Hello,

I was mostly using Seagate disks past 15 years. And now I must say i got enought. I had 3 disks from ST31000528AS series, they all bit the dust due to unrecoverrable sectors.
I also got ST31000524AS disk, which is OK. but people whine at its reliability.

(Meanwhile had dual WD2500YS-S1SHB1 disks for RAID - one of them broke due to bad sectors too)

I'm standing before a replacement. And am wondering what to chose.
I found arcticle (quite widespread copy) http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1750 ... ard-drives .

And seems like Seagate really dropped on quality - if those are true.
Never had Hitachi harddrive before too.

I fully understand that every manufacturer has some of worse and better series (Seagate U4 still works for me, undestroyable). And any1 cant guarantee that hitachi disk wont break. But there are overall statistics, which tend to be broken less than others.
I know that the more condensed sectors are on disks, they're more fragile.

But, which manufacturer's disks are most reliable in your opinion?

Older disk prior to 500 GB ones,
If you have to chose a 500 GB drive chose Samsung.
7200.10 Seagates prior to F3 Arch are "decent" as well.
Have one 7200.10 80 GB running since 2008 on a server non-stop day and night and yesterday i've done a complete scan on it with mhdd. Neither a single "slow secotor" - MHDD marks just the 2 first lines of grey. Neither a single re-located sector.

If you want a reliable drive chose older drives and as small as possible.

Avoid specific troublesome families like some 40 GB Maxtors (firmware problems) or 80 GB old Palo smasungs that develop surface problems ...

You should be ok with either a 80 GB 7200.10 seagate if you want a drive for a small server. If you want something bigger go for a 500 GB old samsung.

Apparently, the best brand is Two, see viewtopic.php?t=24594&f=1&start=0#p166039