Who makes the most hard drives reliable? (updated)

[Reefa]

It’s the eternal question for PC owners: Which manufacturer makes the most reliable hard drives? Backblaze, the unlimited online backup company, has been following this story for years now, and its latest 2015 data sheds some new light on the subject. Backblaze currently has over 41,000 hard drives powered up and constantly spinning. And as you can imagine, it is very much in Backblaze’s interests to ensure that it buys reliable hard drives. Every time a drive fails, it takes considerable time and effort to pull the drive, slot in a new one, and rebuild the RAID array.

So while it’s generally known how long hard drives actually live for, it stands to reason that some manufacturers make drives that are more reliable than others. But whose?

Which hard drive manufacturer is the most reliable?

To answer that question, we took a look at Backblaze’s latest numbers. The company breaks down its data in two ways — by manufacturer, and by specific drive. The data is fairly complex, but we’ll try to break it down into bits of easy-to-digest, actionable information. (Read: How a hard drive works.)

As of the end of December 2014, Backblaze had 15,528 Seagate drives, 22,902 Hitachi drives, 1,174 Western Digital drives, and 47 Toshiba drives. These drives are not all the same age — some are several years old, while many were installed in the past year, including thousands of brand new 4TB and even a few 6TB models.

The odd numbers are because Backblaze basically buys whatever drive offers the most competitive dollar-per-gigabyte ratio, with reliability being a secondary factor. For most of the last five years, Seagate and Hitachi have offered the best price-per-gig, with Western Digital Red and Toshiba DT01ACA drives only recently becoming viable (although there are too few Toshiba drives to draw any conclusions yet).

As you can see from the graph above, Hitachi drives are by far the most reliable. Even though many of Backblaze’s Hitachi drives are several years old, they only have an annual failure rate of 2% or so on average. And the latest HGST drives have a failure rate of just 1.4%. The “annual failure rate” is the chance of a drive dying within a 12-month period.

Western Digital is worse, but still impressive: After three years of operation, 92.4% of Western Digital Red 3TB drives are still running — not terrific, but still good.

Seagate 3TB drives turned out to be a disaster, with over 40% failing throughout 2014. In 2013, the failure rate was 9.6% — high, and a kind of foreshadowing, in retrospect. Thanks to the new 4TB version, the numbers improve tremendously, as the second graph indicates below, with an excellent failure rate of just 2.6% — indicating that even a few years out, they should do much better than the 3TB models.

Which single hard drive is the most reliable? (And which is the least?)

In general, then, if you want a reliable hard drive, you should stay with 4TB for the best value and reliability, and go with either Hitachi or Seagate. If you’re looking for a specific drive model that has good longevity, the numbers break down interestingly.

The Hitachi GST Deskstar 5K3000 3TB has proven very reliable, but expensive compared with other HGST models. Get one of these drives and you’re almost guaranteed (97-98%) to make it through three years without a dead drive. If you want a 4TB drive, the Hitachi Deskstar 5K4000 is your best bet — it has a slightly higher failure rate, but still below WD and Seagate’s offerings. As far as poor reliability goes, Seagate had some nasty offenders, particularly the 3TB 7200.14 model. But the latest 4TB 7200.15 drives are turning out to be a solid way to go.

Backblaze also notes that some drives (the Western Digital Green 3TB and Seagate Barracuda LP 2TB) start producing errors as soon as they’re slotted into a storage pod. They think this is due to the large amounts of vibration caused by thousands of other hard drives. (They also think that their aggressive spin-down setting, which is ostensibly to save power, causes a lot of wear to the drive.)

Hit up Backblaze’s website for a full list of hard drives and their statistics.

Samsung, Toshiba, 6TB, and beyond

Unfortunately, Backblaze doesn’t have a statistically significant number of Samsung or Toshiba drives installed. Even so, because Seagate acquired Samsung’s hard drive division in 2011, it’s hard to say if an older, pre-acquisition Samsung drive would be more or less reliable than a post-acquisition drive. Toshiba and Fujitsu still have a reasonable wedge (~10%) of the market share pie. But unfortunately we’ll have to wait for another study to see how they compare with Seagate, Western Digital, and Hitachi.

Otherwise, the next stop is the 6TB tier. Backblaze expects to have plenty of data on the subject come early next year, as it’s busy buying up thousands of new drives at that capacity. We can’t wait for those results.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175089-who-makes-the-most-reliable-hard-drives

[CODYQX4]

I've done quite well with WD so far.

[freeforever03]

I have switched to "Hitachi Server" quality drives. They are extremely reliable and cost just a little more than the cheaper home user variety.

[ney2x]

1998 - 2001 Maxtor = very reliable. my rating is 8/10

2002 - 2005 Seagate = not that good. my rating is 4/10

2006 - present WDC = proven reliable. my rating 10/10 especially the WD Blue

*based on my personal experience as a Technician :)

[davmil]

Statistics lie as usual - long term stats are OK predictors, but on any given morning (minute) it's 50/50 - it's either alive or throwing errors. Back it up tonight while it's still running.

[Fallon]

I have replaced a Maxtor after 10 years. That's the time you can expect. But new drives, new story.

Two Hitachi drives are still in use. No problems so far.

Western Digital was a rattler in the old days, now I have three 4TB WD drives in action.

WD black keeps spinning at 7200 rpm. Warranty 5 years, for about the same price as WD red.

WD red starts up via a cache and is obvious for NAS/backup. Warranty 3 years, but it should last longer than black, because it runs more efficient.

No problems so far.

For Windows 7 (and XP) drives bigger than 2TB have to be aligned.

Advanced Format Hard Drives

Seagate seems to have a drive that starts up as fast as a Static State Disc now.

Not tried by me, but it could be more useful than WD black, for whoever wants to wait for newer SSD's.

[12stones]

I recovery 2 HDs WD one black other blue In this week only rewrinting the zeros e make the extend test

[vitorio]

It is hard to belief for me this statistics, since I have a Seagate 2.5 momentus 7200.4 serial ATA disk 360gb for more than 4 years without problems.

I gave it a really bad time.

[212eta]

WD all the way... :yes:

[eXentios]

WD 4 blue and 1 green, plus 1TB and 2TB (both 2,5" external USB 3.0)

[software182]

i have both WD & Seagete, it seems good so far for 2 years :)

[virge]

I have nine 1TB WD Blacks going on 5 years now with zero issues. The only other brand I buy is Samsung. All the rest are crap.

[steven36]

I have 2 1TB portable Toshiba Ive had for many years one says its on it's last leg the other says its still in excellent shape so you never know do you ? :lol:

I fixing to buy a Seagate Expansion 5TB Desktop for my Desktop computer today . :)

[Jonnyeast]

I have 3 Seagate HD & 1 Western Digital

I prefer the Seagate, but touch wood no problems with either make so far

all about 2 years old now :)