Every WD drive I had died on me, tho with enough time to move everything.
Meanwhile every seagate drive I had completely shat the bed without warning including a fucking backup seagate HDD that died while copying stuff being recovered from another dead seagate drive.
Meanwhile I got 15-year old HGST drives that plain refuses to die, but HGST sold out to WD and doesn't exists anymore.
No idea which SSD brand is the most reliable right now.
My 10 year old 4TB HGSTs in an old home server are still kicking strong.
In my experience dealing with datacenter stuff, Seagate has been fine since the 3TB HDD days. Everything 4 or 6TB and larger are great and last as long as you'd expect a HDD to last.
Any HDD made in the last 6 years is fine. They're at maximum maturity now. Just go with the best GB per $ option. WD is usually more expensive. Not worth it. But I'm not really keen on Toshiba drives. They seem to be similar priced to Seagate but have less performance (cache size and sustained Read/Writes)
My recommended SSD brands:
M.2
- Team Group - Best value and usually one of the highest endurance consumer drives. Their gen4 stuff is great
- Sabrent - Usually the largest capacity and fastest drive options. All quality stuff
- Kingston - Their higher end stuff is great
WD, Samsung, and Seagate are bad value for the performance. Samsung has been fucking up their firmware lately too
SATA
- Team Group - Usually best value. The AX2 and EX2 are best value SATA drives but about 1 in 10 can have minor issues that ZFS complains about
- Samsung - Best value for large capacity. Rock solid SATA drives
- Intel - Best SATA drives for endurance. No longer made I think
Realistically just go with the cheapest SATA drive. Any will do fine.
U.2
- Samsung
- Intel
- Micron
- WD
Here's a dumb question, there's obviously people on KF that are in the tech industry and have the knowledge to help keep the forum alive. Would it be prudent to create a place for people to come together to work on keeping the site alive so Jersh doesn't have to shoulder the burden himself?
He basically has the expertise on hand to keep the site up, even if I am volunteering only when needed. The only need would be maybe money and hosting capacity options. His new beefy server is enough to handle KF for a very long time alone. I wouldn't even expect this thing to have further storage issues. It has capacity to expand it further on size or more redundancy. If it were cost effective, having server redundancy would be better. But that ticks up colo costs and there's money required to get more hardware. Adding more cooks in doesn't help, unless they know more advanced setups.
You sound like you’re from Reddit. I don’t like Reddit niggers.
I haven't used Reddit since you were in elementary school. Sorry that I'm not schizophrenic.