2

The general question: if I run all sorts of tasks on the PC, should I get an HDD with higher random or sequential data rates?

More specifically:
I'm using an 80GB HDD to host the operating systems and keep all installations and data on a secondary 2TB WD Green drive, however I'm fairly sure it has a bad sector as it started not responding a few days ago, and generally when accessing it the system starts going really slow, plus it failed to show up in myComputer in a few boots, I had to disconnect and reconnect it again.

Now I'm going to buy another hard disk, and I'm between the WD Purple which is for security usage, with a claimed AFR < 0.8% (I don't really believe it's the real number but what else is there to suggest safety?) and a Seagate SV35.6, also with a claimed AFR of < 1%, both 2TB.

The WD shows to be much faster in random I/O, but loads slower on sequential I/O (150MB/s vs 600MB/s max), best comparison I have found is here:
http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-Purple-2TB-2014-vs-Seagate-Video-SV356-Series-2TB/2662vs1816

Also, the WD suggests it's more resistant to heat and vibration, as it is designed to work in an up to 8-disk RAID configuration, 24/7.

My use is all around, from storage to gaming to development (consider the tools to be heavy as they get) and possibly also video processing in the not so far future. So I really cannot come to choose which one is more suitable, as I have little clue if most of my I/Os will be random or sequential. Also note that I have an unstable configuration on the desktop, it has superb capabilities (5 years old but I got the fastest stuff that were available for near-logical price at the day) so I have a blue screen on average every 6-8 hours (using XP home and x64 alike, and also with any other OS I've used), I don't know if that has any effect on the decision.

Consider a RAID for cloning as possible in the near future, so if there's any huge advantage of either one as far as safety goes, it can be crucial.

The general question is what can I expect more, random or sequential I/O? Other than that, anything else is welcome.

2
  • 1
    Your system isn't unstable. It just has a HDD which is the system disk that is failing. Once you replace the disk your crashes will cease. WD Purple drives are not appropriate for normal uses. You want WD Black drivers if you want performance. I can't figure out why are you comparing non-desktop HDDs they are not suitable for the type of usage you describe.
    – Ramhound
    Jan 30, 2015 at 11:56
  • You say if I swap out the 80GB disk I'll also get rid of the blue screens? That would be great! I went for an averagely low price as I am going for an emergency replacement now, and, well, I have little idea about HDDs.. Also I care more about not losing data than about not waiting another 30 seconds for something.. Jan 30, 2015 at 14:03

3 Answers 3

2

Higher random. Windows 7 and above have 100k+ files.

Unless you intent to get a drive for keeping large storage like .mkvs, big archives, go for random. As a recommendation, if you want reliability and speed, go for WD black. Those are also extremely safe to be used in RAID0s. If you dont intent to have more in RAID 0 setup, go for WD Reds.

On average, WDs are more reliable than Seagate. Nowdays it appears seagates state more MTBF and offer large warranty, but after having 1000+ drives to work with for several years (2006-2012), the verdict is clear: WDs are more reliable, significantly.

As for the greens, those are good for backups. A good configuration would be for you to have an SSD with the OS, and black or red or RAID of 2-3 B/R as primary drive.

4
  • Greens are also good for always on server/nas machines at home.
    – Zonder
    Jan 30, 2015 at 13:04
  • The statistical failure probability is too high for greens vs red or black, but in RAID 1 or 0-1, yes, they do fine. It's best to use them as off-line backup, tho'.
    – Overmind
    Jan 30, 2015 at 13:06
  • It's great to have advice from someone with user experience! I'll look at the Red and Black to see which may suit me better. Jan 30, 2015 at 14:05
  • I think I'll go for Red, and add a second one for RAID in a couple of months, mainly because the Black ones I only find at +40% of the price, thank you for sharing the experience! Jan 30, 2015 at 14:23
0

Backblaze just updated their reliability data based on their 41,000 drives. Don't get Seagate, go WD or HSDT (Hitachi, formerly IBM) looks a bit better still.

2
  • Note that the environment that Backblaze run drives in is extreme in more ways than one. Their data may or may not be generally applicable.
    – user
    Jan 30, 2015 at 15:19
  • Sure, and for that matter, you can't buy the drives they tested anymore either. Jan 30, 2015 at 20:57
0

"I don't believe your choice of drive can materially influence the odds of a failure (which is tiny anyway). Put a backup procedure in place and forget about trying to guess which drive might, on average, last longer" -- added from comment below.

If at all possible go for an SSD it will massively improve your user experience.

General access patterns on system drives are relatively small file intensive but a lot of the reads will be handled by the system cache so it's hard to generalize.

Of the drives you are comparing neither is a great choice for your described use case, take a look at this list: http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Explore/Value-for-money/15

The Toshiba DT01ACA200 gives you the best of both worlds: http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-Purple-2TB-2014-vs-Toshiba-DT01ACA200-2TB/2662vs2736

3
  • The first link does not take into account failure rates and so on, which I care quite a bit about unfortunately :/ the second was more interesting but I cannot find an AFR for it, and well, MTBF is clearly no good indicator - There is not way a drive will work for 137 years straight Jan 30, 2015 at 14:12
  • 1
    @user3079666 Are SSD drives as reliable as mechanical drives (2013)? and Mean Time Between Failures — SSD, for a start.
    – user
    Jan 30, 2015 at 15:18
  • @user3079666 I don't believe your choice of drive can materially influence the odds of a failure (which is tiny anyway). Put a backup procedure in place and forget about trying to guess which drive might, on average, last longer.
    – Neuralrank
    Jan 30, 2015 at 15:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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