• dragonlobster@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    21 hours ago

    These things are unreliable, I had 3 seagate HDDs in a row fail on me. Never had an issue with SSDs and never looked back.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Seagate in general are unreliable in my own anecdotal experience. Every Seagate I’ve owned has died in less than five years. I couldn’t give you an estimate on the average failure age of my WD drives because it never happened before they were retired due to obsolescence. It was over a decade regularly though.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      well until you need capacity why not use an SSD. It’s basically mandatory for the operating system drive too

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          I would rather not buy so large SSDs. for most stuff the performance advantage is useless while the price is much larger, and my impression is still that such large SSDs have a shorter lifespan (regarding how many writes will it take to break down). recovering data fron a failing HDD is also easier: SSDs just turn read-only or completely fail at one point, in the latter case often even data recovery companies being unable to recover anything, while HDDs will often give signs that a good monitoring software can detect weeks or months before, so that you know to be more cautious with it