Sagate BarraCuda 4 TB 3.5 inch Hard Drive lowest price! Amazon - £89.04
717°Expired

Sagate BarraCuda 4 TB 3.5 inch Hard Drive lowest price! Amazon - £89.04

37
Found 24th Aug 2017Edited by:"glenns"
Decent drive at lowest price recorded.. get em quick i expect they'll shift soon

2772553.jpg

edit: Few comments mentioning failure rates on drives etc so thought I'd point out my own experience with these drives has been pretty good, much better than the older 2TB drives from Seagate.

We probably buy around 10-20 drives a month for various projects so have a reasonable insight into reliability. IME no drive is 100% reliable but some are terrible so best option is to buy in mixed pairs from a good supplier and use a mirror (raid1) or better yet buy 4 and run raid 10.

You'll get 4 x read speed and 2x write speed and a minimum 1 drive failure tolerance with raid 10. That's ~£44 per TB, (if you have a controller already) and faster than many SSD's
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
EagleUK2 h, 32 m ago

Segates failure rate in general is always higher than WD drives.


This is simply not the case.

I agree that the 3TB Seagate had awful failure rates but WD actually have a higher failure rate if you remove this 3TB drive from the stats. The misconception that Seagate have higher failure rates than WD is due to people not understanding what they read, as I am assuming it comes from the data produced from data centre reports.

With regards to the deal, it is a great deal and I have added heat. My only gripe is that I bought this drive last week for £10 more. I should add that Amazon send these HDDs badly packaged if my recent experience is anything to go by.
Edited by: "Rabmac1" 24th Aug 2017
37 Comments
Great spot OP thanks!
Are these ST4000 models any better than the old ST3000 ones that use to fail quite often?
MrSweeney19 m ago

Are these ST4000 models any better than the old ST3000 ones that use to …Are these ST4000 models any better than the old ST3000 ones that use to fail quite often?

Segates failure rate in general is always higher than WD drives.
So it says it's good for home servers. I'm a bit sceptical tbh. Anyone have an opinion?
thanks OP. ordered
jimbojames791 h, 21 m ago

So it says it's good for home servers. I'm a bit sceptical tbh. Anyone …So it says it's good for home servers. I'm a bit sceptical tbh. Anyone have an opinion?


My HP Microserver has 4 drives in it, the newest is 2 years old the oldest about 6 or 7. They are all on 24/7, and were the cheapest I could get at the time. On the flip side I have 6 WD 2Tb Reds in a QNAP at work, they are 5 years old and I have 1 failure and another with a warning on it.

I guess what I'm saying is don't believe the hype, but also make sure you back up anything you care about!
EagleUK2 h, 32 m ago

Segates failure rate in general is always higher than WD drives.


This is simply not the case.

I agree that the 3TB Seagate had awful failure rates but WD actually have a higher failure rate if you remove this 3TB drive from the stats. The misconception that Seagate have higher failure rates than WD is due to people not understanding what they read, as I am assuming it comes from the data produced from data centre reports.

With regards to the deal, it is a great deal and I have added heat. My only gripe is that I bought this drive last week for £10 more. I should add that Amazon send these HDDs badly packaged if my recent experience is anything to go by.
Edited by: "Rabmac1" 24th Aug 2017
Looking for a new harddrive for my Steam library, what are these like for gaming?
This would be ideal for gaming if you can't afford a large SSD.
Rabmac149 m ago

This is simply not the case.I agree that the 3TB Seagate had awful failure …This is simply not the case.I agree that the 3TB Seagate had awful failure rates but WD actually have a higher failure rate if you remove this 3TB drive from the stats. The misconception that Seagate have higher failure rates than WD is due to people not understanding what they read, as I am assuming it comes from the data produced from data centre reports. With regards to the deal, it is a great deal and I have added heat. My only gripe is that I bought this drive last week for £10 more.


Even discounting the backblaze reports about drive failure rates, in their unusual (for a desktop drive) usage, I'm sceptical about Seagate having fewer failures than WD, I'd bet good money that sampling an equal quantity of drives from each manufacturer would show Seagate having more failures overall.

My own experience over the past 10 years, 4 seagte drive faiures (1 & 2tb drives), 1 WD failure (1tb) and 1 Toshiba (500GB maybe?).
I've ditched seagate now and have mostly WDs for spinning disks now.
Amazon are hit and miss when it comes to packaging internal drives. They went through a stage of posting drives in the small wrap around book type box and even putting the drives through letter boxes:


31780635-kTZYh.jpg
ElRobinio1 h, 20 m ago

Even discounting the backblaze reports about drive failure rates, in their …Even discounting the backblaze reports about drive failure rates, in their unusual (for a desktop drive) usage, I'm sceptical about Seagate having fewer failures than WD, I'd bet good money that sampling an equal quantity of drives from each manufacturer would show Seagate having more failures overall.My own experience over the past 10 years, 4 seagte drive faiures (1 & 2tb drives), 1 WD failure (1tb) and 1 Toshiba (500GB maybe?).I've ditched seagate now and have mostly WDs for spinning disks now.



backblaze.com/blo…16/


Look at the hard drive failure rates for a 12 month period and it shows that WD have a higher failure rate than Seagate. Like you I would be interested to see the stats for home use.
I got burned with a series of Seagate 1.5Tb failures, they were shocking, will take a lot to get me back but good price!
I have four Standard 2TB Seagates in a Synology NAS, just looked at the power on figures and one is at 24978 hours
Still no errors although they are running a bit louder than when new
Avatar
deleted1032520
EagleUK7 h, 27 m ago

Segates failure rate in general is always higher than WD drives.


Not true, hasn't been for quite some time, if anything Seagate fail less nowadays.
never used a seagate since they were legally forced to disable acoustic management and turn their drives into grinding monsters
While tempting, my precious barracuda failed after 1 year, so will pass. Thanks for the deal though OP
How many rpm on this drive? 7200 or 5900?
prq1 h, 17 m ago

How many rpm on this drive? 7200 or 5900?


I think it is 5900 rpm.
I have just bought the Toshiba 3TB drive. The price per TB is about the same as this one, as it costs £71, and it comes out above both WD and Seagate in the reliability stats.
EagleUK20 h, 33 m ago

Segates failure rate in general is always higher than WD drives.

Absolute rubbish
Burst Coin here I come!
great deal this

I've been waiting for this drive to drop in price - cheapest it has ever been
just got two!

now I just need a NAS.

for £200-250 can anyone recommend a NAS mainly for home use of files/pictures/music/videos connecting to a networking switch
psd999 m ago

great deal thisI've been waiting for this drive to drop in price - …great deal thisI've been waiting for this drive to drop in price - cheapest it has ever been just got two!now I just need a NAS. for £200-250 can anyone recommend a NAS mainly for home use of files/pictures/music/videos connecting to a networking switch



If youre willing to put in the effort, grab a microserver and stick FreeNAS, something similar or even Windows on it? Cheaper way of doing stuff and gives you flexibility as you have a full OS on there...
HPMan14 h, 0 m ago

[Image]


Was my immediate thought too when I read the title.
chada1 h, 59 m ago

If youre willing to put in the effort, grab a microserver and stick …If youre willing to put in the effort, grab a microserver and stick FreeNAS, something similar or even Windows on it? Cheaper way of doing stuff and gives you flexibility as you have a full OS on there...


Agreed, although I found a HP Microserver underpowered still when you are doing Plex encoding to multiple devices. For a couple hundred you can pick up some very high powered older gear on eBay etc and build an expandable server easily.
I wouldn't buy Seagate as i owned a 3TB drive that failed, and it's replacement failed within 8 months. Reputation is ruined with me now and I wouldn't buy Seagate again at any price.
5900 rpm wouldn't be a gaming drive
bobbler3 h, 32 m ago

Agreed, although I found a HP Microserver underpowered still when you are …Agreed, although I found a HP Microserver underpowered still when you are doing Plex encoding to multiple devices. For a couple hundred you can pick up some very high powered older gear on eBay etc and build an expandable server easily.


Just keep an eye on power consumption if used regularly, each watt used is about a quid a year if left on 24/7!
tek-monkey1 h, 8 m ago

Just keep an eye on power consumption if used regularly, each watt used is …Just keep an eye on power consumption if used regularly, each watt used is about a quid a year if left on 24/7!


Yeah, I just changed over from an older Q6600 to a newer i3 based motherboard/processor which has made a dent in the power consumption but it's not a massive concern really given the amount of money it saves me elsewhere
TickingTock24th Aug

Amazon are hit and miss when it comes to packaging internal drives. They …Amazon are hit and miss when it comes to packaging internal drives. They went through a stage of posting drives in the small wrap around book type box and even putting the drives through letter boxes:[Image]

Thank god that Amazon tend to have a "no questions asked" type refund policy cos I can see quite a few being sent back.
bobbler10 h, 36 m ago

Agreed, although I found a HP Microserver underpowered still when you are …Agreed, although I found a HP Microserver underpowered still when you are doing Plex encoding to multiple devices. For a couple hundred you can pick up some very high powered older gear on eBay etc and build an expandable server easily.


That's because you made a poor choice when downloading/encoding or choosing your client hardware, direct play has very minimal hardware requirements, transcoding audio slightly is more demanding, transcoding video however is much more demanding and should be avoided, its simply not needed in the majority of cases if you select the correct file formats for your devices. That's based on Plex server(s) handling several hundred users.

bobbler5 h, 47 m agoYeah, I just changed over from an older Q6600 to a newer i3 based motherboard/processor which has made a dent in the power consumption but it's not a massive concern really given the amount of money it saves me elsewhere

Most OS' will spin down drives when not in use, it's reasonably unusual to find a home server spun up 24/7 unless the user is writing live data to the array 24/7, personally I like unraid, the main issue with it is the limited write speed, so I use an SSD pool (low power, quick and resilient), the main pool only spins up when the cache drives are full or moving data to the array and even then it only spins up the drives it needs to write to rather than the full pool.
Edited by: "Avalon-One" 25th Aug 2017
Avalon-One11 h, 36 m ago

That's because you made a poor choice when downloading/encoding or …That's because you made a poor choice when downloading/encoding or choosing your client hardware, direct play has very minimal hardware requirements, transcoding audio slightly is more demanding, transcoding video however is much more demanding and should be avoided, its simply not needed in the majority of cases if you select the correct file formats for your devices. That's based on Plex server(s) handling several hundred users.bobbler5 h, 47 m agoYeah, I just changed over from an older Q6600 to a newer i3 based motherboard/processor which has made a dent in the power consumption but it's not a massive concern really given the amount of money it saves me elsewhere Most OS' will spin down drives when not in use, it's reasonably unusual to find a home server spun up 24/7 unless the user is writing live data to the array 24/7, personally I like unraid, the main issue with it is the limited write speed, so I use an SSD pool (low power, quick and resilient), the main pool only spins up when the cache drives are full or moving data to the array and even then it only spins up the drives it needs to write to rather than the full pool.


I understand the mechanics of it all thanks, just I don't really care enough to start handpicking downloads based on if my family are going to watch via a fire tv stick or a Xbox or a web browser or at different resolutions or if they are going to put it through a surround setup or stereo - I simply do not have the time to start being bothered about such things when it all works. The CPU upgrade was part of a motherboard swap as I wanted to put more RAM in there too as I run a couple of things contained in VMs and had a hard limit on board at 2 memory slots - max 8GB.
Interesting idea on the SSD pool though, I may have a look at that as one of my large media disks is always on as it does constant timeslip recording from my CCTV.
Deal expired, now £108.92
Lucky to find on eBay and use voucher to make it £85 each for two !
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text