Seagate 4 TB BarraCuda 3.5 Inch 5400 RPM Internal Hard Drive, £85.01 from amazon
682°Expired

Seagate 4 TB BarraCuda 3.5 Inch 5400 RPM Internal Hard Drive, £85.01 from amazon

34
Found 16th Mar
Same price from Ebuyer.
  • Cost-effective storage upgrade for laptop or desktop computers
  • Store all your games, music, movies and more with up to 4TB of storage
  • SATA 6Gb/s interface optimizes burst performance; 256MB Cache
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
brookheather44 m ago

Not actually suitable for laptops - how would you fit a 3.5" hard drive in …Not actually suitable for laptops - how would you fit a 3.5" hard drive in a laptop?


People who bought this item also bought duct tape and extension cables:
33450562-hp55Q.jpg
Seagates's basic home user drive. The model that has the worst reliability from the company that has the worst reliability. Just saying

techreport.com/new…ort

This model is ST4000DM004 (as shown on the picture above)

I could say more, but this is enough for you to decide whether it is the right drive for you.
Edited by: "fiqqer" 16th Mar
What a combination. Seagate Barracuda and ebuyer.
34 Comments
Original Poster
Not actually suitable for laptops - how would you fit a 3.5" hard drive in a laptop?
brookheather7 m ago

Not actually suitable for laptops - how would you fit a 3.5" hard drive in …Not actually suitable for laptops - how would you fit a 3.5" hard drive in a laptop?


Blame amazon for the descriptions
brookheather44 m ago

Not actually suitable for laptops - how would you fit a 3.5" hard drive in …Not actually suitable for laptops - how would you fit a 3.5" hard drive in a laptop?


People who bought this item also bought duct tape and extension cables:
33450562-hp55Q.jpg
CampGareth1 h, 46 m ago

People who bought this item also bought duct tape and extension …People who bought this item also bought duct tape and extension cables:[Image]



Actually I did have two laptops which had standard 3.5" drives and standard ram. They were massive and weighed a ton. they were American or Canadian
Seagates's basic home user drive. The model that has the worst reliability from the company that has the worst reliability. Just saying

techreport.com/new…ort

This model is ST4000DM004 (as shown on the picture above)

I could say more, but this is enough for you to decide whether it is the right drive for you.
Edited by: "fiqqer" 16th Mar
What a combination. Seagate Barracuda and ebuyer.
Wish there was a light weight option at the same price
5400rpm for a 3.5 inch desktop drive is pretty slow. This is the norm for 2.5 inch laptop drives but the minimum speed I'd go for on a 3.5 inch drive is 7200rpm
Edited by: "Josh_Graham" 9th Apr
Poor reliability on seagate
fiqqer16th Mar

Seagates's basic home user drive. The model that has the worst …Seagates's basic home user drive. The model that has the worst reliability from the company that has the worst reliability. Just sayinghttps://techreport.com/news/33201/backblaze-fires-off-its-2017-hard-drive-reliability-reportThis model is ST4000DM004 (as shown on the picture above)I could say more, but this is enough for you to decide whether it is the right drive for you.


"The model that has the worst reliability"

Thanks for that, now put your crystal ball away. I'll check back in a year when they have some data for this drive!
GAVINLEWISHUKD23 h, 35 m ago

"The model that has the worst reliability"Thanks for that, now put your …"The model that has the worst reliability"Thanks for that, now put your crystal ball away. I'll check back in a year when they have some data for this drive!



You dont have to look into a crystal ball, the data for all major drive manufacturers over the years is thankfully available. Backblaze is the best source we consumers have.

Even at their best, Seagate are still nowhere near the reliability of Toshiba or HGST (both Hitachi). Why would a data storage company continue risking their reputation on inherently faulty drives, just so that you can be confident of the data when there are much more reliable alternatives?

The overall data shows there is a manufacturing fault on the 4tb Seagate drives. For their worst drive, It may be 1 drive from 60 over 21 days but other suppliers have had much less faults over a much larger estate and over a much longer period of time. For their other drives where there is a lot more data the statistics show they are still 10 time worse than the HGST drives.

Backblaze discount DOA drives, so the data is for drives that work after the initial bedding in. The model above is only one model number down on the worst performing drive. You wont be seeing reliability data for that drive, ever, as for obvious reasons Backblaze wont be returning to that drive.

techreport.com/new…ort
Edited by: "fiqqer" 10th Apr
It's a good price, i'd use it for a backup or general files but nothing else. Game load times would be terrible.

But then i am bias as i use a 1tb ssd for my gaming drive. (m.2 system drive).
I bought one of these new last week and ran a burn-in test over the weekend (unraid pre-clear). 33,000 CRC errors, so it went back today.
I did one thing right - bought it from amazon, so the return was immediate!
Not the most reliable drive you can buy. I'll only buy Western Digital for my valuable data.
fiqqer1 h, 3 m ago

You dont have to look into a crystal ball, the data for all major drive …You dont have to look into a crystal ball, the data for all major drive manufacturers over the years is thankfully available. Backblaze is the best source we consumers have. Even at their best, Seagate are still nowhere near the reliability of Toshiba or HGST (both Hitachi). Why would a data storage company continue risking their reputation on inherently faulty drives, just so that you can be confident of the data?It is clear from 20 days use that there is a manufacturing fault on the 4tb Seagate drives. It may be 1 drive from 60 over 21 days but other suppliers have had much less faults over a much larger estate and over a much longer period of time. Backblaze discount DOE drives, so the data is for drives that work after the initial bedding in. The model above is only one model number down on the worst performing drive. You wont be seeing reliability data for that drive, ever, as for obvious reasons Backblaze wont be returning to that drive.https://techreport.com/news/33201/backblaze-fires-off-its-2017-hard-drive-reliability-report


Nobody is saying that Seagate have not been great over the last several years.
It is you who is claiming the drive in question has the worst reliability with no evidence whatsoever.

Statistically (based on past data) the drives have become more reliable. Also fewer heads, fewer platters and a bigger cache have (based on past data) been more reliable (in general).
So the older 005 (3 platter 6 head drive) should be less reliable than the 004 (2 platter 4 head with bigger cache) drive. Sadly we don't have enough 'up' time for the 005 to see if the one failure is just that, a one off or the start of a downward trend. So for a brand new drive design it's almost impossible to know.

Sadly as you say we may never get any good data for the 004 drives as 4tb drives will probably get replaced with larger Seagate drives going forward.
GAVINLEWISHUKD22 h, 32 m ago

Nobody is saying that Seagate have not been great over the last several …Nobody is saying that Seagate have not been great over the last several years.It is you who is claiming the drive in question has the worst reliability with no evidence whatsoever. Statistically (based on past data) the drives have become more reliable. Also fewer heads, fewer platters and a bigger cache have (based on past data) been more reliable (in general).So the older 005 (3 platter 6 head drive) should be less reliable than the 004 (2 platter 4 head with bigger cache) drive. Sadly we don't have enough 'up' time for the 005 to see if the one failure is just that, a one off or the start of a downward trend. So for a brand new drive design it's almost impossible to know.Sadly as you say we may never get any good data for the 004 drives as 4tb drives will probably get replaced with larger Seagate drives going forward.


I wont be able to provide reliability data for this drive because no-one wants to risk their data on this drive. So yes I cannot provide information for this particular model number. Seagate certainly won't provide it.

The chasis of the 005 is the same as the 004. It has one less platter, a slower spin speed and more ram. Reliability should therefore be better just because of these changes but as the design and innards are the same there is no reason to expect it to all of a sudden magically become reliable.

You can either buy it blind, hoping for the best or have the best information to make an informed decision. I prefer the best informed decision.

It isn't just these seagate drives that are poor. Seagate have a history of poor drives for the consumer market - hbsslaw.com/cas…ate.

There are other sources of data that say the same thing hardware.fr/art…tml

You can see past and subsequent model numbers to give you an idea of what to expect. You pay your money and take your choice. Personally I would choose a drive that is likely to be more reliable than less reliable. I have wasted too much time recovering data or permanently losing data from bad drives to quibble over the few pounds extra for a more reliable drive.
Edited by: "fiqqer" 10th Apr
People love a good moan! The drive has similar reviews as the equivalent WD Blue drives on Amazon. Buy it check the warranty and make sure you have back up kiddies. If it was that bad Seagate would have gone out of business just dealing with replacing drives.

As for BackBlaze. Why they got some many consumer drives in a data centre? Doesn't make sense. It is like buying a Nissan Micra and taking it off road. That said, don't forget to back up! Even with a WD drive you've got a 2% change of getting a dud but when it fails on you, you've just had a 100% chance of failure. Good luck.
netjock1 h, 8 m ago

As for BackBlaze. Why they got some many consumer drives in a data …As for BackBlaze. Why they got some many consumer drives in a data centre? Doesn't make sense.


Because last year, they had 91,000 disks. It's much most cost effective to have a healthy amount of redundant disks with the expectation a certain percentage will fail and you'll need to buy a replacement than it is to pay for much more expensive enterprise disks.

I suspect they know their business better than you do.
Edited by: "Ondancetron" 9th Apr
TabbyBoy2 h, 13 m ago

Not the most reliable drive you can buy. I'll only buy Western Digital for …Not the most reliable drive you can buy. I'll only buy Western Digital for my valuable data.


Bought 2 x WD Red 6TB recently. Both arrived DOA. If you look deep enough every manufacturer has faulty drives.
The 4 x 4TB Seagate in my NAS are still running fine after 3 years 24/7.
fiqqer16th Mar

Seagates's basic home user drive. The model that has the worst …Seagates's basic home user drive. The model that has the worst reliability from the company that has the worst reliability.


From my experience I've had 2 Seagate drives fail on me and so far 0 WD drives fails. And that's from using 3 Seagate Drives and 4 WD drives.
My seagate HDD has failed too.
Same here guys.
DO NOT BUY SEAGATE DRIVES!!

I'm currently looking a decent data recovery service because my seagate failed.
By the looks of it I'm going to spend few hundred pounds or more because I was stupid enough not to back up my data and to keep it all on a seagate hdd.
Ondancetron4 h, 40 m ago

Because last year, they had 91,000 disks. It's much most cost effective to …Because last year, they had 91,000 disks. It's much most cost effective to have a healthy amount of redundant disks with the expectation a certain percentage will fail and you'll need to buy a replacement than it is to pay for much more expensive enterprise disks.I suspect they know their business better than you do.


Does it make you know their business better than I do? We're both on the outside. You're just taking the bait.
You need to update the description, this is not suitable for laptops as it’s the wrong size.
I've never had a hard drive fail on me in nearly 30 years of computing, I don't know how so many people seem to get dodgy ones.



Hey wait a minute, surely not, c'mon

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Damn you Samsung!
Definitely a heat from me. Bought 2 at £94 each few weeks ago. (cheapest at that time)
netjock15 h, 55 m ago

Does it make you know their business better than I do? We're both on the …Does it make you know their business better than I do? We're both on the outside. You're just taking the bait.



No. But if you care so much you can read why backblaze use normal disk drives as well as enterprise ones. They do explain it. And one of the reasons is the price. Also some consumer drives do have very similar reliability to enterprise ones. So their calculations take those factors into account - price and reliability. These are factors I also take into account when purchasing most things - price is around 70 -80 %. The rest is the quality, reliability and warranty of the product.

The Seagates were not given an extended run in because a lot more failed before they were added to the data centre estate, ie were Dead On Arrival or failed their deployment readiness tests. Backblaze were so worried that they terminated the bulk purchase contract they had with seagate, returned those that had not been deployed and purchased the more expensive Hitachi drives instead.

So the figures only tell part of the story. The reality is actually much worse for the 4tb Seagate drives.

This is their comment on 4tb Seagate drives: "Other drives, like the Seagate 4TB models, aren’t drives we’d rely on for even consumer use unless absolutely required to do so."

So even with lets say a conservative 15% failure rate in any one year, there will be 70% of buyers who would be happy with their purchase over the 2 year warranty period. Yes 2 years, that's how much faith they have in their product.
Edited by: "fiqqer" 10th Apr
Is Seagates failure rate not down to the fact that they sell so many of these drives globally?

Yes they fail, but so do other brands in my experience. Never use a hard drive on the assumption that it will work forever, always keep backups and plan for the worst.
Edited by: "Placemat" 10th Apr
Placemat29 m ago

Is Seagates failure rate not down to the fact that they so many of these …Is Seagates failure rate not down to the fact that they so many of these drives globally?Yes they fail, but so do other brands in my experience. Never use a hard drive on the assumption that it will work forever, always keep backups and plan for the worst.



The failure rate is a percentage so numbers of shipments have no bearing.

Its the design of their drives and the components used. The spindle used is weaker than used by other manufacurers and more likely to fail. Also the magnetic coating used seems a poor formulation which vapouries when there is a hard drive crash hence the notorious clicking noise and scratching noise which means hard drive death and data disappearing.

The assumption should be the hard drive would last at least until the end of its warranty period and then should be immediately replaced. The problem with cheap drives like this is it has a mean 2 year warranty period and even then it still has a high failure rate within that period. Also when you replace a seagate drive under warranty you get a refurbished, rather than new drive, so there is a good chance it will fail again.
Edited by: "fiqqer" 10th Apr
fiqqer7 h, 53 m ago

Yes 2 years, that's how much faith they have in their product.


2 years on WD Blue (desktop) drives too. You're just being irrational.

Both ST4000DM001/5 are of an older technology (3 platter). ST4000DM000 even older (4 platter). It is like comparing Nickel Metal Hydrate batteries to Lithium Ion batteries. Same use but different underlying chemistry. The ST4000DM000 had only 0.8% higher failure rate than WD, not even statistically significant.
netjock16 m ago

2 years on WD Blue (desktop) drives too. You're just being …2 years on WD Blue (desktop) drives too. You're just being irrational.Both ST4000DM001/5 are of an older technology (3 platter). ST4000DM000 even older (4 platter). It is like comparing Nickel Metal Hydrate batteries to Lithium Ion batteries. Same use but different underlying chemistry. The ST4000DM000 had only 0.8% higher failure rate than WD, not even statistically significant.


Toshiba and Hitachi warranty their drives for 3 years. as well as having a warranty for 1/3 more time they are much much less likely to fail within that period. How much is £10 worth to you? That is what you call rational.
Edited by: "fiqqer" 10th Apr
fiqqer1 h, 8 m ago

Toshiba and Hitachi warranty their drives for 3 years. as well as having …Toshiba and Hitachi warranty their drives for 3 years. as well as having a warranty for 1/3 more time they are much much less likely to fail within that period. How much is £10 worth to you? That is what you call rational.


£10 more, £95 please show us? Cheapest I can find is £98.98. Is £15 a guarantee you won't lose your data? A warranty just gives you a replacement drive, not replace you data.

Everyone goes on about how they've lost drives but the army of silent people who have trouble free drives. If the drive failures are that big I'd doubt Seagate will still be in business. Hard drives are a low margin business.

Go and spread your gospel elsewhere. You're making it sound like drive reliability is all that matters and lower failure rate is all that counts. It is like chances of getting struck by lightning, extremely low but when you get struck it is 100%. Tell people to back up their data regularly rather than debating % in reliability. Especially from a table that doesn't have the model in question listed.
I get so bored listening to seagate bashers because of backblaze and their reports. The fact is I have four seagate drives ranging in age from 2 to 10 yeard old. All in regular use. All working perfectly. I make regular and automated backups. Anyone who worries about drive failure needs to focus on their backup strategy instead of spending hundreds of research hours trying to find the perfect hdd. There is nothing thats totally reliable.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text