US$189.99 is a very respectable price for a 6TB drive with these specs.
Cheapest local price I could find is $356 before shipping.
CamelCamelCamel.
yeah july 1 2017
anywhere i can find more information about this tax on imports?
but hockey is gone?
no government is going to say no to money, regardless of who's in charge.
Too bad it's Seagate, looking to move to 6-8TB drives soon!
What's wrong with Seagate?
Poor reliability from personal experience, has put me off them for good I think.
My anecdotal experience with six 4TB Seagates has been positive. They're in a RAIDZ, so I'd catch any reliability issues pretty early, I guess.
Yeah, each to their own I guess.
I've had 10 or 11 Seagate drives in NAS's at customers die vs 1 WD, lots more WD's out in the field too.
@lmh86: my experience has been good too.
Read into it what you will, but the latest backblaze HDD report was pretty complimentary of all 6TB desktop models from all manufacturers. From memory they fared better than some of the lower capacity drives in terms of reliability and the bulk of the 6TB drives they had were Seagates.
My anecdotal experience over many years and literally countless used drives is overwhelmingly negative towards Seagate. This is because one of my secondary income streams is refurb and resale of used computers.
I got hammered here by fanbois last time I explained my experience, however irrespective of how much they bleat and neg me it doesn't change the fact that in the computers that I process, the most commonly failed drives were Seagates.
Not one batch, not one model, not one size, not one source. Just in general… the Seagates had a far higher fail percentage. The fanbois said that I had more Seagate fails because they "were more popular", which demonstrated that some Seagate Fanbois may also have poor comprehension of mathematics.
I only keep 100% perfect HDDs. I deem a "fail" as any drive that fails SMART, has ANY Reallocated Sectors, or has stiction problems and won't spin up. From some sites I was seeing 40% of Seagates with Reallocated sectors and other issues at the end of a 3 year lease, whilst WDs, Hitachi's, Toshibas etc would only be a couple of percent.
No, I cannot check the stats because I was giving the dead drives away, boxes and boxes full, to people who grabbed the magnets from the failed drives. Even today I will never trust Seagate drives, once bitten twice shy, I guess.
EDIT: I have absolutely zero experience with Seagates higher than 2TB, and all my drives have been used. I've certainly had heaps of them in various devices, but never bought a new Seagate (and never would) so I have no idea how new ones fare.
@llama: See the problem with your anecdote is it's anecdotal which means it's likely to be flat out wrong.
See the problem with your statement is that it also proves that other people's anecdotes about positive experiences with Seagates are equally likely to be flat out wrong.
I handle about 600 hard drives a year. All 1tb and 2tb.
That isn't a lot, but it's more than a lot of people.
A couple of years ago I had some issues with Seagates, but more recently the biggest issue has been the now discontinued (or relabelled anyway) WD Green drives.
On an order of 120 placed 16 months ago, I've now had 85 fail. That isn't good. Failure rate of over 50% in 16 months.
In comparison the WD Blue (7200rpm models) and Seagate drives I have in the field are running at sub 5% failure rate in the same period.
I no longer use the WD Green drives as a result - and I avoid all the 5400rpm "Blue" drives because they are just the old Greens….
And yes I am aware of the WDidle fix for Green drives. Applying it seems to improve the failure rate, but its still at least 5 times worse than what I'd normally expect…
I definitely don't handle anything like as many drives as you do. Because I see lots of old drives, I consider my experiences are a good indicator of long term health. But it's also skewed because problems that I experienced no longer occur in newer HDD revisions.
The older WD Greens were pretty good, but the more modern ones are crap. A few years ago I started getting failures in my media NAS, and because I was running it in JBOD mode and lost my entire media collection due to a self-destructing WD Green. It took me ages (like 6 months of night time effort) to restore because there was random bad reads that polluted my backups.
I've already migrated all data off WD Greens and I certainly don't trust those. They were a cheapo drive at the time, and like the Seagate consumer drives, the overall quality is simply not as high as it used to be.
I'm mainly using Toshibas now days, and that's all I buy new. Probably 15 in the main storage boxes at home, not one problem after 4 or 5 years. I've also had great performance from the old model 2TB Hitachi Coolspins which are 5400rpm but read pretty fast.
@llama: thanks for the clarification. Seafarers were problematic for years. Based on feedback, the newer models seem to be better.
Your experience is bizarre in my opinion, HP use alot of Seagates in the machines they supply for our fleet which is 5000 strong. We don't see high failure rates in general, and definitely not more Seagates failing.
These are small form factor and ultra slim so get HOT and can be out there for 6 - 7 years.
I've also owned plenty of Seagate drives, no problems.
You also don't see any differences across models, batches, etc.?
Bizarre.
Your experience is bizarre in my opinion
I am not the only person who experiences it. There are others in this discussion.
These are small form factor and ultra slim
My experiences are ONLY with 3.5" drives. Same as the Backblaze data centre linked above, which shows failure rates up to 10 times higher in Seagates compared to other brands.
Go take a look.
You also don't see any differences across models, batches, etc.?
Of course I do. But I cannot provide stats because my drives have been replaced under warranty, or have been disposed of.
Yes but for everyone with negative experience with X drive there is someone else with a positive experience. If they are so bad how do you explain my experience? See it is just anecdotal which you do acknowledge at the start of yoyr post but then go on to basically warn people off all Seagate drives.
Small Form Factor and Ultra Slim are machine sizes, referring to the size of the machine, not the HDD, they are standard drives. I was making the point that the drives are enclosed in very compact cases and get very hot and are out there with little maintainence for 6 to 7 years. The vast majority are fine.
You said you didn't see any differences across batches, etc. ?
I'mjust arguing common sense.
For the record how many drives would you deal with a year?
@llama: I have an old laptop with a dead Seagate drive. I reinstalled the OS as the machine was taking ages to boot and CrystalDiskInfo was reporting the drive as bad. As I was installing the drivers on the machine (GPU drivers and just basic chipset drivers) one of the installs required the PC to reboot and suddenly the drive was making grinding sounds.
It's one of those rarer older laptops with early SATA3 support, so I think I'm gonna give it an SSD which will decrease thermals and weight in the machine.
Seagates give me bad memories because of all the failures I had with them. I use Hitachi and HGST now. They are much more reliable (IMO).
They were producing some pretty bad drives during 2013-2014, but they seem to have turned that around in the last couple of years.
Backblaze put out some good statistics for drive failure rates.
They were producing some pretty bad drives during 2013-2014
And now it is April 2016, only TWO YEARS later.
but they seem to have turned that around in the last couple of years.
Just remember that those drives from the past few years aren't even 2 years old yet.
Backblaze put out some good statistics for drive failure rates
Which show just how poor the Seagates have been compared to (say) HGST.
@llama: you may want to do some research on failures (esp failure curves), stress testing etc before weighing in on this topic. most people knew the old seagates were crap quickly because of how unreliability of devices occur.
Which show just how poor the Seagates have been compared to (say) HGST.
A few models of Seagate had issues just like a few models of WD have had issues. To claim that all Seagate's are bad because of a few models or your very limited exposure is being ignorant of the facts.
you may want to do some research on failures
You mean like the statistics of failures, bell curves, etc?
Why would I need to do any research before sharing my experiences about a larger percentage of failed drives of one brand compared to another brand?
most people knew the old seagates were crap quickly
They failed early in life, they failed late in life, they failed anytime.
But they were hugely successful and widely installed because they were the cheapest. The drive of choice for system builders, and they didn't care about the percentage of failures - warranty is somebody else's problem!
Most people KNOW they were crap, however if the fanbois read anything bad said against the brand, then they get very upset.
A few models of Seagate had issues just like a few models of WD have had issues.
Errr, what? I am sharing my experience with lots of drives and lots of different models. Yes, some Seagate models were more prone to particular kinds of failures compared to other Seagate models, but who cares?
A fail is a fail.
To claim that all Seagate's are bad
I never claimed that.
…because of a few models or your very limited exposure is being ignorant of the facts.
What facts? The facts that you are showing us? LOL
Errr, what? I am sharing my experience with lots of drives and lots of different models. Yes, some Seagate models were more prone to particular kinds of failures compared to other Seagate models, but who cares?
You're sharing your very limited experience with a limited range of ex lease computers over a very limited time frame and you have no measurable data.
A fail is a fail.
You would know your arguements are a constant fail.
I never claimed that.
You always make that claim.
What facts? The facts that you are showing us? LOL
The facts are out there but you choose to ignore them like you have in previous deals when you've started your anti Seagate rant. Seagate are not in the position they are in because their drives have a high failure rate.
@llama: I wasn't saying that Seagate are the better choice, I was linking some actual data as opposed to just throwing in an additional opinion so that people can decide for themself. HGST (aka Hitachi) was bought by Western Digital in 2012, and while they remain better choice (I even use them in my NAS) they aren't cost effective at scale.
I reckon that Backblaze report really dented their HD sales. Every IT person has seen that report and Seagate probably decided to use "high quality" parts in their newer models.
Dam good price, heaps cheaper than WD
And a "Dam good" reason they are cheaper LOL
Yeah and my experience is they are great with the warranty claims (if needed), if used in RAID you can have that extra safety buffer if one failed
Warranty is only 2 years on these consumer drives.
I also have had good experience with Seagate warranty - they certainly will replace your failed drive with a refurbished one within the warranty period.
But one day outside that period, and bad luck.
It sucks ass that both WD and Seagate replace failed drives with refurbs. I guess they are copying each other plus Apple and Dell…
I prefer new for old replacement…
Warranty is only 2 years on these consumer drives.
So what? Who cares, storage prices are always dropping and I'd rather pay less upfront.
they certainly will replace your failed drive with a refurbished one within the warranty period.
And they will often replace with a brand new one.
But one day outside that period, and bad luck.
It's not a X year and one day warranty that they offer but a X year so why should they keep offering warranty after the states warranty time?
You really come up with the most ridiculous and pointless arguements to support your very limited experience.
You really come up with the most ridiculous and pointless arguements to support your very limited experience.
Yet another ad-hominem, huh?
Getting boring. I reckon you'd be significantly more convincing if you showed us some facts to back up your claims about the long term reliability of Seagate Hard Drives. Attempting to insult me doesn't really prove anything.
Getting boring. I reckon you'd be significantly more convincing if you showed us some facts to back up your claims about the long term reliability of Seagate Hard Drives. Attempting to insult me doesn't really prove anything.
There is plenty of data out there that shows for reliable Seagate are with the exception of one 3TB model.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/blackblaze-hard-drive…
Your claim that system builders don't care what the reliability is of components like hard drives because it is someone elses problem to fix shows you have no idea at all. Guess who pays for warranty work? Do you think the big names like Lenovo, HP and Dell use so many Seagate drives because they like replacing them or because they are reliable?
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q4-201…
The readily available and highly competitive price of the Seagate drives, along with their solid performance and respectable failure rates,
dupe…
And they will often replace with a brand new one.
REALLY?
The last 50 drives I've had replaced across Seagate and WD they have given me refurb/recertified drives EVERY time.
prob should put they are the desktop drive in the title and not NAS
dupe
Unless I'm doing something wrong, these don't seem to be available to ship to Austraila?
Cant decide if going seagate is worth it over wd red or spend $100 for peace of mind.. hmm
would i be bonkers ordering and putting two of these in a 2 bay qnap nas with raid1? (answered this myself)
have been bitten by seagates failures in the past
additional question: would i be even more out of my mind by mismatching 2 drives in a qnap 2-bay (say 1 of these and a wd red) in raid1? (still curious about the mismatching thing)
edit: in attempting to answer my own question, backblaze has reported very low failure rates for their 6tb drives (1.9% vs 5.8% for WD 6tb drives). however im not sure if theyre the right ones. the article mentions ST6000DX000 whereas these drives are ST6000DM001. are they different drives? i think they might be.
edit 2: they arent in qnap compatibility list. only nas & enterprise seagates are. back to the drawing board. still might get one of these for a desktop.
Price is now USD 214.99 - maybe expire the deal?
done
To my understanding tax on imports wasn't happening till 2017?