Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Garry

Seagate or WD... once again :)

10 posts in this topic

I'm considering buying new SATA drives and was wondering about the reliability of the new series from WD (AAKS) and Seagate (7200.10). I am considering 500 GB and also 320 GB drives. Which have proven so far to be more reliable ?

Yes, I know they are too new for definitive answers, yet I have to buy now so any opinions will help.

The drive(s) would be running from 1 day to up to 1-2 weeks, with heavy acces, reading and writing (ongoing network transfers, multimedia, multiple applications). Basically your ordinary 'wear and tear' drive. They would be placed in a regular case, the environment would be moderately hot (with up to 25-28 degrees ambiental in summer), not humid. Some shocks are to be expected, but not at power on/off.

Besides reliability which is paramount, any other arguments for one over the other are also welcome. I favour silence more than speed. Also I'm more interested in multiple acces performance over sigle task pure speed; perhaps certain design or firmware features may help there. I will not be running Raid.

Thanks for your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seagate, while for years have provided great, quiet, reliable products seemed to have botched the job on the 7200.10 series. They are louder, and certainly not any faster than the competition.

The WD is definitely more quiet than the Seagate.

For performance, just use the head-to-head comparison chart feature at Storagereview.

Its probably more important where you are buying from. If its air delivered and not packaged properly, or the product suffers a few bumps along the way, that will decrease your drives' life.

Another thing to factor in might be warranty. Seagate = 5 years, WD = 3 years for SE (5 years for RE drives)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No big differences in reliability (no serious problems with any of those models). Yes, at our distributors 7200.10 has generally higher percentage of RMA than AAKS but 7200.10 has also been longer on market than AAKS. In fact surprisingly small number of returns for 3200AAKS so far. And we have sold them several thousands of already. 5000AAKS is also relatively good, although not as good as 3200AAKS (both in reliability and temperature). Performance-wise they both are fast and efficient especially in single-user scenario. But in multi-user scenario they aren't bad either. Still, they are not designed for that use. Yes, 7200.10 has clearly lower performance and it's also more noisy and hot.

From heavy access users of these drives we had more returns (dead drives) of all of the models referred above but I can't provide any statistics because of this kind of use of those drives hasn't been very widely populated. It looks like in very heavy use 7200.10 suffers better than WD (reliability-wise) but don't take this as a statement yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WD.

-Seagates haven't been among quietest drives for many years.

-Seagate's pre-read algorithms are craptacular causing total lack of performance with multiple simultaneous reads. (that can also lead to lower reliability because heads are "sawing" more back and forth)

If reliability is important without RAID you should at least do good "burn-in" testing before taking drives to real use.

(that can find drives with infant mortality problem)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point in favor of Seagate is that Seagate has started to incorporate an Acronis version in their DiskWizard utility and it is only available for Seagate drives. They add the same thing to Powermax for Maxtor drives. It's a nice bonus.

Otherwise, there are pro and cons for each drive and I give none a clear edge. WD are often a few bucks cheaper, Seagate's have a slightly better warranty (standard 3 years + small refund if the drive fails during the fourth and fifth year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't seen any significant differences in them for a long time now, although that doesn't say much. The 7200.10's seem to have more issues on online forums, but that's not saying much--- more 7200.10's are also probably out there than WD AAKS's, so hence more people are whining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who works at a data recovery place, and he always tells me to avoid Seagate drives. He says they see more Seagates compared to Western Digitals, 2:1 so he says. He works at a place called (CBL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using WDs in the past, very quiet drives and worked fine.

Now running four Seagates in my computer two 300GB SATA-II, one 500GB SATA-II, one 300GB PATA, they make more noise then the WDs, but nothing that bothers me.

I try to stick to Seagates, but last week I bought two Western Digital (WD1600YS) 160GB SATA-II for a RAID 0,

Western Digital YS series drives come with a five year warranty.

I will be building a new PC with them this weekend.

I'll post on here on their noise level once the new PC is up and running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a friend who works at a data recovery place, and he always tells me to avoid Seagate drives. He says they see more Seagates compared to Western Digitals, 2:1 so he says. He works at a place called (CBL)

Perhaps the 2:1 ratio is related to the following???

Rankings for the HDD suppliers were unchanged between the fourth quarter of 2005 and the first quarter of 2006. The top 10 suppliers in terms of market share were: Seagate, 29 percent; Western Digital, 18.5; Hitachi, 14.4; Maxtor, 11.9; Toshiba, 9.3; Samsung, 8.6; Fujitsu, 6.8; Excelstor, 1.2; Cornice, 0.4; and GS Magic, 0.1.

Seagate sells twice as many drives as Western Digital. Info is a bit dated, but my guess would be that Seagate has probably increased relative to WD over the last year or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traditionally, when a competitor (in this case, Maxtor) leaves the business, its market share is divided amongst the surviving companies. Seagate will have picked up some of the volume, WD some, Hitachi some, etc., etc.

Also, drawing conclusions about relative reliability based on which brand is sent for data recovery most often is sketchy at best. Differences in volume can affect how many go for recovery. Plus, I bet most of us wouldn't send a drive in for recovery because of the high cost. We'd only do so if work needed it (and they paid the tab).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0