the above
link. [...]

Thanks, Bob, saved for future reference if I decide to setup NAS.

[Paul in Houston TX]

I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both Seagate/Lacie and
Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the smallest ones these days. Price range is
around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the better quality
version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about $100/terabyte for
greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

I bought cheap 2.5" usb 3.0 cases from Ebay several years ago and got
1 TB WD black drives for them. No problems yet.
IMO, WD and Seagate are similar but I prefer WD black drives.
No special reason other than my first drive was a 2 MEG WD and it still runs.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Paul in Houston TX

I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both Seagate/Lacie and
Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the smallest ones these days. Price range is
around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the better quality
version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about $100/terabyte for
greater reliability.

[]

Post by Paul in Houston TX
No special reason other than my first drive was a 2 MEG WD and it still runs.

Was it one of those double-density floppies?
WD come in various "colours"; blue are their normal consumer ones (but
none the worse for that). Black are slightly better though I can't
remember in what respect; green were lower power, but whatever made them
that has spread into blue and others, and they don't actually make green
any more; IIRR purple is the one intended for surveillance video; I
can't remember what gold is; and red are their real workhorses, for
server-type use, and very reliable, but not necessarily ruggedised.
Google WD colours and you'll get more articles than you need.

I was just saying, in effect, that there are more than one type of WD,
so they compare to others at different levels.

[Paul]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
WD come in various "colours"; blue are their normal consumer ones (but
none the worse for that). Black are slightly better though I can't
remember in what respect; green were lower power, but whatever made them
that has spread into blue and others, and they don't actually make green
any more; IIRR purple is the one intended for surveillance video; I
can't remember what gold is; and red are their real workhorses, for
server-type use, and very reliable, but not necessarily ruggedised.
Google WD colours and you'll get more articles than you need.
I was just saying, in effect, that there are more than one type of WD,
so they compare to others at different levels.

Raw WDC drives use a "color" branding scheme for some of them.

But the 2.5" external drive housing are also available
in five colors "to match your decor". And the color of
the external housing has nothing to do with the hard
drive inside. The same hard drive is inside all five
colors of housing on those.

The WDC web page gives a rundown on their 3.5" raw drive color scheme.

https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage.html

green (retired color, aggressive spindown, lowest power)
blue (the new green, speaks of "cheapness", RPM=???)
black cranked seek performance (sometimes shares tech from gold)
gold black+vibration tolerance (voice coil gross, piezo head fine, positioners)
enterprise class

Check the datasheets for acoustic numbers, if you're
aversive to seek noise. The black are a bit loud for
some people.

The TBW and Hours-Per-Year rating on some of those drives will
be better than the competition. Seagate now sells products
with only 55TBW and 2400 hours-per-year operation. Whereas most
people want a drive with an 8760 hours-per-year rating, implying
they can be left running without issue. The gold drive could
be 550TBW or "ten times the writes" per year.

purple surveillance, continuous writes, multi-streaming
red NAS (replaces RE???) Seems to have reduced error
recovery time, advert mentions RAID. The only
selling factor here, is likely to be TLER.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_recovery_control

Paul

[Paul in Houston TX]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Paul in Houston TX

I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both Seagate/Lacie and
Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the smallest ones these days. Price range is
around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the better quality
version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about $100/terabyte for
greater reliability.

[]

Post by Paul in Houston TX
No special reason other than my first drive was a 2 MEG WD and it still runs.

Was it one of those double-density floppies?

Oops! :) No matter how many times I proof read I still screw up.
Make that a 2.1 GIG drive.

[Paul]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Lacie used to be a premium Apple ecosystem brand.

(Back in my Mac days, I wouldn't have thought of buying a Lacie product!)

Seagate bought them, to try to jack up the margins
on some of their portable storage offerings. The
thinking being, instead of a "race to the bottom"
against MyBooks, it could get a lot more dollars
for a Corinthean Leather encased hard drive.

This is what buying Lacie gets you. Ricardo Montalban
and white wall tires (my favorites).

The raw hard drives inside, come from a very limited
number of sources. There's no such thing as a "high quality"
2.5" mechanism in that sense. Some fail in as little
as a week. Or, after ten plug-unplug cycles.

*******

It's hard to find honest reviews that actually
represent the item you're buying.

It appears you can get external 2.5" (15mm drive)
storage for about $25 per terabyte.

In terms of raw mechanisms -

9.5mm 2.5" 1TB or 2TB Used in laptops (9.5mm bay)
15mm 2.5" Up to 5TB About $130 for the big one

If you buy a 3TB drive then, expect a 15mm mechanism
with one fewer platter inside.

The 15mm mechanisms aren't supposed to be sold at retail
as bare drives. When you see those for sale, they can
be "shucked" from external casings. The price of the raw 15mm
drives is consequently unrealistically high.

They won't tell you, on any individual external enclosed
drive, what mechanism SKU is inside, so there's no way to
relate product quality at all. And the damage done to the
Newegg and Amazon reviews is so extensive, the reviews
are a write-off. They've mixed about 5000 reviews for ten
different products, into one review column. You really are
buying a "pig in a poke".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke

It looks like, over the ages, we've "eaten a lot of cats"...
Such is trade and merchandising. Thank God the bag or "poke"
hides what is inside.

[The above based on an assumption you want a 2.5" form factor one]

At the 3.5" form factor, you can assemble your own device from
parts. The largest 3.5" (with decent performance) is
probably around 14TB now. And not as cheap per TB as the above.

Paul

[GS]

You should be able to get a WD 2TB USB3 pocket-size drive in Walmart fairly
cheap now; -2 yrs ago I bought mine for CA$80.

[DAN]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
I'm willing to spend up to about $100/terabyte for greater reliability.

If you are really willing to pay 200% premium for safety, then why not simply
buy more drives and use them as mirrors. Either periodic-under-your-control
mirrors or RAID.

Seems much safer to me than hoping that one brand will be X% more reliable than
the next. Three normal drives will have a collective reliability much higher
than a single premium one.

Personally I use a QNAP NAS for this purpose. YMMV.

[...w¡ñ§±¤ñ]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

I've had WD and Seagate drives for decades. Not a single one ever died
though I guess if I include the Connor drive in my original HP Win95
computer that had a Track 0 on/off problem that would count as 1 Seagate
hardware failure.

I prefer the WD Passport 2 TB as externals(drives in their own casing)
and the WD or Seagates or Crucial SSD's for use in this device
Sabrent USB 3.0 to SATA Dual Bay External Hard Drive Docking Station
for 2.5 or 3.5in HDD, SSD, Support up to 10TB.
- ~$30US on Amazon.

[Java Jive]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

In recent years Seagate have had a particularly poor reputation, and I
can confirm this through personal experience - 1 DOA, 2 early
retirements, 1 hanging on with errors:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/

I keep two Zyxel NASs as my backup system - two is my version of RAID
- which are on 24x7, and most recently have been putting Toshiba drives
in them, which, so far, have been fine. WD also have a good reputation.

Just don't buy Seagate.

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive
In recent years Seagate have had a particularly poor reputation, and I
can confirm this through personal experience  -  1 DOA, 2 early
retirements, 1 hanging on with errors

More clearly and fully, that should have been: 1 DOA, 2 early deaths, 1
hanging on with errors (used for non-essential backups), 1 (the
replacement for the DOA) still in everyday use.

[A M]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?

Seagate hard disks tend to be the most unreliable. However, I've had a
WD Black drive last me no more than 8 months (there's a three-year
warranty though) in a laptop.

Post by Wolf K
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.

I doubt Hitachi makes external HDs of any kind but their disks seem to
be the most reliable. If they cost the same though, I'd still choose
WD over Seagate.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.

I don't have enough experience with drives to recommend a particular
brand. But your statement "Price range is around $50 to $100 per
terabyte" is not correct. Look on Amazon.com. A 1TB drive is around
$50, but the price per TB goes way down as the drive size goes up. I
see a 2TB drive for $69, a 4TB for $105 and an 8TG for $152.

Personally I wouldn't buy anything smaller than a 2TB.

Also note that you can buy an internal drive and an external case for
it, and sometimes that's a better deal than an external.

[Bennett]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

Failure rates of ~93,000 drives during 3 months of 2017 compared:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2017/

Similar charts for other quarters/years available;
Google: hard drive reliability data farm

[VanguardLH]

Post by Bennett

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2017/
Similar charts for other quarters/years available;
Google: hard drive reliability data farm

The problem with their annualized failure rate is that it equates all
drives to the same usage period no matter how long a drive has actually
been in service. Some drives could be many years old, some only a
couple months old. They also don't show a bell curve of brand and
models that make it past the premature pregnancy date (9 months) and
after 5 or 10 years (wherever they want the cutoff). Companies will
also liquidate assets before failure and no information about when that
is or how many drives would've survived past then.

Also, none of the drives listed are within the 1 to 2 TB range the OP
asked about. The OP also never mentioned he was asking about
enterprise-grade HDDs and is evidently looking at consumer-grade drives
and, my guess, only at pre-built units (not where he picks the case and
drive himself). While the OP mentioned USB 3.0, that doesn't dictate
HDD or SDD.

[Java Jive]

Post by VanguardLH
The problem with their annualized failure rate is that it equates all
drives to the same usage period no matter how long a drive has actually
been in service. Some drives could be many years old, some only a
couple months old.

Exactly, so it is trying to treat all the drives on the same statistical
basis. You clearly haven't read the link I gave earlier, so here it is
again:

What Hard Drive Should I Buy?
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/

"We measure drive reliability by looking at the annual failure rate,
which is the average number of failures you can expect running one drive
for a year."

INA statistician, but I believe this is standard statistical practice
for this sort of thing, and you can hardly criticise them for adopting
standard practice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annualized_failure_rate

Post by VanguardLH
They also don't show a bell curve of brand and
models that make it past the premature pregnancy date (9 months) and
after 5 or 10 years (wherever they want the cutoff). Companies will
also liquidate assets before failure and no information about when that
is or how many drives would've survived past then.

The site is not attempting to run a public trial in the manner of a
consumer magazine, it's merely making a firm's own data available such
as it is. However, again, the text on the page I've linked goes some
way to answering some of those questions.

Post by VanguardLH
Also, none of the drives listed are within the 1 to 2 TB range the OP
asked about.

Again, the page I linked has comparisons for 1.5TB drives, Seagate were
significantly worse than the competition.

Post by VanguardLH
The OP also never mentioned he was asking about
enterprise-grade HDDs and is evidently looking at consumer-grade drives
and, my guess, only at pre-built units (not where he picks the case and
drive himself). While the OP mentioned USB 3.0, that doesn't dictate
HDD or SDD.

Again, you are showing that you didn't read the description on the page
I linked - the firm provide low-end cloud storage, hence (my emphasis):

"Drive Population

At the end of 2013, we had 27,134 *consumer-grade* drives
...
Why do we have the drives we have? Basically, we buy the least expensive
drives that will work.
...
We are willing to spend a little bit more on drives that are reliable,
because it costs money to replace a drive. We are not willing to spend a
lot more, though."

[A M]

Post by Java Jive

Post by VanguardLH
The problem with their annualized failure rate is that it equates all
drives to the same usage period no matter how long a drive has actually
been in service. Some drives could be many years old, some only a
couple months old.

Exactly, so it is trying to treat all the drives on the same statistical
basis. You clearly haven't read the link I gave earlier, so here it is
What Hard Drive Should I Buy?
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/
"We measure drive reliability by looking at the annual failure rate,
which is the average number of failures you can expect running one drive
for a year."
INA statistician, but I believe this is standard statistical practice
for this sort of thing, and you can hardly criticise them for adopting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annualized_failure_rate

That web page confirms what I was suggesting that Hitachi is the way
to go if you're buying a hard disk.

Feels good to be right.

[Shadow]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2017/

No smaller models there, but Toshiba's looking good.
It's luck really. If the drive doesn't go bad in the first 3
months or so it'll probably last for years.

Slightly smaller drives

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-benchmark-stats-2016/

Toshiba shines again ...

And I just bought a Seagate.
;)
[]'s

[pjp]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

I don't even look at anything other than WD and Seagate. I have and use
daily both manufacturers drives. I've had both fail before warranty and
with both companies warranty replacement is relatively easy.

I do prefer Seagate over WD but it's because of WD's bundled software.
One of their drives was a "U3" model and would create a virtual cd and
run some backup software when mounted. I didn't like that and had them
replace it with a model without that feature. I believe it was a
Passport model that I got changed to a Elements model of the same size
(waa a 1Tb drive).

I have a 3Tb Seagate, 2Tb Seagate plus various smaller ones, some in
enclosures. I have a 2Tb WD, couple of 1Tb WD's and smaller units in
enclosures. All of them have been running for years, some 24/7 and all
show no signs of any issues. One's even a refurbished warranty
replacement. All are now past warranty period so ...

[Peter Jason]

Post by Wolf K
I'm looking for another external drive or two. My usual source has both
Seagate/Lacie and Western Digital. It looks like 1 or 2TB are the
smallest ones these days. Price range is around $50 to $100 per terabyte.
Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
better quality version of Seagate?
Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
Or should I look at other brands? I'm willing to spend up to about
$100/terabyte for greater reliability.
All advice and recommendations gratefully received and carefully considered.
Thank you,

I've had some luck digging HDDs out of failed PVRs, reformatting (NOT
quick format) and using these for long-term storage. These tend to be
IDEs though.

[Mayayana]

"Wolf K" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote

| Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
| better quality version of Seagate?
|
| Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
|
I think Paul may be the only person here who
really knows about the hardware. And he certainly
wins for best analogy: LaCie as Ricardo Montalban
and whitewall tires. :)

For what it's worth....
I occasionally come across reports from large server
companies, about their burnout history. It's surprisingly
hard to find patterns. I think it was Seagate that had
some bum 4 TB drives recently, while their 2 TB were
fine.

And how does a drive in constant use compare to a
desktop? I don't know.

The only discernible pattern seems to be that drives
typically burn out quickly or live long. There seems to be
some kind of lemon factor.

I fixed a laptop recently with a burned out WD. The
owner said it died while she was loading pictures. I
expect it overheated. I don't think I've ever actually
had a drive die myself. I always buy Seagate. (I've got
a very unscientific bias against the ticking sound WD
drives make during seek. :) On the other hand, I've never
pushed my drives. For the cost I figure it's not worth it.
And I don't stress them. I also only use desktops, with
plenty of space for circulation.

If it were me I'd look into what the OEMs are using.
They can't afford failures.

[Paul]

Post by Mayayana
| Lacie prices are double Seagate models of same capacity - is Lacie the
| better quality version of Seagate?
|
| Western Digital models are generally in same price range as Seagate.
|
I think Paul may be the only person here who
really knows about the hardware. And he certainly
wins for best analogy: LaCie as Ricardo Montalban
and whitewall tires. :)
For what it's worth....
I occasionally come across reports from large server
companies, about their burnout history. It's surprisingly
hard to find patterns. I think it was Seagate that had
some bum 4 TB drives recently, while their 2 TB were
fine.
And how does a drive in constant use compare to a
desktop? I don't know.
The only discernible pattern seems to be that drives
typically burn out quickly or live long. There seems to be
some kind of lemon factor.
I fixed a laptop recently with a burned out WD. The
owner said it died while she was loading pictures. I
expect it overheated. I don't think I've ever actually
had a drive die myself. I always buy Seagate. (I've got
a very unscientific bias against the ticking sound WD
drives make during seek. :) On the other hand, I've never
pushed my drives. For the cost I figure it's not worth it.
And I don't stress them. I also only use desktops, with
plenty of space for circulation.
If it were me I'd look into what the OEMs are using.
They can't afford failures.

If you wanted to hedge your bets, you'd buy one of the
smaller capacity Helium drives.

Only problem with that idea, is the manufacturer will not
guarantee the Helium stays in the drive for more than
five years :-) Now, initially, I hadn't seen any
quotations at all, on how long the gas stayed in there.

The question I have is, if it's no longer filled with Helium,
what's it filled with ? I would think Maxwells Demon is
in there, at the very least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon

*******

The question about disks, is similar to a question
about dark alleys.

Each of us uses our wits, looks for visible signals,
as to what might be in the dark alley. What the
risks might be.

We either enter the dark alley, or we walk by.

It's useless to propose statistics, when the results
vary wildly by neighborhood and city. A rackspace
article shows deviation between SKUs, but doesn't
predict what the Doggy in the Window today is
capable of.

When we lose our last sources of reliable evidence,
then the choice process can only involve a coin toss.
In the case of pre-packaged 2.5" drives, that's about
the situation right now. Coin toss. Now, I personally
don't like situations like that, because ten minutes
after I get the item, I'm going to figure out I've made
a mistake. And my favorite computer store no longer
has its "generous return policy".

I know I can make some choices by building up a 3.5"
solution from parts, but most people asking this question
aren't interested. And even finding good BYOD enclosures
is a hard thing now (they're almost all fanless). Which
might be fine for a 5W drive, and not so good for a 12W
drive.

Paul