Need a durable drive

[hellrazor]

I'm in the need for a more durable drive after a recent drive failure and the loss of some very important files, so I did some resaerch and after hearing my wallet scream at me a lot, I've decided that a 1 TB WD Red looks like a good bet - but would it be reasonable to expect a drive built for a NAS to be (at least) more durable than a standard desktop drive while in a desktop? Also, (this one is just hypothetical at the moment) if I wanted a backup drive to store my most important files and then just lay around in a drawer or whatever most of the time, would a small SSD be better for that than a hard drive?

 

[sneekypeet]

any form of backup is going to last much longer if it isnt powered constantly.

As for the WD red, I am not sure if there is anything NAS specific that would hinder performance in a desktop, but I am sure someone here has used this.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

any form of backup is going to last much longer if it isnt powered constantly.

As for the WD red, I am not sure if there is anything NAS specific that would hinder performance in a desktop, but I am sure someone here has used this.

Im running 2 2TB red, in my File server that runs Windows 8. Still running strong, and fast 140mb/s transfer speeds over network.

I know a lot of guys from work buy the WD or Seagate super expensive enterprise drives for their NAS setups.

 

[newtekie1]

Nothing wrong with using a WD Red drive in a desktop. I've got 3 in RAID5. They are basically WD Green drives with TLER enabled to they work with RAID arrays. I wouldn't expect them to be any more reliable than any other drive in a single drive configuration though.

 

[Jetster]

Any new drive is fine just change your back up drives every 3 or 4 years. If its really important have two copies. That's what I do and Ive never lost my data. On the other hand every person that has asked me to try to get there data back that has lost it had it on a 8 year old drive + Drives fail!

The last one I did was all his family pictures on a 10 year old 80 Gb hard drive. You should not keep your life's memory's on a $10 hard drive. I was able to recover about 60% of the data but it was not easy or cheap

 

[RejZoR]

Any drive will do that isn't the lowest end Green or Eco crap, those usually have the least quality control and usually the crappiest components.

And then use Crystal Disk Info as a resident app that will run the entire time and will monitor HDD's status. It saved me once from a half dead Samsung HDD and i'm keeping it ever since. On all systems with HDD or SSD. Just to be on the safe side.

As for the backups, 2TB of data is just too much to be doing backups. If i start doing that i'll be making backups all day long and nothing else. I store really important data in few clouds and maybe on DVD's but thats it. I leave the rest of the bulk thats also important in the hands of Crystal Disk Info monitoring...

 

[silapakorn]

I use two WD Red (2tb) for my HD player and general file storage. No problems so far. Very quiet and faster than WD Green. As for important data, I just burn them on blue-ray recordable discs as secondary backup.

Usually I buy a new hard drive every six months and I usually go for 2TB, which is the largest capacity my HD player can handle.

 

[Aquinus]

As for the backups, 2TB of data is just too much to be doing backups. If i start doing that i'll be making backups all day long and nothing else. I store really important data in few clouds and maybe on DVD's but thats it. I leave the rest of the bulk thats also important in the hands of Crystal Disk Info monitoring...

It's not too much, but you're right. As it gets bigger it takes more time to copy. I have a cron job on a server at work that runs once a week because it takes 2 and a half days to compress a 850-900Gb backup (practically a full backup of all our stuff except user profiles into a 450Gb z7 archive. I did it because the backup was growing and the size of the backup drives in rotation are only 1Tb and it's not easy to convince the CEO to buy new hardware unless we really need it. (Non-profit fiscal constraints, you get the idea.)

If you really have a lot of data, dedicate a box to it and set it up to backup data regularly. At least if you have a half decent machine you can compress your backups as well (assuming that at least part of it is compressible data) because I gladly let it compress over several days to get half that space back.

 

[hellrazor]

I don't have a lot of data (~30ish GB max), but some of it I don't ever intend on losing again once I manage to get it back.

 

[newtekie1]

As for the backups, 2TB of data is just too much to be doing backups. If i start doing that i'll be making backups all day long and nothing else. I store really important data in few clouds and maybe on DVD's but thats it. I leave the rest of the bulk thats also important in the hands of Crystal Disk Info monitoring...

Seriously, you trust your data to that POS program?! All it does is read S.M.A.R.T. data, and it doesn't even do that very well...:shadedshu

And 2TB is not too much to be doing backups, that's just BS. I have a 6TB array and a 3TB array. Both are backed up daily. After the initial backup(which does take about a day but it is unattended so who gives a crap) the daily backup takes under 15 minutes(and again these are unattended so they take 0 of my time).

 

[de.das.dude]

server based products are always aimed at the "put it in and forget" notions. so yes they should technically be more durable.

i must say i havent found my WD to be durable.
instead my Hitachi which is over 6 years old is still in the pink of health(95%). compared to the WD which has depreciated below 60%

 

[Aquinus]

server based products are always aimed at the "put it in and forget" notions. so yes they should technically be more durable.

More often than not, even enterprise grade hardware can still fail prematurely but generally speaking they're subjected to more intense QA testing. Such as WD's RE# drives and Seagate's ES drives. I've had to send more WD drives back but they always come back very quickly. It's taking Seagate a little more time to replace a drive but I've found that the Seagate ES drives are significantly more reliable than WD blacks but WD is more than happy to quickly replace a drive. I have no used any of WD's RE drives, but if they're anything like Seagate's ES drives, they should be pretty reliable while performing well.

I've also found that more often than not a WD drive will fail early. If it doesn't fail early there is a good bet it will last for a while. This may or may not be true for everyone but it's been a personal observation.

All in all, if you really care about your stuff, get some quality drives, have a backup, and rotate an off-site backup on a regular basis. So even if, god forbid, your place of residence burns down and can have the peace of mind to know that your family's pictures didn't go along with it.

 

[newtekie1]

The good thing about WD is that they will do advanced RMAs, so the drives are cross-shipped. Which definitely makes the RMA process quicker. But of course WD has shipped me bad drives while Seagate has never done that, so when the drives they send you back are DOA and you have to do a second RMA the time saved by cross-shipping is wasted...

I've also found that more often than not a WD drive will fail early. If it doesn't fail early there is a good bet it will last for a while. This may or may not be true for everyone but it's been a personal observation.

I've actually found that to be true with all drives. If they don't fail in the first year they'll probably last 5 years easy.

 

[Aquinus]

The good thing about WD is that they will do advanced RMAs, so the drives are cross-shipped. Which definitely makes the RMA process quicker. But of course WD has shipped me bad drives while Seagate has never done that, so when the drives they send you back are DOA and you have to do a second RMA the time saved by cross-shipping is wasted...

Really? Both Seagate and WD will let me do an advance RMA (they send the new product and I send the old one back once I get the new one,) but more often than not WD will process the drive in one day and send it back 2 day shipping, so 3 days there, 2 days back, and 1 day for processing. That's not too shabby so I never really need to use the advance RMA. I did for my monitor though the 3rd time it died (Yes, I'm on my 5th monitor, the 4 prior all failed within a few months of getting it. I don't recommend HannsG/HannSpreee.)

 

[newtekie1]

Really? Both Seagate and WD will let me do an advance RMA (they send the new product and I send the old one back once I get the new one,) but more often than not WD will process the drive in one day and send it back 2 day shipping, so 3 days there, 2 days back, and 1 day for processing. That's not too shabby so I never really need to use the advance RMA. I did for my monitor though the 3rd time it died (Yes, I'm on my 5th monitor, the 4 prior all failed within a few months of getting it. I don't recommend HannsG/HannSpreee.)

I should rephrase that. WD makes it easier to do an Advanced RMA. They give you the option in the automated form you fill out. Seagate's done it for me in the past but I had to call them to set up the RMA. Though I haven't had to RMA a drive with Seagate in a while, so it is possible they've updated their system too.