1

I have Asus K95VJ laptop where the original internal 3.5 inch drive died on me. It was 3TB Seagate Baracuda ST3000DM001. I have read that those drives had have huge failure rates and this is actually second time it failed, only now it is not in warranty anymore.

I'm now considering the replacement and choosing basically between WD10JPLX and WD10EZEX. I have read some good reviews on WD10EZEX and considering there was this Seagate before I don't mind the weight. Moreover, the 3.5 inch drive would fit into the original bay but the connection cable is flexible so 2.5 inch is still possibility.

My question is, reliability-wise, is the 2.5 inch better for laptops or are they only preferred because of they smaller size and weight? I would hate another drive to die on me and the laptop environment sure won't be as stable and vibration-free as one would expect in desktop. Are 3.5 inchers more prone to damage while carrying, moving, etc. or it doesn't really matter.

Improve this question
3
  • It's not a hardware recommendation necessarily, I just showed what I'm considering as a reference and I don't ask anyone to choose. I'm just asking generally if there is a reason why most laptops have 2,5" drives with respect to reliability. And there is no other SO where this question would be relevant.
    – Raven
    Jul 4, 2016 at 0:18
  • "It's not a hardware recommendation necessarily". But it is still off-topic "opinion based".
    – DavidPostill ♦
    Jul 4, 2016 at 12:35
  • 1
    @DavidPostill -- I have post an answer based on facts, not opinions.
    – sawdust
    Jul 4, 2016 at 18:55

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
3

Are 3.5 inchers more prone to damage while carrying, moving,...

Yes. Manufacturer specifications clearly indicate that a 3.5" drive can be more susceptible to shock and vibration than a 2.5" HDD

For instance for WD Black HDDs, the 2.5" drive can supposedly tolerate (for 2 milliseconds) 400g while operating and 1000g when not powered.
Whereas the 3.5" drive can only tolerate 30g to 65g while operating and 300g when not powered.
Those are differences of a magnitude, rather than "very, very small" differences.

Older drive manuals used to also specify a vibration specification.
Those manuals also mentioned the method used to derive these specifications.

The manuals would clarify that the HDD was still operational after each test. If you read between the lines, then that could mean that a fresh HDD was used for each test, and the disk drive could fail if the test was conducted a second time (but has already met the spec).
IOW do not assume the HDD can tolerate sustained or repeated shock and/or vibration of any magnitude.

Improve this answer
1
  • Yes, I have looked up these specs later. In the case of these 2 drives it seems that the 2,5" are much more durable against shocks, although I wonder if they are also in general (which would require reading many more specs). Moreover, the WD Black 2.5 1TB seems to be rebranded Hitachi Travelstar 7k1000, so other manufacturer and use-case may be also reason for such different ratings. But I still think this is the most relevant answer.
    – Raven
    Jul 4, 2016 at 21:28
1

If there is a difference in reliability, it is very, very small and not worth worrying about - the 3.5" would be less reliable then the 2.5" because the mechanical forces on it are greater. That said, the specific model and batch of drive is way more predictive then the form factor.

If you are wanting reliable storage, seriously consider switching to SSD's (particularly Samsung ones based on their 3d technology). SSD's are generally in the order of 10 times more reliable then hard drives - although unlike hard drives, when they do fail they are likely to do so suddenly and catestrophically. Further, when it comes to laptops, SSD's can withstand being dropped as there are no moving heads.

If you are wanting strong anecdotal evidence of better hard drives, look at BackBlaze reports.

Improve this answer
2
  • Actually, TLC memory cells that Samsung uses are less reliable than MLC because storing more bits in one cell means writing to it more often, resulting in 2-3 faster wear. TLC is slower, too. Samsung uses a front buffer to regain MLC speed, but that buffer is relatively small and all writes go through it, so it's wearing quicker than the rest of drive. Once it's worn out the drive drops to TLC speeds. I would rather recommend a MLC SSD. They are a bit more expensive, but it's probably worth it if you really care about reliability.
    – gronostaj
    Jul 4, 2016 at 0:25
  • Thanks for the report, some nice data although not comparing the 2 size factors. As a note: The laptop already carries one Samsung SSD (EVO 850 250GB), but I need a storage space for large stuff such as development kits etc. For the same capacity, the Samsung SSD is currently 6 times the price of WD HDD.
    – Raven
    Jul 4, 2016 at 0:30
1

laptops don't have 3.5 inch drives internally typically - this is cause of power consumption and size more than anything else. However laptop hard drives often have features designed to make mobile use safer - heads that park for example, often in conjunction with internal or external sensors. They might also be designed to run cooler.

As for hard drives themselves, @davidgo's answer mentions the Backblaze Reports. While these are fixed drives, they're in pretty astonishing densities per unit, and they're mounted in a pretty non standard way, so vibration would be an issue. They survive in many cases. I've literally never had a HGST drive die on me ever, so if you want a reliable drive, get one of those.

He's also covered SSDs (the scamp), though finding a 3tb SSD would be hard. Personally I find a 'wider' view - that drives will die, and backing them up (more than once if possible!)

Improve this answer
0

HGST 2.5 inch drives have a good reputation. Also consider solid state drives for both slots for much faster, cooler and silent operation. That big Asus is going to be easier to move around without the weight of 3.5 inch drives!

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .