• vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days 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
      0
      ·
      6 days 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
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days 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

          • prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            How is it easier? Do you open your HDDs and take info from there? Do you have specialized equipment and knowledge? Second, if you detect on smart that you are closer to TBW, change the SSD duh… Smart is a lot more effective on SSDs depending the model it even gives you time to live…