Jump to content


Photo

Good 4TB for data storage


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Tacoboy

Tacoboy

    Member

  • Member
  • 85 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:53 AM

Right now the Hitachi HGST 0S03359 4TB drive is $151 and I want to make a back up of my back ups.
I'm assuming the Deskstar is improved from the old Deathstar days?
Or is there a(4TB)brand more recommend then the Deskstar?

Win 8.1

AMD 4170/8GB memory

C300 180GB SSD

AMD 7870 2GB

#2 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,531 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 01:11 PM

Nah, should be fine. Go for it.

#3 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 733 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 02:32 PM

"Deathstar" were the series 75GXP and 60GXP with 15 and 20 GB per platter. Needless to say these days are long gone!

If you can get the Seagate desktop drive for the smae I'd go for this one (1 platter less). Otherwise the Hitachi should be as fine as the others.

MrS

#4 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 733 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 03:52 AM

What do you mean? That the current drives still feature the same error, after ~13 years of production?

MrS

#5 FastMHz

FastMHz

    Member

  • Member
  • 403 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 09:06 AM

I haven't had an issue with modern Hitachi drives.

However, in this case I'd choose Seagate on the virtue of one platter less = less to break, faster, and higher reliability as a result.

Production: Vishera 8350/32gb RAM/Dual SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7750
Gaming: Phenom II 955/16gb RAM/SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7950
Retro: K6-2 550/256mb RAM/160gb HDD/CompactFlash/3DFX/ATI AIW Pro/SB16/DB50XG
http://www.fastmhz.com

#6 kane_southgate

kane_southgate

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 04:35 AM

I haven't had an issue with modern Hitachi drives.

However, in this case I'd choose Seagate on the virtue of one platter less = less to break, faster, and higher reliability as a result.


One platter less = higher density drive = higher chance of mechanical crash because the read zone is much smaller ;)

#7 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,531 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 01:26 PM

If you want to start discussions like that, you'll be back with stone tablets in no time. ;)

#8 AmmoniusVeritas

AmmoniusVeritas

    Member

  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:57 PM

One platter less = higher density drive = higher chance of mechanical crash because the read zone is much smaller ;)



Absolutely correct, the very high density FAR outflops the notion of an additional platter. Rather slower and working than faster and dead/corrupt data.

#9 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,531 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:13 PM

Assuming the architecture is reliable at that kind of platter density. I wouldn't make that kind of generalization between density or number of platters.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users