I literally have a box full of broken Seagates, though. (Stupid hard to get to waste recyclers...)

Hard drive magnets are ridiculously strong and the platters just fun to mess with. Old hard drives are much more useful in pieces :)

-Disciple

I'm going to be in the market for a new set of NAS drives later this year, so I'll definitely be checking out the HGST offerings.

Shouldn't you stagger your purchase of NAS drives to reduce the risk of concurrent failures? Regarding the W.A.F. I find it a lot easier to justify a drive upgrade every now & then instead of dropping $500-800 on a whole set of drives. ;)

Here at work we've had more or less the same NAS setup for almost ten years. with periodical data transfer to external drives. All WD, without a single HD failure.

Heck, my computer had three WD drives, with the primary being from 2004, and by the time the CPU gave out in 2014, the same old drive was still going strong.

I'm going to be in the market for a new set of NAS drives later this year, so I'll definitely be checking out the HGST offerings.

Shouldn't you stagger your purchase of NAS drives to reduce the risk of concurrent failures? Regarding the W.A.F. I find it a lot easier to justify a drive upgrade every now & then instead of dropping $500-800 on a whole set of drives. ;)

This is true, but between drives branded Western Digital and Drives branded Hitachi / HGST, I've noticed a huge difference.

I'm not imagining it either:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/hgst-hard-disks-still-super-reliable-seagates-have-greatly-imp...

WD drives are literally the worst.

Been a while since I checked the Backblaze drive reliability reports, but it looks like Seagate has really cleaned up their act over the last couple years. Fortunately, being owned by WD hasn't seemed to affect the quality of HGST drives. :) I'm going to be in the market for a new set of NAS drives later this year, so I'll definitely be checking out the HGST offerings.

Yeah at the point that I'm splurging for a another HD, I might as well get the fastest. I'm a bit ruthless about my space anyways. Also my experience is with my XB1, I haven't needed another HD for my PS4 yet... I feel like by the time I do, I'll just get the Pro.

That's what I did.

I recall numerous tests (easily youtube-able) that determined that Hybrids gave a better overall performance, and the price gave them the edge over SSDs. Sure, as an external there is less issue with durability SSD-wise, but I'm not eager to fork over $1k for a more durable external storage. ;)

I'm just going to jump in and bust your balls for referencing "easily YouTube-able" videos without actually including them to provide your point. Just because that's what you'd do in my place ;p

Heh, I have a valid excuse for the rare occurence of me not backing up what I say with evidence, but fair enough, I can pull a Cody every once in a while, given my record. :P

I'll do you one better than linking random videos; an extensive article by Eurogamer. Their results skew a bit more towards the SSD in speed, but only marginally faster than a hybrid in most cases, and definitely not worth the cost...

Yeah at the point that I'm splurging for a another HD, I might as well get the fastest. I'm a bit ruthless about my space anyways. Also my experience is with my XB1, I haven't needed another HD for my PS4 yet... I feel like by the time I do, I'll just get the Pro.

WD drives are literally the worst.

This is my experience as well. Western Digital bought SanDisk last year and I have become concerned about SanDisks long term product quality. I'm hoping they operate independently of eachother and it was more of an in name only type of deal.

I don't think that the console's operating system is really designed to handle an ssd. It might not be a good idea.

All of my games on the Xbox One are on an SSD. Boot-up of games is much, much faster than it was before. (Destiny, for example, takes a couple of seconds to get to the splash screen.) I have not had any problems since install (many months ago).

Good to know. I remember reading to use caution when installing an SSD n a console. Maybe it's been long enough that the console makers have caught up with software updates.

I don't think that the console's operating system is really designed to handle an ssd. It might not be a good idea.

All of my games on the Xbox One are on an SSD. Boot-up of games is much, much faster than it was before. (Destiny, for example, takes a couple of seconds to get to the splash screen.) I have not had any problems since install (many months ago).

Don't be. The (theoretical) transfer rate of USB 3.0 is nearly as high as 3rd-generation SATA, and certainly high enough that it's not going to impact the speed of a platter-based mechanical hard drive.

USB is has always been worse than its rated speed though for a variety or reasons. It requires the CPU to be the bus master, it is only half duplex, and the data transfer is not isochronous. This is why firewire 400 would always beat USB2 in the real world, despite it being rated 80 Mbits slower.

It actually could matter in a spinning disk because of the CPU overhead for a usb device. I've seen slower transfer rates from the usb 3 port vs the thunderbolt port on the same drive often.

Western Digital always lets me down. I only trust Hitachi. In fact when I upgraded to a 7200rpm drive for the PS4 I got a Hitachi. WD and Seagate always seem to fail on me at one point or another.

...that Hitachi (HGST) is owned by Western Digital, right? Since 2011.

WD/HGST is hands-down the most reliable drive brand for me these days. I have dozens of drives that I maintain, and the WDs have been bullet-proof.

Edit: added qualifier

This is true, but between drives branded Western Digital and Drives branded Hitachi / HGST, I've noticed a huge difference.

I'm not imagining it either:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/hgst-hard-disks-still-super-reliable-seagates-have-greatly-imp...

WD drives are literally the worst.