Most reliable 3.5" Hard Disk Drives?

gryffinwings

Member
Sep 28, 2018
97
6
11
Can anyone tell me if you had to choose one hard drive for a NAS and you could only have one, what would you get? It must be a 3.5" drive and be SATA, no external drives please. If you can, please provide your experiences. Reasonable suggestions are definitely appreciated.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,570
10,200
126
Trusting in a single drive lifespan for "reliability", is mis-placed. They invented RAID and Backups for a reason. The lifespan of individual drives, should be largely irrelevant, save that they should last long enough, that the RAID array won't just drop out of the blue. But if it does, you should have backups too.

Consider multiple NAS units, each with multiple bays / drives, in either RAID1, RAID10, RAID 5, RAID 6, or unRAID.

Data should be stored, at least, in triplicate. If you care about not losing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

gryffinwings

Member
Sep 28, 2018
97
6
11
Trusting in a single drive lifespan for "reliability", is mis-placed. They invented RAID and Backups for a reason. The lifespan of individual drives, should be largely irrelevant, save that they should last long enough, that the RAID array won't just drop out of the blue. But if it does, you should have backups too.

Consider multiple NAS units, each with multiple bays / drives, in either RAID1, RAID10, RAID 5, RAID 6, or unRAID.

Data should be stored, at least, in triplicate. If you care about not losing it.

While I do agree for the most part with what you are saying. I doubt everyone can afford to do this like that. So the best I'll be able to likely do is a 2 hard drive setup in raid 1, either way, I have to start somewhere and I like to use hard drives that are less likely to fail, and besides I didn't say I was going to be using 1 HDD for it's life time, that's hardly logical, I'll start with one and then another to have at least RAID 1, then maybe when I have enough, I'll do a RAID 5 setup.

Either way the scenario I laid out was a theoretical situation and I'm sure plenty of people work with and it was to get some ideas as to what was reliable and what wasn't as reliable.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,971
1,693
136
Well, the only reliable thing about HDDs is that they will fail sooner or later. Often literally.

Usually they either fail in the first month or two. If they're still running beyond, they tend to stay that way for a long time before eventual failure.

If you can, it's best to keep a drive spinning as it's often the spin-up and ramp loading which kills them.

As for the most reliable brand, I've had good luck with HGST but YMMV.

While I do agree for the most part with what you are saying. I doubt everyone can afford to do this like that. So the best I'll be able to likely do is a 2 hard drive setup in raid 1, either way, I have to start somewhere and I like to use hard drives that are less likely to fail, and besides I didn't say I was going to be using 1 HDD for it's life time, that's hardly logical, I'll start with one and then another to have at least RAID 1, then maybe when I have enough, I'll do a RAID 5 setup.

For home use, I'd recommend avoiding RAID5 all together. It's simply unneeded complexity. Stick with RAID1.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
Reliability is highly model specific. Seagate 3TB have horrible reliability with 33% failure rate. Seagate 4TB have less than 3% failure rate, the newer 8-10TB are even lower than that.

As has been suggested, look at backblaze quarterly reports. Generally speaking HGST are the most reliable.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Get 2 and run RAID-1, or have copies of everything elsewhere. Drives can and will fail instantly with no warning, and drive recovery is expensive and often fails.

Off-site cloud backup is also a good idea if this is something valuable and irreplaceable like tax records.
 

thecoolnessrune

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
9,673
583
126
While I do agree for the most part with what you are saying. I doubt everyone can afford to do this like that. So the best I'll be able to likely do is a 2 hard drive setup in raid 1, either way, I have to start somewhere and I like to use hard drives that are less likely to fail, and besides I didn't say I was going to be using 1 HDD for it's life time, that's hardly logical, I'll start with one and then another to have at least RAID 1, then maybe when I have enough, I'll do a RAID 5 setup.

Either way the scenario I laid out was a theoretical situation and I'm sure plenty of people work with and it was to get some ideas as to what was reliable and what wasn't as reliable.

Get 2 and run RAID-1, or have copies of everything elsewhere. Drives can and will fail instantly with no warning, and drive recovery is expensive and often fails.

Off-site cloud backup is also a good idea if this is something valuable and irreplaceable like tax records.

If all you can do is get 2 drives, then don't use RAID 1, as Dave mentioned do 1 drive, and then backup to the other drive.

RAID 1 can't save you from user error, corrupted files, or malicious intent (cryptolockers). Backups can. If all you can do is 2 drives, then have 1 drive store your data, then have the other drive hold copies of the data on a retention level you're willing to tolerate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

seagate_surfer

Junior Member
Mar 31, 2017
21
7
51
From our offerings, the best fit for a NAS would be our IronWolf & IronWolf Pro. If it's single bay NAS or if it's for a RAID which is the only copy of your important data, then you may still want to invest in an external drive to back up to. RAID is not a backup. It's best to follow the 3-2-1 method: Keep 3 copies of your data, 2 locally but on different mediums, 1 offsite in case of disaster (cloud, external HDD stored in a separate location, etc.)
 

capsulej

Member
Jul 24, 2012
27
5
66
I have had terrible luck with Seagates, better luck with WD and great luck with Maxtor when they were still around. But even the results from Backblaze are a small sample size..