Are 2TB hard drives reliable?

[sygyzy]

When 1.5TB and now 2TB hard drives came out, I kept reading what I thought were a lot of reliability issues. It led me to believe or get the feeling that perhaps the manufacturers haven't quite mastered packing that much storage on the same number of platters and same physical (3.5") drive we've been using for ages.

Am I wrong? Are 2TB drives as mechanically reliable as 500GB or 1TB drives? Or are there still kinks to work out?

 

[sxr7171]

It's hard to say. I suspect they are not judging by how much trouble Seagate has had. Also I have read those same reviews and these big drives seem to crap out a lot. Anyway they are dirt cheap so much so that mirroring all your data isn't terribly expensive.

I hear all the problems about Seagate, but ironically in my WHS with 7 1-1.5TB Seagate drives (all from the failure 7200.11 generation) the one WD 2TB in there was the one to die. Those Seagates are running strong. However I assume at the outset that they will fail. It's just a matter of when. It's a good assumption to make of any HDD.

Ultimately it's like everything else. We buy stuff that made in the cheapest possible way, in the cheapest possible place to make it, by people who are paid the least possible salaries. Nobody cares about and/or pays for quality anymore. The upside is that everything is so cheap that you afford 2 where you could afford one.

I suppose the enterprise variants from all manufacturers are more reliable. $300 http://www.xpcgear.com/western-digital-wd2002fyps-hard-drive.html vs. $150 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...le-_-Hard+Drives-_-Western+Digital-_-22136344

I'd take my chances on the cheap ones and duplicate my data.

 

[sygyzy]

It's funny you are running a WHS because that's exactly why I need larger drives. I have the 500GB system drive (which is basically non-replaceable, at least not easily), and three 1 TB's. I want to upgrade those three to 2TB.

Can you explain how you are running seven (7) drives? Are you using a custom made system or are you utilizing a eSATA external drive bay?

I too have the 1 TB drives from the failure generation. I can't even upgrade their flash because for some reason the drives are in an non-standard "state" when they are in the WHS. Seagate HD tools can't even detect them.

I think it's kind of a bad attitude you have. I mean they may be cheap ($160 or so for 2 TB) but I don't really want to think of drives as non-quality, throw away items.

 

[TXAngel08]

HP isn't the only source for WHS.

On a side note, while I haven't yet moved to the 2TB drives, I do have 8 1.5TB Seagate drives from last year running in my server. (knock on wood) No problems to report.

I suspect that people with failed drives complain while people with working drives say nothing at all. If huge numbers of drives were in fact failing, you'd think they would either stop production or go out of business.

But what do I know?

As a side note, I'm amazed that 2TB drives have now dropped to $150. Last year they were at $300. I remember spending $400 to buy a 30MB hard drive for my Apple IIgs in the 80s. (yea, I'm old)

Makes me wonder when we'll have a petabyte hard drive...

 

[f4phantom2500]

I suspect that people with failed drives complain while people with working drives say nothing at all. If huge numbers of drives were in fact failing, you'd think they would either stop production or go out of business.

I'd have to agree with this. I mean if they really were that unreliable, how would they be able to afford a 3 year (or more) warranty with every drive? Could have just been a bunch of drives from a botched batch, likely early production run. Stuff happens. Hard drives are inherently more prone to failure than any other main computer component due to their mechanical design.

 

[Red Squirrel]

1.5TBs were only unreliable because seagate were the first ones to put them out at an affordable rate, and all of their 1.5TB drives failed prematurely. It was a bad model. The other brand ones were ok. I would avoid seagate 2TB drives and go with another brand, just to be safe. I find seagates are slow in raid anyway when it comes to consumer drivers.

 

[jjmIII]

I bought 2 1.5tb Seagates, and have sent 3 back...you do the math .

 

[Orubasarot]

...

 

[GundamF91]

Is there any reason at all to assume that the low RPM versions would be any more reliable? Just thinking that since in a way there's less stuff going on.

There should be less wear and tear with slower drives, such as the 5400RPM Green WD. On the other hand, manufacturers will cut cost where ever they can, so they will use only what's required for adequate life span (read: less expensive components) for these slower drives. So the end result is probably same.

 

[sxr7171]

It's funny you are running a WHS because that's exactly why I need larger drives. I have the 500GB system drive (which is basically non-replaceable, at least not easily), and three 1 TB's. I want to upgrade those three to 2TB.

Can you explain how you are running seven (7) drives? Are you using a custom made system or are you utilizing a eSATA external drive bay?

I too have the 1 TB drives from the failure generation. I can't even upgrade their flash because for some reason the drives are in an non-standard "state" when they are in the WHS. Seagate HD tools can't even detect them.

I think it's kind of a bad attitude you have. I mean they may be cheap ($160 or so for 2 TB) but I don't really want to think of drives as non-quality, throw away items.

I used an HP MSS 470EX to start, and then built my own WHS server for less than $300. I used an Antec 300 case, but my friend used a Microcenter Powerspec $25 case and it also can hold 8 drives with the appropriate adapters.

With WHS actually you can do a "server reinstall" any time and preserve your duplicated data.

When you choose to use WHS and duplication you are basically acknowledging that magnetic HDDs fail that's why you use WHS to duplicate data. Even the best enterprise drives are subject to failure. Now from a cost perspective given you used WHS to duplicate your data the drives themselves are worthless. The data is everything.

With a 3-5 year warranty on those cheap drives you are still covered for the drives with a 3 week replacement period. I would keep one spare drive around to duplicate any data that is unduplicated by the failure of one drive while the replacement is shipped to you.

The whole move to WHS IMHO is that drives are prone to failure no matter how well you research your drive choices. I just buy the cheapest drives now. I know my data is still safe. It's just the reality of the situation and its why I chose WHS to protect my data.


Here's my complement of drives:

1 500GB Seagate 7200.10
3 1.5TB Seagate 7200.11
3 1TB Seagate 7200.11
1 WDC 2TB Greenpower

The only one that failed ironically was the WDC. The moral of the story being that you cannot predict which drive will fail. All the evidence suggested that one or many of the Seagates should have failed. But it was the WDC that failed. It made no difference to me in the end. WDC replaced my drive and my data is safe.

Also if 2 drives should fail simultaneously I would lose data, but if one fails and the other fails even 30 minutes later there's a chance that whatever data that is no longer duplicated due to the failure was duplicated by WHS before the second drive failure. You should always have some free space on your WHS to allow that to happen.

 

[TXAngel08]

This is why Mozy and Carbonite exist. For $55 a year, they will backup everything you have. Not a bad deal, all things considered...

Actually, because I don't 100% trust them, I use both of them. I spend a lot more than $110 on computers, the data is for sure worth $110 a year to me. This way if anything funny happens to one of the, I have the other.