Hard Drive Advise

[seekermeister]

With another hard drive failure today, I'm again in the market for a new one. However, the fact that 3 out of the 4 Seagate 7200.11 drives that I bought in the last year have failed (and the outlook for the fourth doesn't look too rosy either), caused me to veer away from Seagate.

I bought 3 WDC 1002FAEX of which 2 already have bad sectors, which I bought ~ 6 months ago, and I haven't had time to check the third, so that is still a question mark. In fact, the only 2 hard drives on my desktop that checkout okay are a couple of old Maxtors (one 6 years old & one 5 years old) and of course, my 2TB which is also the newest.

Need I say that I'm getting a bit gun shy at this point, and I would like to feel that there is a good chance of buying something that would last it's warranty period. I don't need anymore of the large drives...maybe a 500GB or two would do the job. I would like to have something more than speculation if possible, because that is what caused me to buy these lemons.

 

[mickey megabyte]

the samsung spinpoint f3 drives are highly popular, recommended, well priced and fast!

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Google did a study several years ago of thousands of drives, but they did not reveal brand names unfortunately. The data would probably be outdated anyway.

About all anyone can do is offer personal experience and I don't know how much good that would do you. No reader of this thread is likely to have personal experience with a statistically significant volume of drives in a controlled study.

My opinion for what it is worth:

Occasionally there are drives that would appear to have design defects that cause them to fail more often than random chance would dictate. Examples would be IBM Deskstar and possibly the Seagate 7200.11 series.

That aside, randomness overwhelms personal experience. I'd dearly love to know the details of any large-scale study that mentions brand names and model numbers, but I don't know of any such study that has leaked to the public.

The Google study that did not mention brand names did validate the "bathtub curve" of failure--i.e. failures tend to come early or late. If you get past the initial stage, the drive will likely last a long time. I haven't looked a it recently, but I think it also did NOT validate some commonly held assumptions regarding the effect of heat.

I've personally never had a drive failure, but my sample size is a puny dozen or so and signifies nothing. I can tell you that the Samsung 7200 rpm drives I have owned have tended to be quieter and cooler-running than the competition, but I can't say how important that is generally or to you specifically.

I currently use WD, but only because they were rated among the fastest at the time of purchase. If I'm not mistaken, recent Samsungs are quite fast also.

I'd be very surprised if you get any information that rises above personal anecdotes or speculation.

Good luck. It appears you have had bad luck, but I'm not sure you should draw conclusions from your experience.

 

[seekermeister]

I appreciate the input, and will definitely consider both of your responses, but it appears that the hard drive question how gotten pushed to the back burner, because right after posting this question, my desktop BSODed and will not now boot at all. I'm about to start a new thread for that, if you will take a look.

 

[Shootist]

I posted in your other thread about Major (when are they not Major) BSOD.

It might be that your problem with this final failure, BSOD, has some baring on all the HDD failures and corruption you've had.

Not sure if the same system was in use with the BSOD but if it was then I'd look at the memory/motherboard as the ROOT cause of all of this.

I've been using Seagate drive for years and so far IIRC have never had one fail. Still using 4 of them that I bought 4 years ago. Used them in 2 different systems that were overclocked. Still using them in the original system and 2 of them, on and off depending on what OS I want to boot, in my new build.
I may even have 1 or 2 in a OLD system that has been running 24/7 for the last 6+ years. Yeah just checked and I do have 1 Seagate drive in that system.

 

[Konceptz804]

western digital black

 

[Wallonn7]

I was a user of hard drives from Samsung until I have a data loss with them. After that, I received three machines for maintenance ... guess ... all came because of problems on the hard drive ... Samsung. Since then, I migrated to Seagate. Although they are well reviewed, the WD hdds are frequent visitors in the shop of my brother. Reason: problem in the actuator - voice coil. In short, I buy Seagate with my eyes closed!

 

[Shootist]

Just a note.
You pay your money and you take your chances.
I once, about 8+ years ago, got a WD drive that was marked 320GB (IIRC, although 8 years ago it could of been smaller), a very expensive drive at that time, and when I installed it only 250GBs was usable. Why because it was a 250GB drive. It had been mis marked at the factory. I then had to SEND it to WD, wait for them to check it and then send me the right drive. Total time about 2.5+ weeks.

I didn't buy another WD drive until recently. And only then based on Price. Seagate was like 30 bucks more for the same size.

 

[Sardonicus]

If they sell these in your area, it's worth a look.
Western Digital Caviar Black WD5002AALX

 

[Maguscreed]

Currently the lowest failure rate I know of are intel made ssd's.

It's something it's nearly impossible to get really solid data on though. You look at any company that's been around and making stuff long enough and you are going to see increasing failure numbers as they have more drives out there that are 6+ years old and just due to start screwing up.
I personally use mostly WD drives. Even though I have had a couple of them fail along the way, they have been the least problematic overall.

 

[seekermeister]

I was a user of hard drives from Samsung until I have a data loss with them. After that, I received three machines for maintenance ... guess ... all came because of problems on the hard drive ... Samsung. Since then, I migrated to Seagate. Although they are well reviewed, the WD hdds are frequent visitors in the shop of my brother. Reason: problem in the actuator - voice coil. In short, I buy Seagate with my eyes closed!

I hope that you didn't buy any of the Seagate 7200.11 drives while you had your eyes closed, because it is a well known fact that these drives are generally lemons. I do not have the advantage that a technician has, with being able to see patterns in their customer's problems with components...that is why I ask questions such as this, because some of you on this forum do.

I know that one private person's experience, such as mine is not enough to judge an entire product line, and I might even forgive a company for producing a bad lot of drives, IF they properly rectified the problem, by replacing them with good replacements, but that is something, that in my experience, Seagate has not done with the 7200.11s. This fact is sufficient for me not to trust any of their other products, regardless of other's individual satisfactory experience. This may change in time, but not quickly, and not without reason.

I had similar experience with WD drives, as far as high failure rates, which kept me from buying their products, but that could have been due to incredibly bad luck on my part. That is the reason that I bought these FAEXs. It is possible that I'm over reacting, but I do know that these drives are over priced, they produce unusual rattley noise when under a load, and that I have bad sectors on two out of 3 of the one that I own. I do not know how well WDC handles their RMA process, but I am sure that it will not cure the noise problem, because that is just the way that these drives are.

I might buy some other WDC drive, but it will not be a decision that I will make hastily, and not without something more that one person's experience. Of course, one person's experience is all that most of us can post, but when I see sufficient post counts that agree, that is a witness that I am able to use in my decision process.

For these reasons, endorsements of brand names don't mean too much to me, because their is no brand that is all good, or all bad.

 

[seekermeister]

Currently the lowest failure rate I know of are intel made ssd's.

It's something it's nearly impossible to get really solid data on though. You look at any company that's been around and making stuff long enough and you are going to see increasing failure numbers as they have more drives out there that are 6+ years old and just due to start screwing up.
I personally use mostly WD drives. Even though I have had a couple of them fail along the way, they have been the least problematic overall.

If I could afford to go that route, I probably would, but SSDs are too expensive for me, especially considering their price/size ratio.

 

[Wallonn7]

I was a user of hard drives from Samsung until I have a data loss with them. After that, I received three machines for maintenance ... guess ... all came because of problems on the hard drive ... Samsung. Since then, I migrated to Seagate. Although they are well reviewed, the WD hdds are frequent visitors in the shop of my brother. Reason: problem in the actuator - voice coil. In short, I buy Seagate with my eyes closed!

I hope that you didn't buy any of the Seagate 7200.11 drives while you had your eyes closed, because it is a well known fact that these drives are generally lemons. I do not have the advantage that a technician has, with being able to see patterns in their customer's problems with components...that is why I ask questions such as this, because some of you on this forum do.

I know that one private person's experience, such as mine is not enough to judge an entire product line, and I might even forgive a company for producing a bad lot of drives, IF they properly rectified the problem, by replacing them with good replacements, but that is something, that in my experience, Seagate has not done with the 7200.11s. This fact is sufficient for me not to trust any of their other products, regardless of other's individual satisfactory experience. This may change in time, but not quickly, and not without reason.

I had similar experience with WD drives, as far as high failure rates, which kept me from buying their products, but that could have been due to incredibly bad luck on my part. That is the reason that I bought these FAEXs. It is possible that I'm over reacting, but I do know that these drives are over priced, they produce unusual rattley noise when under a load, and that I have bad sectors on two out of 3 of the one that I own. I do not know how well WDC handles their RMA process, but I am sure that it will not cure the noise problem, because that is just the way that these drives are.

I might buy some other WDC drive, but it will not be a decision that I will make hastily, and not without something more that one person's experience. Of course, one person's experience is all that most of us can post, but when I see sufficient post counts that agree, that is a witness that I am able to use in my decision process.

For these reasons, endorsements of brand names don't mean too much to me, because their is no brand that is all good, or all bad.

I have a hard drive 7200.11 series. Once bought, I found that there was a firmware update available. I updated the firmware and it's been three years without problems. And my eyes are wide shut!

 

[seekermeister]

Yes, but that firmware update only applies to a portion of the 7200.11s, not mine. I'm glad that your drive has held up so far, but that should be the case with the majority of the drives of that catagory, not just a select few.

 

[Wallonn7]

Maybe I'm a lucky guy, just that ...

 

[jademoore6]

well if you're not into a speed and you are more on a storage use only, try using a a bit lower speed, you mentioned that you have 7200.11 why don't you try the 7200.9 or 7200.10 my 2 160GB Seagate drives serves me for about 3yrs now. and no bad sectors. and by the way if you format the drive a lot, try to avoid it.

 

[sygnus21]

Currently the lowest failure rate I know of are intel made ssd's.

It's something it's nearly impossible to get really solid data on though. You look at any company that's been around and making stuff long enough and you are going to see increasing failure numbers as they have more drives out there that are 6+ years old and just due to start screwing up.
I personally use mostly WD drives. Even though I have had a couple of them fail along the way, they have been the least problematic overall.

If I could afford to go that route, I probably would, but SSDs are too expensive for me, especially considering their price/size ratio.

If you're going to get a spinner get a Western Digital Caviar Black. Very good drive, however stay away from the 64 meg SATA 3 blacks, they're noisy as hell....

- http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/90141-sata-6-wd-caviar-black-1tb.html
- http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/149168-velociraptor.html#post1279944

At any rate in all my years (since 1998) of using Western Digital I've only had 2 go bad, though they never "completely" failed. This speaks of Western Digital's consistency in reliability.

My two cents.

 

[seekermeister]

Currently the lowest failure rate I know of are intel made ssd's.

It's something it's nearly impossible to get really solid data on though. You look at any company that's been around and making stuff long enough and you are going to see increasing failure numbers as they have more drives out there that are 6+ years old and just due to start screwing up.
I personally use mostly WD drives. Even though I have had a couple of them fail along the way, they have been the least problematic overall.

If I could afford to go that route, I probably would, but SSDs are too expensive for me, especially considering their price/size ratio.

If you're going to get a spinner get a Western Digital Caviar Black. Very good drive, however stay away from the 64 meg SATA 3 blacks, they're noisy as hell....

- http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/90141-sata-6-wd-caviar-black-1tb.html
- http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/149168-velociraptor.html#post1279944

At any rate in all my years (since 1998) of using Western Digital I've only had 2 go bad, though they never "completely" failed. This speaks of Western Digital's consistency in reliability.

My two cents.

I can easily agree with you on that, because the FAEXs that I mentioned are SATA 3s. I'm not sure if your velociraptor link is an endorsement or a warning, but it doesn't matter, because they cost too much for me. Your history with WDC drives has been much better than my own.

 

[seekermeister]

well if you're not into a speed and you are more on a storage use only, try using a a bit lower speed, you mentioned that you have 7200.11 why don't you try the 7200.9 or 7200.10 my 2 160GB Seagate drives serves me for about 3yrs now. and no bad sectors. and by the way if you format the drive a lot, try to avoid it.

My 2TB WDC is a slower drive that is used for video storage and it is fine for that purpose. I think that its lower speed is an advantage me, because it resides in an external case, that even though it has a fan, a drive runs hotter than it would internally. I'm hoping that its lower speed/temp will promote it's life expectancy.

As for the other models, I would need something more than just a general suggestion. 160GB would be sufficient, if I only used it for the OS, but I kind of like having a couple of extra partitions. That is why I have targeted a 500GB drive.

EDIT: It just sunk in that you were speaking of Seagate drives, I'm not ready to go in that direction at the moment.

 

[NeroDevil]

Im using an internal Seagate Barracuda 120GB HDD that I got for free at work since it was refurbished - no problems whatsoever, and that IS a refurbished model!

Also, my PC is set up to have just Win7, and a few essential programs on that drive, and I use an external drive for storing all my main data - brand? Seagate.

You more than likely have bad luck, but I'd check your motherboard health to be sure, because it could be whats killing the drives.

It could also be a faulty drive controller chip on the board thats killing your drives.