WD vs. Seagate?

[CC]

Hi:

I have a WD2500JD 250GB Caviar SE drive that is giving intermittent IO
errors. When first mounted it's fine, then usually after some time most
of the disk disappears. The next day the pattern repeats.

I'm thinking of replacing it with a Seagate Baracuda 7200.10 series
320GB instead of another WD.

Any preferences for Seagate or AD these days?


Thanks for input.

 

[Rod Speed]

I have a WD2500JD 250GB Caviar SE drive that is giving intermittent IO errors.
When first mounted it's fine, then usually after some time
most of the disk disappears. The next day the pattern repeats.

Its clearly got a warmup fault.

I'm thinking of replacing it with a Seagate Baracuda 7200.10 series 320GB
instead of another WD.

Any preferences for Seagate or WD these days?

I'd replace it with a Samsung myself, noticeably quieter.

 

[Frodo]

I prefer Seagates, but Western Digital is a close 2nd.
I have 2 perfectly working Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA-II drives in my new
system, had WD 200GB, 160GB and two 80GBs in the past computers
The two 80GB drives finally failed after about 4 years of service and my
abuse.
On Newegg's website, the new Seagate 320GB 7200.10 drives do not have as
good a reputation as I would like.
Reviews talking about having to RMA a new drive 2 or even 3 times to get a
working unit.
I'm also sure Newegg sells a SHIT load of 7200.10 drives
So I would say the 7200.9 is my preferred choice.

 

[kony]

Hi:

I have a WD2500JD 250GB Caviar SE drive that is giving intermittent IO
errors. When first mounted it's fine, then usually after some time most
of the disk disappears. The next day the pattern repeats.

Run the manufacturer's diagnostics.

Is the drive staying cool enough?
Are you using a quality name-brand PSU of ample capacity?

Is the drive being filled near the 128GB boundary but you
dont' have an OS (Or patched to support) 48bit LBA?

How old is the drive, is it under warranty? If so, RMA it
and use the replacement.

I'm thinking of replacing it with a Seagate Baracuda 7200.10 series
320GB instead of another WD.

Any preferences for Seagate or AD these days?

Every brand has a random failure or two, both WD and Seagate
make reasonably good drives, grab whichever you see with a
good sale price.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Hi:

I have a WD2500JD 250GB Caviar SE drive that is giving intermittent IO
errors. When first mounted it's fine, then usually after some time most
of the disk disappears. The next day the pattern repeats.

I'm thinking of replacing it with a Seagate Baracuda 7200.10 series
320GB instead of another WD.

Any preferences for Seagate or AD these days?

Definitely Seagate. WD has had quality issues for some time now.
There are those blinded by their 10.000rpm drives, but WD
does not do SCSI (my guess is they did not manage to get
the reliability high enough). Then there is the issue with
their ''RAID'' drives, which results from their drives spending
too much time on error recovery. No other vendor has that.

You should also consider Samsung. Quiet and relatively cool running.

Arno

 

[JohnS]

I prefer Seagates, but Western Digital is a close 2nd.
I have 2 perfectly working Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA-II drives in my new
system, had WD 200GB, 160GB and two 80GBs in the past computers
The two 80GB drives finally failed after about 4 years of service and my
abuse.
On Newegg's website, the new Seagate 320GB 7200.10 drives do not have as
good a reputation as I would like.
Reviews talking about having to RMA a new drive 2 or even 3 times to get a
working unit.

Thats wild cause some people were avoiding the older units 7200.9s
though Im talking PATAs because of a rash of failures it seemed of the
larger units posted at Amazon at long time ago. People used to swear
by Seagates but they also used to do that with IBMs too until they had
that trouble.

Ive actually had very few problems with any of the makes. Im running
mostly Seagates now mainly cause of the 5 yr warranties.

 

[dphillips]

Thats wild cause some people were avoiding the older units 7200.9s
though Im talking PATAs because of a rash of failures it seemed of the
larger units posted at Amazon at long time ago. People used to swear
by Seagates but they also used to do that with IBMs too until they had
that trouble.

Ive actually had very few problems with any of the makes. Im running
mostly Seagates now mainly cause of the 5 yr warranties.

Lately, I have been buying cheap, used drives off eBay and in a RAID
5 set up, I should be able to just swap it out without data loss. None
failed yet but I expect them to die eventually. These are 10K SCSI
drives, some from Seagate, some with Compaq and IBM labels, and so
far, they are running fine. I have some Maxtor IDE drives running
fine for years. I prefer to use a lot of smaller drives in an array
than a couple of larger drives.


Sincerely,


Donald L. Phillips, Jr., P.E.
(e-mail address removed)
(remove NS to send an e-mail)

Worthington Engineering, Inc.
145 Greenglade Ave
Worthington, OH 43085

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Definitely Seagate. WD has had quality issues for some time now.

There are those blinded by their 10.000rpm drives,

but WD does not do SCSI

Whatever that has got to do with it, babblemouth.

(my guess is they did not manage to get the reliability high enough).

Your guessing is _your_ problem, babblemouth. WD abandoned SCSI
some while ago for other reasons. Those reasons didn't change overnight.
So the absence of a SCSI drive doesn't mean they can't make one, it
merely means they don't want to make one.

Then there is the issue with their ''RAID'' drives, which results from
their drives spending too much time on error recovery.

No other vendor has that.

The long error recovery may eventually recover your data that in
the same situation with an other make drive it may not.
It's a choice for you to make that other mfgs don't offer.