Every manufacturer has made a product that failed.

It isn't as much as you think, high resolution, high bitrate video files are pretty large.

Makes me shudder. I have to replace a drive in my array, because it is degraded. It's a 4TB. Imagine having to replace one of these. I'd much rather have a bunch of cheaper drives, even if they are a bit more expensive per TB, because the replacement cost will eventually make the total cost of ownership lower.

Also, repeat with me: "Please give me a Toshiba or Hitachi, please"

This hard drive is so big when it backs up it makes a beeping sound.

Me who stores important data on seagate external HDD with no backup reading the comments roasting seagate:

This hard drive is so big, when I tried to weigh it the scale just said “one at a time please”.

I can certainly understand holding grudges against corporations. I didn’t buy anything from Sony for a very long time after their fuckery George Hotz and Nintendo's latest horseshit has me staying away from them, but that was a single firmware bug that locked down hard drives (note, the data was still intact) a very long time ago. Seagate even issued a firmware update to prevent the bug from biting users it hadn’t hit yet, but firmware updates at the time weren’t really something people thought to ever do, and operating systems did not check for them automatically back then like they do now.

Seagate fucked up but they also did everything they could to make it right. That matters. Plus, look at their competition. WD famously lied about their red drives not being SMR when they actually were. And I’ve only ever had WD hard drives and sandisk flash drives die on me. And guess who owns sandisk? Western Digital!

I guess if you must go with a another company, there’s the louder and more expensive Toshiba drives but I have never used those before so I know nothing about them aside from their reputation for being loud.

I'm amazed it's only $800. I figured that shit was gonna be like 8-10 thousand.

they were selling wd red (pro?) drives with smr tech, which is known to be disastrous for disk arrays because both traditional raid and zfs tends to throw them out. the reason for that is when you are filling it up, especially when you do it quickly, it won't be able to process your writes after some time, and write operations will take a very long time, because the disk needs to rearrange its data before writing more. but raid solutions just see that the drive is not responding to the write command for a long time, and they think that's because the drive is bad.

it was a few years ago, but it was a shitfest because they didn't disclose it, and people were expecting that nas drives will work fine in their nas.

Any hint about the ironwolfs?

Can someone recommend me a hard drive that won't fail immediately? Internal, not SSD, from which cheap ones will die even sooner, and I need it for archival reasons, not speed or fancy new tech, otherwise I have two SSDs.

What is the usecase for drives that large?

I 'only' have 12Tb drives and yet my zfs-pool already needs ~two weeks to scrub it all. With something like this it would literally not be done before the next scheduled scrub.

there was a time i asked this question about 500 megabytes

Well, it's a Seagate, so it still comes out to about a hundred bucks a month.

no thanks Seagate. the trauma of losing my data because of a botched firmware with a ticking time bomb kinda put me off your products for life.

see you in hell.

Defragmenting...

That quite large then.

I wonder how many pictures of nude bananas you could fit inside??

A lot of modern AAA games require an SSD, actually.

On top of my head: Cyberpunk, Marvel's Spider-Man 2, Hogwarts Legacy, Dead Space remake, Starfield, Baulder's Gate 3, Palworld, Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart

Forza Horizon 4 and 5 don't say they require an SSD I think, but when I had it on my hard drive any cars that did over 250kph caused significant world loading issues, as in I'd fall out of the world because it didn't load the map.