• TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    30/32 = 0.938

    That’s less than a single terabyte. I have a microSD card bigger than that!

    ;)

  • Zacryon@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Seagate. The company that sold me an HDD which broke down two days after the warranty expired.

    No thanks.
    laughing in Western Digital HDD running for about 10 years now

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 days ago

      I had the opposite experience. My Seagates have been running for over a decade now. The one time I went with Western Digital, both drives crapped out in a few years.

      • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        I have 10 year old WDs and 8 year old Seagates still kicking. Depends on the year. Some years one is better than others.

    • satans_methpipe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Funny because I have a box of Seagate consumer drives recovered from systems going to recycling that just won’t quit. And my experience with WD drives is the same as your experience with Seagate.

      Edit: now that I think about it, my WD experience is from many years ago. But the Seagate drives I have are not new either.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        Survivorship bias. Obviously the ones that survived their users long enough to go to recycling would last longer than those that crap out right away and need to be replaced before the end of the life of the whole system.

        I mean, obviously the whole thing is biased, if objective stats state that neither is particularly more prone to failure than the other, it’s just people who used a different brand once and had it fail. Which happens sometimes.

        • satans_methpipe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Ah I wasn’t thinking about that. I got the scrappy spinny bois.

          I’m fairly sure me and my friends had a bad batch of Western digitals too.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Had the same experience and opinion for years, they do fine on Backblaze’s drive stats but don’t know that I’ll ever super trust them just 'cus.

      That said, the current home server has a mix of drives from different manufacturers including seagate to hopefully mitigate the chances that more than one fails at a time.

      • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Any 8 years old hard drive is a concern. Don’t get sucked into thinking Seagate is a bad brand because of anecdotal evidence. He might’ve bought a Seagate hard drive with manufacturing defect, but actual data don’t really show any particular brand with worse reliability, IIRC. What you should do is research whether the particular model of your drive is known to have reliability problems or not. That’s a better indicator than the brand.

  • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Everybody taking shit about Seagate here. Meanwhile I’ve never had a hard drive die on me. Eventually the capacity just became too little to keep around and I got bigger ones.

    Oldest I’m using right now is a decade old, Seagate. Actually, all the HDDs are Seagate. The SSDs are Samsung. Granted, my OS is on an SSD, as well as my most used things, so the HDDs don’t actually get hit all that much.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I’ve had a Samsung SSD die on me, I’ve had many WD drives die on me (also the last drive I’ve had die was a WD drive), I’ve had many Seagate drives die on me.

      Buy enough drives, have them for a long enough time, and they will die.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 days ago

      Seagate had some bad luck with their 3TB drives about 15 years ago now if memory serves me correctly.

      Since then Western Digital (the only other remaining HDD manufacturer) pulled some shenanigans with not correctly labeling different technologies in use on their NAS drives that directly impacted their practicality and performance in NAS applications (the performance issues were particularly agregious when used in a zfs pool)

      So basically pick your poison. Hard to predict which of the duopoly will do something unworthy of trusting your data upon, so uh…check your backups I guess?

        • kalleboo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Yeah our file server has 17 Toshiba drives in the 10/14 TiB sizes ranging from 2-4 years of power-on age and zero failures so far (touch wood).

          Of our 6 Seagate drives (10 TiB), 3 of them died in the 2-4 year age range, but one is still alive 6 years later.

          We’re in Japan and Toshiba is by far the cheapest here (and have the best support - they have advance replacement on regular NAS drives whereas Seagate takes 2 weeks replacement to ship to and from a support center in China!) so we’ll continue buying them.

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Ah I thought I had remembered their hard drive division being aquired but I was wrong! Per Wikipedia:

          At least 218 companies have manufactured hard disk drives (HDDs) since 1956. Most of that industry has vanished through bankruptcy or mergers and acquisitions. None of the first several entrants (including IBM, who invented the HDD) continue in the industry today. Only three manufacturers have survived—Seagate, Toshiba and Western Digital

    • remon@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Yeah, same. I switched to seagate after 3 WD drives failed in less then 3 years. Never had problems since.

  • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Avoid these like the plague. I made the mistake of buying 2 16 TB Exos drives a couple years ago and have had to RMA them 3 times already.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I stopped buying seagates when I had 4 of their 2TB barracuda drives die within 6 months… constantly was RMAing them. Finally got pissed and sold them and bought WD reds, still got 2 of the reds in my Nas Playing hot backups with nearly 8 years of power time.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        I recently had to send back a Barracuda drive as well. I’m seeing if the Ironwolf drive fares any better.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          I have heard good things about their ironwolf drives, but that’s a enterprise solution drive, so hopefully it’s worth it

      • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        They seem to be real hit or miss. I also have 2 6TB barracudas that have 70,000 power on hours (8 yrs) that are still going fine.

        • john89@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          “Hit or miss” is unfortunately not good enough for consumer electronics.

          It means you’re essentially gambling with bad odds so the business you’re giving money to can get away with cutting corners.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Nice, I agree, I’m sure there is an opposite of me, telling their story of a bunch of failed WD drives and having swore them off.

      • kungen@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I have several WDs with almost 15 years of power on time, not a single failure. Whereas my work bought a bunch of Seagates and our cluster was basically halved after less than 2 years. I have no idea how Seagate can suck so much.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          About 10 years ago now, at a past employer, had a NAS setup that housed a bunch of medical data…all seagate drives. During my xmas PTO…I was lead on DR…yea fuckers all started failing one after another. Took out 14 drives before the storage team said fuck this pulled it offline and had a new NAS brought in from EMC, was a fun xmas restoring all that shit. Seagate used to be my go to, but it seems like every single interaction I have with them ends in disaster.

          • kalleboo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            Seagate was my go-to after I had bought those original IBM DeathStars and had to RMA the RMA replacement drive after a few months. But brand loyalty is for suckers. It seemed Seagate had a really bad run after they acquired Maxstor who always had a bad reputation.

    • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Had that issue with the 3tb drives. Bought 4, had to RMA all 4, and then RMA 2 of the replacement drives all within a few months.

      The last 2 are still operating 10 years later though. 2 out of 6.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      My dad had a 286 with a 40MB hard drive in it. When it spun up it sounded like a plane taking off. A few years later he had a 486 and got a 2gb Seagate hard drive. It was an unimaginable amount of space at the time.

      The computer industry in the 90s (and presumably the 80s, I just don’t remember it) we’re wild. Hardware would be completely obsolete every other year.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        My 286er had 2MB RAM and no hard drive, just two 5.25" floppy drives. One to boot the OS from, the other for storage and software.

        I upgrade it to 4 MB RAM and bought a 20 MB hard drive, moved EVERY piece of software I had onto it, and it was like 20% full. I sincerely thought that should last forever.

        Today I casually send my wife a 10 sec video from the supermarket to choose which yoghurt she wants and that takes up about 25 MB.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          I had 128KB of RAM and I loaded my games from tape. And most of those only used 48KB of it.

          • viking@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yeah we still had an old 8086 with tape drive and all from my dad’s university times around, but I never acutely used that one.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      I had a 20mb hard drive

      I had a 1gb hard drive that weighed like 20 kgs, some 40 odd pounds

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Our first computer was a Macintosh Classic with a 40 MB SCSI hard disk. My first “own” computer had a 120 MB drive.

      I keep typoing TB as GB when talking about these huge drives, it’s just so weird how these massive capacities are just normal!

    • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      We had family computers first, I can’t recall original specs but I think my mother added in a 384MB drive to the 486 desktop before buying a win98se prebuilt with a 2GB drive. I remember my uncle calling that Pentium II 350MHZ, 64MB SDRAM, Rage 2 Pro Turbo AGP tower “a NASA computer” haha.

  • SpaceScotsman@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    “The two models, the 30TB … and the 32TB …, each offer a minimum of 3TB per disk”. Well, yes, I would hope something advertised as being 30TB would offer at least 3TB. Am I misreading this sentence somehow?

      • wicked_observer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Nice data but I stick with Toshiba old HGST and WD. For me they seem to last much longer than Seagate

    • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      I have one Seagate drive. It’s a 500 GB that came in my 2006 Dell Dimension E510 running XP Media Center. When that died in 2011, I put it in my custom build. It ran until probably 2014, when suddenly I was having issues booting and I got a fresh WD 1 TB. Put it in a box, and kept it for some reason. Fast forward to 2022, I got another Dell E510 with only an 80 GB. Dusted off the old 500 GB and popped it in. Back with XP Media Center. The cycle is complete. That drive is still noisy as fuck.

    • Steak@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Not worth the risk for me to find out lol. My granddaddy stored his data on WD drives and his daddy before him, and my daddy after him. Now I store my data on WD drives and my son will to one day. Such is life.

      • kalpol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        And here I am with HGST drives hitting 50k hours

        Edit: no one ever discusses the Backblaze reliability statistics. Its interesting to see how they stack up against the anecdotes.

    • HouseWolf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      My personal experience has been hit n miss.

      Was using one 4TB Seagate for 11 years then bought a newer model to replace it since I thought it was gonna die any day. That new one died within 6 months. The old one still works although I don’t use it for for anything important now.

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I bought 16TB one as an urgent replacement for a failing raid.
      It arrived defective, so I can’t speak on the longevity.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Not sure whether we’ll arrive there the tech is definitely entering the taper-out phase of the sigmoid. Capacity might very well still become cheaper, also 3x cheaper, but don’t, in any way, expect them to simultaneously keep up with write performance that ship has long since sailed. The more bits they’re trying to squeeze into a single cell the slower it’s going to get and the price per cell isn’t going to change much, any more, as silicon has hit a price wall, it’s been a while since the newest, smallest node was also the cheapest.

      OTOH how often do you write a terabyte in one go at full tilt.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        I don’t think anyone has much issue with our current write speeds, even at dinky old SATA 6/GB levels. At least for bulk media storage. Your OS boot or game loading, whatever, maybe not. I’d be just fine with exactly what we have now, but just pack more chips in there.

        Even if you take apart one of the biggest, meanest, most expensive 8TB 2.5" SSD’s the casing is mostly empty inside. There’s no reason they couldn’t just add more chips even at the current density levels other than artificial market segmentation, planned obsolescence, and pigheadedness. It seems the major consumer manufacturers refuse to allow their 2.5" SSD’s to get out of parity with the capacities on offer in the M.2 form factor drives that everyone is hyperfixated on for some reason, and the pricing structure between 8TB and what few greater than 8 models actually are on offer is nowhere near linear even though the manufacturing cost roughly should be.

        If people are still willing to use a “full size” 3.5" form factor with ordinary hard drives for bulk storage, can you imagine how much solid state storage you could cram into a casing that size, even with current low-cost commodity chips? It’d be tons. But the only options available are “enterprise solutions” which are apparently priced with the expectation you’ll have a Fortune 500 or government expense account.

        It’s bullshit all the way down; there’s nothing new under the sun in that regard.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          the M.2 form factor drives that everyone is hyperfixated on for some reason

          The reason is transfer speeds. SATA is slow, M.2 is a direct PCIe link. And SSDs can saturate it, at least in bursts. Doubling the capacity of a 2.5" SSD is going to double its price as you need twice as many chips, there’s not really a market for 500 buck SATA SSDs, you’re looking for U.2 / U.3 ones. Yes, they’re quite a bit more expensive per TB but look at the difference in TBW to consumer SSDs.

          If you’re a consumer and want a data grave, buy spinning platters. Or even a tape drive. You neither want, nor need, a high-capacity SSD.

          Also you can always RAID them up.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            For the context of bulk consumer storage (or even SOHO NAS) that’s irrelevant, though, because people are already happily using spinning mechanical 3.5" hard drives for this purpose, and they’re all already SATA. Therefore there’s no logical reason to worry about the physical size or slower write speeds of packing a bunch of flash chips into the same sized enclosure for those particular use cases.

            There are reasons a big old SSD would be suitable for this. Silence, reliability, no spin up delay, resistance to outside mechanical forces, etc.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Sure it makes sense: Pretty much noone, but you, is going to buy them, and stocking shelves and warehouses with product costs money. All that unmoved stock would make them more expensive, making even more people not buy them. It’s inefficient.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    I thought I read somewhere that larger drives had a higher chance of failure. Quick look around and that seems to be untrue relative to newer drives.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      One problem is that larger drives take longer to rebuild the RAID array when one drive needs replacing. You’re sitting there for days hoping that no other drive fails while the process goes. Current SATA and SAS standards are as fast as spinning platters could possibly go; making them go even faster won’t help anything.

      There was some debate among storage engineers if they even want drives bigger than 20TB. The potential risk of data loss during a rebuild is worth trading off density. That will probably be true until SSDs are closer to the price per TB of spinning platters (not necessarily the same; possibly more like double the price).

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 days ago

        If you’re writing 100 MB/s, it’ll still take 300,000 seconds to write 30TB. 300,000 seconds is 5,000 minutes, or 83.3 hours, or about 3.5 days. In some contexts, that can be considered a long time to be exposed to risk of some other hardware failure.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yep. It’s a little nerve wracking when I replace a RAID drie in our NAS, but I do it before there’s a problem with a drive. I can mount the old one back in, or try another new drive. I’ve only ever had one new DOA, here’s hoping those stay few and far between.

      • oldfart@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        What happened to using different kinds of drives in every mirrored pair? Not best practice any more? I’ve had Seagates fail one after another and the RAID was intact because I paired them with WD.

  • Avieshek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    How can someone without programming skills make a cloud server at home for cheap?

    Lemmy’s Spoiler Doesn’t Make Sense

    (Like connected to WiFi and that’s it)

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yes. You’ll have to learn some new things regardless, but you don’t need to know how to program.

      What are you hoping to make happen?

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      Not programming skills, but sysadmin skills.

      Buy a used server on EBay (companies often sell their old servers for cheap when they upgrade). Buy a bunch of HDDs. Install Linux and set up the HDDs in a ZFS pool.

    • bruhduh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Debian, virtualmin, podman with cockpit, install these on any cheap used pc you find, after initial setup all other is gui managed

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Raspberry Pi or an old office PC are the usual methods. It’s not so much programming as Linux sysadmin skills.

      Beyond that, you might consider OwnCloud for an app-like experience, or just Samba if all you want is local network files.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Cheapest is probably a Raspberry Pi with a USB external drive. Look up “Raspberry Pi NAS,” there are a bunch of guides.

      Or you can repurpose an old PC, install some NAS distro, and then configure.

      There are a ton of options, very few of which require any programming.

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    The two models, […] each offer a minimum of 3TB per disk

    Huh? The hell is this supposed to mean? Are they talking about the internal platters?