Samsung F1 1Tb or WD black 1TB

aaronhowe

aaronhowe

aaronhowe

Associate
Joined
9 Jun 2006
Posts
140
I'm after a bullit proof second drive to put my data onto as its currently stored on a raid 0 at the moment which is a very risky.
I was going to go for a seagate 1Tb but after the resent posts regarding reliability i have changed my mind.
I have seen quite a few posts regarding reliability on the samsungs but I realise that a lot have been sold due to there popularity.
Is the western digital black the only really safe choice? I realise that it is quite a bit more expensive but i am after something reliable.
 
There is no safe choice any brand could arrive bad or go bad.
Only drive I've ever had arrive broken was a western digital.
 
FWIW, I ordered the Western Digital 1TB drive. It was DOA:(. The first time I've ever received a dead drive. When talking to the returns dept. they said the returns rate on the Western Digital was quite a bit higher than for the Samsung F1. Not sure what this tells us about long term reliability though as after 30 days you RMA to the manufacturer rather than the retailer.

Hope it helps

JW
 
Doesn't tell you anything apart from you were unlucky and or the transport kicked your hdd around.
 
Hmmmm suppose this is why they invented Raid. Does anybody know if you can have multiple raids on the nvidia 780i chipset. Just thinking I could leave the raid 0 for my programs and setup a raid 1 with 2 more disks.
 
C64 said:
Doesn't tell you anything apart from you were unlucky and or the transport kicked your hdd around.
Click to expand...

Well the 1TB drive was packed and delivered with a 640GB drive that arrived undamaged and is still (touch wood) working fine. After finding the 1TB drive DOA I downloaded the WD diagnostics and put the 640GB drive through the extended test. No problems found.
 
Can I highjack this thread by asking - Samsung F1 1Tb or WD black 1TB, which is the best from a performance perspective? With the WD on TWO, the price has dropped to a more competitive level.

I've also read around the web that the WD is much noisier than the F1, but comments round here don't indicate this... sharing any experience of this would be welcome.
 
I've seen more reports of WD, Samsung and Seagate failures recently than of Hitachi. I've personally had 2 Samsungs from the same batch fail simultaneously and wipe out a RAID1 stripe.

Based on this, if you're not running RAID1, I'd go with Hitachi at the moment. If you are running RAID1, get 2 disks of same size with similar spec from different manufacturers (I believe that means Samsung and Seagate *cringes*) - at least they are unlikely to go wrong close enough to together to wipe out your data.
 
gordan said:
I've seen more reports of WD, Samsung and Seagate failures recently than of Hitachi. I've personally had 2 Samsungs from the same batch fail simultaneously and wipe out a RAID1 stripe.

Based on this, if you're not running RAID1, I'd go with Hitachi at the moment. If you are running RAID1, get 2 disks of same size with similar spec from different manufacturers (I believe that means Samsung and Seagate *cringes*) - at least they are unlikely to go wrong close enough to together to wipe out your data.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that fewer people are buying the Hitachis, hence, lower reporting of failures. When it comes to failure rate, you really need to know percentage failures, not absolute number.

Personally, I think it is mainly chance with the current mainstream 1TB drives.
 
There both top drives, as other have said WD is slightly quicker. Not that you'll notice that kind of tiny impovement in a real world situation. Just get which ever you want. I'd personally just get the cheapest.


The only real way to find exactly how many fail is directly from the manufacturer (there never going to release that information, doubt they even know), theres no point in saying theres more fails for one type of drive, because you really have no way of knowing what your saying is true. Everyone knows that OcUK's hard drive forum of "omg my hdd broke lolz" is not a valid sample. Also i wouldnt count DOA's in this kind of stat, but thats just my opinion.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
The only real way to find exactly how many fail is directly from the manufacturer (there never going to release that information, doubt they even know),
Click to expand...

Of course they know very well what failure rates they have, but no, they are not ever going to publish it, because they then couldn't claim the insane 600,000 hours MTBF figures, as they could be shot down based on real world data (600K hours is a fictitious estimate based on some wholly unreasonable method since testing a batch of disks for 600K hours (68 years!) is an unreasonable expectation).

b0rn2sk8 said:
theres no point in saying theres more fails for one type of drive, because you really have no way of knowing what your saying is true. Everyone knows that OcUK's hard drive forum of "omg my hdd broke lolz" is not a valid sample. Also i wouldnt count DOA's in this kind of stat, but thats just my opinion.
Click to expand...

DOA counts, but it's not the worst case scenario. I'd rather have 3 disks DOA than one that fails within the first year.

And going by forum posts, or even just google for model number failure is a valid ball park statistic. The problem is that this would need to be weighted against the number sold, which is a statistic that is more difficult to obtain. Having said that, getting that figure from the manufacturer will be a LOT easier than getting the number of the ones failed/replaced under warranty.
 
What real world difference dose the 16 vs 32 MB cache make? Also if its speed will this be noticeable in a NAS box which will be speed limited by the network?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom