Study proves = Seagate customers don't keep backups

[taltamir]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hdd-reliability-storelab,2681.html

If you read the article, you would notice that "seagate customers don't keep backups" is not the actual conclusion of the study (its just what it proves when analyzed by someone more competent, like me and probably a lot of people making comments on the article)...

Anyways, they took data from a data recovery company in russia, called it "failure rate data", and slapped it with a LOT of disclaimers about it being "a specific market" and "limited dataset"...
Which is downright stupid, the dataset is large enough to be highly reliable... what they fail is on the ANALYSIS part... The data is amount of HDD for which the owners pay (A LOT) for recovery of of data, not failure rate by company data. (it is, however, failure rate by MODEL data... which does show that most Seagate failures came from one drive design)

Seagate customers are simply least likely of any company to keep backups, or most likely to afford paying for data recovery, or both. Someone with extremely important data, a lot of money, and very little knowledge or intellect thinks "wow, I got this important data, I need to store it somewhere safe! I know, I will ask around and buy a HDD from a company I am told is the most reliable! that way I know for sure my data is safe! wow, a 5 year warranty? I must not even need backups!" so they do... Some blame can be laid at seagate's own advertising, tauting its "reliability" (to justify higher costs).

Interestingly, hitachi (the maker of the CHEAPEST drives on the market), has the least amount of data recovery requests... is this due to being the most reliable? no, its just that if people buy the cheapest drive on the market, they either keep backups, or don't care enough about the data it contains to pay for recovery.

PS. this is why it is so important, in science, to publish your data and procedure along with your conclusion... someone else can reanalyze the data and come up with a better, more sensible conclusion based on the same data.

 

[RebateMonger]

Jeepers. Look whose failure rate is twice as high as its market share.

 

[beginner99]

Jeepers. Look whose failure rate is twice as high as its market share.

no suprise IMHO. Supports my experiences. I never buy seagate anymore even people reccommend it. Never had issues with WD.

 

[QueBert]

no suprise IMHO. Supports my experiences. I never buy seagate anymore even people reccommend it. Never had issues with WD.

My 4 year old IDE Seagate drive's still going strong, the WD Black I bought 6 months ago is dead, I got no SMART warning, no clicking, no nothing. I just turned my PC on one day and the drive wasn't being detected properly, it's spinning up but it just won't work. I had to RMA another WD last year too. I've had 4 Segates die on me, where I've had about a dozen WD's die on me. Oh, and 3 years ago I had to RMA a WD drive, they claimed they never got mine (did advanced replacement) so I was charged full retail, which was about twice what the drive costs anywhere. The refurbished drive I had got when they lost the one I sent them died a year later. I'll never buy another WD drive again, ever...

WD might as well change their name to Conner.

 

[Auric]

Seagate did make several notoriously shoddy desktop models in recent years. But availability also affects the end-user mix so if as common at retail stores in Eastern Europe as in North America, then a higher percentage of units are purchased by inexperienced consumers who botch the handling and use. They may well end up in more cheap pre-built computers too.

Whereas experienced users tend to choose specific OEM models (often by mail-order out of necessity) for their own build, addition, or upgrade -and those more likely from Samsung, Western Digital and Hitachi. There simply has not been a reason for anyone who knows what they are doing to specifically choose Seagate drives for their own use, for the better part of a decade.

 

[Auric]

Oh, and 3 years ago I had to RMA a WD drive, they claimed they never got mine (did advanced replacement) so I was charged full retail, which was about twice what the drive costs anywhere.

You blame the company for your decision not to use a tracking service (against all advice)? Also, you unsealed the replacement before waiting for confirmation that the warranty was applicable to the original? If time was so critical then you should have just bought a new one, eschewed advanced replacement, and then sold any replacement if and when provided.

 

[tcsenter]

I seriously doubt customer backup practices are influenced by their perception of brand reliability.

 

[corkyg]

I seriously doubt customer backup practices are influenced by their perception of brand reliability.

Exactly! I have several drives - both Seagate and WD and they all work as they are supposed to. Icurrently have two "floortops" and three laptops. Every machine has a fully operational reserve drive available. Sometimes WD backs up Seagate, and vice-versa.

Every brand of stuff has bad runs now and then. The problems arise when folks start generalizing about what are really aberrations.

 

[taltamir]

I seriously doubt customer backup practices are influenced by their perception of brand reliability.

so... you don't believe a person will be less inclined to make backups if they believe their drive to be "very reliable"?

Oh, and 3 years ago I had to RMA a WD drive, they claimed they never got mine (did advanced replacement) so I was charged full retail, which was about twice what the drive costs anywhere.

you shipped it without tracking? why?

 

[jvroig]

its just what it proves when analyzed by someone more component, like me

You mean competent, of course. I suppose they do sound similar, I guess, in some way.

(Not being a spelling nazi, I make spelling and grammar mistakes in a lot of my own posts since English is not my native language, but I hope I wasn't the only one who had a slight chuckle seeing that minor spelling mistake in that particular sentence. I mean, in any other sentence it wouldn't have been funny at all, but there, it's just classic.)

Seagate's results stem mainly from the 500 GB to 1.5 TB Barracuda 7200.11-series. These products comprise over 65% of all failed Seagate drives received by Storelab.

Thankfully, I passed on a cheap, refurbished 7200.11 HD our supplier had. It was a good bargain dollar-wise, but the 7200.11 series just had that stigma, deservedly.

Our recommendations focus mainly on avoiding issues due to mechanical damage and high temperatures. If you have a hard drive from one of the manufacturers in this article installed in your computer, perhaps you should take a look at the results and consider whether you need to be more cautious and modify your installation. Using anti-vibration parts (like rubber grommets) when mounting the hard drive, monitoring its temperatures, using adequate cooling, and handling it carefully can make a big difference in reliability and durability. If you know the weaknesses of the manufacturers, you also know what preventative measures you can leverage to keep your own storage safe.

Hahaha, "consider being more cautious", and "knowing the weaknesses of manufacturers"?

I agree with the OP, analysis and conclusion is lame. How about "all harddrives eventually will fail, and most of the time unannounced, or atleast at a very inconvenient time, so make sure you keep a backup or two"? Loads better than having users using rubber grommets and thinking "mission accomplished: data secure!"

 

[extra]

I seriously doubt customer backup practices are influenced by their perception of brand reliability.

Exactly. This is like "get real". lol.

 

[FishAk]

I'm quite certain that customer's backup habits ARE influenced by their perception of their drives reliability. The key here is perception. If someone thinks their drive is a bank vault, and they haven't yet experienced data loss, then they will be less careful about backing up their drives- regardless of the reality. I know people personally who are influenced by this perception.

 

[Soundmanred]

Seagate is the reason I started doing backups.

 

[mv2devnull]

"Included in motherboard price" [fake]RAID mode 0 "performance boost", combined with "RAID is for preventing loss of data" ...

Perception, indeed.


OP is right. The statistics can lead to quite different conclusions. So whom do you trust? Not the hard drive, that much is clear.

 

[C1]

Man o man, maybe someone should analyze the users instead. Ive got bushels of HDDs (not a lot of Seagates though, but my share of Maxtors) 3.5 & notebooks. Ive lost only one drive in ten years (a 3.5" WD) - never a 2.5" a handful of which have so far logged in a zillion hours besides being dropped once or twice!

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Thanks for posting that article, it was a fascinating read!

 

[Nintendesert]

Considering how relatively cheap HDDs with absolutely massive levels of storage, I can't justify not backing my data up. Looking at the cost of the stuff I have, it's worth the 100 bucks to make sure I always will have it.

That's regardless of the manufacturer of the HDDs I use. You just never when something will go wrong. Always plan for the worse no matter who built your stuff.

 

[Modelworks]

You can't use data like that to make a conclusion. Which one sells more drives ? who are those drives sold to the most ? Was it certain models or all models ?

They all have some bad runs regardless of manufacturers. google IBM deskstar or WD 5000AA drives. Both are crap drives. WD make the 5000AA drives so hot they literally melt the boards, it was just a bad design. I have seagate drives that have failed and I have some that are 5 years old. I also have a WD drive 40GB that is 8 years old that still works.

 

[taltamir]

You mean competent, of course.

that was the spell checker. a simple mistype can become an embarrassing guffaw if you are not careful with it.

 

[coolVariable]

Seagate is what i use for backups

Only wish there was better backup software out there ...

 

[Binky]

Interesting study but not really conclusive. I think they're citing global drive shipments but this repair firm is only the Russian market. The statistical comparison isn't valid.

Seagate fares very poorly due to the 7200.11 series. It's no surprise to anybody that these drives are not great.

For me, WD drives in particular often become unbearably loud after 12-18 months. At this point I sell them cheap or give them away since I just can't stand the whine anymore. My Samsung and Seagate drives don't seem to do this. I haven't owned a Hitachi in years.

 

[Tsavo]

For me, WD drives in particular often become unbearably loud after 12-18 months. At this point I sell them cheap or give them away since I just can't stand the whine anymore.

I have two WD 320GB drives that developed the WHINE FROM HELL. I use them only to back up and set them back on the shelf.

 

[Old Hippie]

Two hundred Hitachi drives isn't much of a sample.

I conclude this "controversial report" is like many others and brand specific HD sales will be made because of a previous positive/negative experience either first-hand or from a friend.

Drawing conclusions from basic data can go many ways depending upon who's doing the concluding.

That's my conclusion even though I don't feel as competent as some.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I have two WD 320GB drives that developed the WHINE FROM HELL. I use them only to back up and set them back on the shelf.

Was that before WD switched to FDB bearings? FDB bearings shouldn't whine, but ball-bearings do pretty badly when they get worn in.

 

[Tsavo]

Was that before WD switched to FDB bearings? FDB bearings shouldn't whine, but ball-bearings do pretty badly when they get worn in.

These are fluid bearings.