# 5400rpm SSHD vs 7200rpm HDD



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 17, 2018)

Hello, I am upgrading a family member's old laptop and I have a few 5400rpm SSHDs and 7200rpm HDDs lying around. Which would be better for ordinary day to day use? This person doesn't play games and doesn't transfer a lot of large files often. Just internet usage and occasional movies.

The options I have are:
1) used Seagate SSHD with 5400 rpm speed (ST500LM000)

and

2) new HGST HDD 7200 rpms (HTS725050A7) or new Toshiba HDD 7200 rpm (MQ01ACF050)

According to userbenchmark, the HDD is effectively faster as sequential read/write is weighted much more heavily. https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compa...00GB-vs-Toshiba-MQ01ACF050-500GB/m9154vsm7527

But youtube reviews/tests seem to prefer the SSHD. According to Seagate, their SSHD is better (no surprise?): https://www.seagate.com/tech-insigh...e-storage-is-not-about-rpm-anymore-master-ti/


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 17, 2018)

Those seagates have never really been reliable at all... Either go full ssd or go home. 

If an ssd is not an option then take the Toshiba. Their drives are pretty good


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2018)

SSHDs are like a oversize cache cost solution. Bulk of operations will still be reliant on how fast the platter rotates and head actuates.

Since they aint gaming, go with the cheapest option which is the Toshiba Drive, which still has a faster rotation than the Seagate.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 17, 2018)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Those seagates have never really been reliable at all... Either go full ssd or go home.
> 
> If an ssd is not an option then take the Toshiba. Their drives are pretty good



Are you saying seagates in general are unreliable or just their SSHDs are reliable? When you say unreliable, do you mean high failure rates?

I already have these SSHDs and HDDs.



eidairaman1 said:


> SSHDs are like a oversize cache cost solution. Bulk of operations will still be reliant on how fast the platter rotates and head actuates.
> 
> Since they aint gaming, go with the cheapest option (which is the Toshiba Drive)



Cost is not a factor because I already have both lying around.

Which is better in real world applications for a person who just browses Google Chrome and uses a few programs like media player and microsoft office? We're not dealing with a lot of large files here so these commonly used programs should be on the SSD cache right?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2018)

Bluescreendeath said:


> Are you saying seagates in general are unreliable or just their SSHDs are reliable? When you say unreliable, do you mean high failure rates?
> 
> I already have these SSHDs and HDDs.
> 
> ...



Drop the 5400 in and call it a day.

The only way a 7200 drive gets better is when a 7200 sshd is in place.

Drawback of a 7200 drive over a 5400 is power.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2018)

Of those choices, I would go with 7200 RPM.  Moderately fast and reliable.

The SSHD has 8 GB of moderately fast data access followed by 500 GB of painfully slow.  If you hammer an SSHD with a lot of operations, that painfully slow will rear its ugly head.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Of those choices, I would go with 7200 RPM.  Moderately fast and reliable.
> 
> The SSHD has 8 GB of moderately fast data access followed by 500 GB of painfully slow.  If you hammer an SSHD with a lot of operations, that painfully slow will rear its ugly head.



Not that bad for a general purpose laptop, only bad for a Gaming unit


----------



## Melvis (Oct 17, 2018)

Question is what OS are you going to be running? Windows 10? if so you need the fastest drive possible as its a dog of an OS when its run on a 5400 or even any type of Mechanical Hard Drive, but between the two id go 7200 for sure. If its Windows 7 you can get away with running it on ether 5400 or 7200 but again the 7200 would be still the better choice regardless.  If you can afford it (and im sure you could if you live in USA) and your running Windows 10 on it then go get a $35 SSD and your golden.

Personally I wouldnt go for any of those Drives, Seagate, Toshiba and HGST have all bad reps, I see them come through my shop dead all the time, go WD if you want a good Mechanical HDD (WD BLACK) , or a known name branded SSD.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2018)

Melvis said:


> Question is what OS are you going to be running? Windows 10? if so you need the fastest drive possible as its a dog of an OS when its run on a 5400 or even any type of Mechanical Hard Drive, but between the two id go 7200 for sure. If its Windows 7 you can get away with running it on ether 5400 or 7200 but again the 7200 would be still the better choice regardless.  If you can afford it (and im sure you could if you live in USA) and your running Windows 10 on it then go get a $35 SSD and your golden.
> 
> Personally I wouldnt go for any of those Drives, Seagate, Toshiba and HGST have all bad reps, I see them come through my shop dead all the time, go WD if you want a good Mechanical HDD (WD BLACK) , or a known name branded SSD.



Here is a comprehensive list.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/2018-hard-drive-failire-rates/


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 17, 2018)

Melvis said:


> Question is what OS are you going to be running? Windows 10? if so you need the fastest drive possible as its a dog of an OS when its run on a 5400 or even any type of Mechanical Hard Drive, but between the two id go 7200 for sure. If its Windows 7 you can get away with running it on ether 5400 or 7200 but again the 7200 would be still the better choice regardless.  If you can afford it (and im sure you could if you live in USA) and your running Windows 10 on it then go get a $35 SSD and your golden.
> 
> Personally I wouldnt go for any of those Drives, Seagate, Toshiba and HGST have all bad reps, I see them come through my shop dead all the time, go WD if you want a good Mechanical HDD (WD BLACK) , or a known name branded SSD.



1) Wouldn't running the OS be faster on the SSHD cache?

2) W7

3) Backblaze statistics show Toshiba and HGST both had comparable or lower rates of failure than Western Digital drives...and HGST has been owned by WD for a while anyways.


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Oct 17, 2018)

I would say generally mechanical hdd in laptop fail pretty quickly with heavy use. I have an acer laptop with Toshiba HDD yet that drive fail. HDD are not really tolerant to heat and shock of carrying day to day at least from my experience. Laptop drive bay design and shock reducing features do play a part., despite that from my experience looking at laptop with even good hdd protection features like a Fujitsu, they do start showing smart errors.  If they are just used for home use, they would be fine I guess. I  would not say HDD is that slow, they are pretty tolerable for normal use though you do feel the speed difference.

I would generally recommend ssd nowadays even the very cheap ones with lower capacity they are superior for laptop use. The HDD use for storage instead be it putting in into an external drive case or using a cd drive caddy in a laptop if you have one. Taking out the cd drive and using an adapter to install a hdd into the cd drive slot.


----------



## agent_x007 (Oct 17, 2018)

OS after few tries will get faster - sure (if files it uses frequently are located in SS part of that SSHD).
Problems will start when cache gets full after few days.
After that time, doing any file transfers or operations outside of it will be slower than on 7200RPM drive.
Also, If your mom/sister likes to watch movies few times in a row (or go back to fav. ones few times a week), they will be transfered to fast cache at some point - which will be awesome for their performance, don't you think ?


----------



## Melvis (Oct 17, 2018)

Bluescreendeath said:


> 1) Wouldn't running the OS be faster on the SSHD cache?
> 
> 2) W7
> 
> 3) Backblaze statistics show Toshiba and HGST both had comparable or lower rates of failure than Western Digital drives...and HGST has been owned by WD for a while anyways.



SSHD would be faster yes, but again no where near as fast as a SSD.

Windows 7? then you should be fine honestly, any 7200RPM drive will run it fine and at a descent speed, doesnt really require and SSD it be just a bonus really.

Yeah I dont go by those stats at all as its to inconsistent, need it to be equal amount of drives, more drives you have the lesser the failure rate is going to show, its not an accurate test. and this has been shown over and over again year by year. WD might "own" them but they are still a completely different company/factory, dont get confused by that  



eidairaman1 said:


> Here is a comprehensive list.
> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/2018-hard-drive-failire-rates/



Yeah I dont go by those stats at all as its to inconsistent, need it to be equal amount of drives, more drives you have the lesser the failure rate is going to show, its not an accurate test.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 17, 2018)

Melvis said:


> SSHD would be faster yes, but again no where near as fast as a SSD.
> Windows 7? then you should be fine honestly, any 7200RPM drive will run it fine and at a descent speed, doesnt really require and SSD it be just a bonus really.



Yes, a SSD is going to be faster than an SSHD or an HDD. But I have a spare SSHD and a spare HDD on hand to use for this old and cheap laptop. I don't have a spare SSD on hand for this unless someone wants to trade me an SSD for my SSHD. 

Is Windows 10 that much slower than Windows 7 when running on a harddrive?



Melvis said:


> Yeah I dont go by those stats at all as its to inconsistent, need it to be equal amount of drives, more drives you have the lesser the failure rate is going to show, its not an accurate test. and this has been shown over and over again year by year. WD might "own" them but they are still a completely different company/factory, dont get confused by that
> Yeah I dont go by those stats at all as its to inconsistent, need it to be equal amount of drives, more drives you have the lesser the failure rate is going to show, its not an accurate test.



Backblaze has other test years too with more WD vs HGST and Toshiba harddrives. In the 2015 test for example, 1046x WDC WD30EFRX 3TB drives had a 7.27% failure rate while 1000x HGST HDS723030 3TB drives had a 1.80% failure rate. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q4-2015/

In Q4 2016, the WDC 3TB had a 3.28% failure rate out of 1105x drives, while the HGST HDS72... 3TB had a failure rate of 3.63% out of 978x drives. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-benchmark-stats-2016/

According to the charts, more drives does not necessarily equal less failure rate. After you get past a certain number, the extremely lucky and extremely unlucky drives will no longer skewer the average very much, and some very high drive count models have high failure rates while others do not.

Seagate had the most drive (45.5k) in 2016 yet the 2nd highest failure rate at 2.65%. Toshiba had the least number of drives at 237 yet a middle-failure rate of 1.27%. HGST had the 2nd most drives yet the lowest failure rate at .60%, and WDC had a higher failure rate as well.

In the 2013-2016 chart here, https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/All-thru-Q4-2016-Failure-Rates.jpg

It seems that WDC's 3TB Red series (with 1102 drives) had a high failure rate at 5.72%.  HGST's 3TB drive (1027 drives), had a failure rate less than half that of 1.92%.

What Backblaze statistics seems to tell us that model of the harddrive matters more than brands. Some brands such as Seagate have both really good models with low failure (1.43% failure out of 1889 drives) and really bad models with high failures (26.7% failure out of 4247 drives).
The best model of the series seems to be HGST's HDS5C4040BLE640 with 9.3k drives that only have a 0.48% failure rate.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 17, 2018)

Bluescreendeath said:


> Yes, a SSD is going to be faster than an SSHD or an HDD. But I have a spare SSHD and a spare HDD on hand to use for this old and cheap laptop. I don't have a spare SSD on hand for this unless someone wants to trade me an SSD for my SSHD.
> 
> Is Windows 10 that much slower than Windows 7 when running on a harddrive?



Yes it is a big difference, I have experienced this multiple times with many many Clients and my own computers, 10 is very slow on a Mechanical HDD compared to 7.





Bluescreendeath said:


> According to the charts, more drives does not necessarily equal less failure rate.



No not failure rate but the percentage is less and thats what they are showing, a percentage. More HDD's the less the percentage is. 

I have been building and doing upgrades and working on peoples computers for almost 15yrs  with a base of  up to 100 000 people and I havent had to return 1 WD Black hard drive or WD Raptor yet because of normal failure. Ive seen WD Greens and Blues die, but no where near as many as HSGT, Seagate or Toshiba Drives. In the real world you get what you pay for, get a WD Black with 5 yr warranty and you wont regret it, there is a reason why they have 5yr warranty on them.


----------



## spectatorx (Oct 17, 2018)

I would ask different question: Who the f... in the world did come with an idea to design 5400RPM SSHDD in the first place?! 5400rpm and sshdd both contradict each others' purposes.

If the only thing you care about is speed then go with sshdd, otherwise go with anything but seagate. Forgetting backblaze's stats from personal experience i had more failed seagate hdds than from any other manufacturer.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Oct 17, 2018)

Normally I'd stay away from SSHDD and go full SSD but since you want to use what you already have, why not give it a try?  Since as you stated, it's for a laptop that will typically see only internet usage and movies, most of what your family member does should be able to fit into the SSD cache portion of that drive.  Also, since you have the mechanical drives in hand as well, use one of them to clone the SSHDD and you'll be fine if there's any mechanical failures.  Hell, in that instance you could even swap between the drives to see what they prefer which in the end is the most important opinion of them all.

Edit:  Just remember to use the SSHDD in a "normal" manner so it caches what is most accessed by your everyday behavior before truly evaluating its performance.


----------



## bonehead123 (Oct 17, 2018)

Go ssd or go home 

If this is not an option, go with the 7200 hdd....especially for the uses you state and since the machine will most likely be plugged in most of the time, the difference in power draw won't matter....


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 17, 2018)

I'd say go with the SSHD.  Even at 5400RPM, for normal uses the SSHD will give a better experience than a 7200RPM drive.  Plus, if they run the computer off battery the lower power draw of the 5400RPM drive will make the battery last longer.

I used one of these 2.5" 5400RPM SSHDs as a main drive in one of my desktop PCs for the longest time and it worked quite well.  Basic tasks like browsing the web, youtube, and Office were much snappier than the 3.5" 7200RPM hard drive the SSHD replaced.  Though, not where near an SSD.  Dropping a $30 SSD in a machine as the system drive is one of the best things you can do to wake an older machine up.



spectatorx said:


> I would ask different question: Who the f... in the world did come with an idea to design 5400RPM SSHDD in the first place?! 5400rpm and sshdd both contradict each others' purposes.



All the SSHDs were originally 5400RPM, even WD's.  They were done as a compromise for laptop users to still give them the battery life of a 5400RPM drive, but boost the performance.  It works quite well in practice actually.


----------



## phill (Oct 17, 2018)

If your having to buy these drives new, skip both of them and as many have said above, get a full SSD.  Messing about with HDs and SSHDs in a laptop isn't worth the hassle and with the cost of a 120Gb or 240Gb or even 480Gb SSD now being as cheap as they are, I'd never consider even thinking about it and just grab one.  Doesn't really matter as such on the make of SSD as any will be much better than a standard SSD or SSHD.  

Windows 10 on a HD is painful, had one in my laptop, got rid of it even though it was 8 times the size of the SSD I have put in its place (2Tb v 250Gb or something near to)


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 17, 2018)

So 1/3 of the people here are telling me to use the 5400rpm SSHDs, 1/3 here are telling me to use the 7200 rpm HDDs, and the other 1/3 are telling me to buy a SSD even though I already have the HDD/SSHD on hand.


----------



## agent_x007 (Oct 17, 2018)

In that case, do a coin toss between 5400RPM and 7200RPM.
Winner gets the job


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2018)

Melvis said:


> Yes it is a big difference, I have experienced this multiple times with many many Clients and my own computers, 10 is very slow on a Mechanical HDD compared to 7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cool story bro, been doing this 20



spectatorx said:


> I would ask different question: Who the f... in the world did come with an idea to design 5400RPM SSHDD in the first place?! 5400rpm and sshdd both contradict each others' purposes.
> 
> If the only thing you care about is speed then go with sshdd, otherwise go with anything but seagate. Forgetting backblaze's stats from personal experience i had more failed seagate hdds than from any other manufacturer.



Low cost solution.

@Bluescreendeath just drop the 5400RPM in and call it a day, it's a general purpose laptop, not specializing in anything, battery life will be more important than super performance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2018)

MQ01ACF050 only has a 16 MB cache which is ridiculously tiny.  I wouldn't use that one at all.
HTS725050A7 has better sequential performance, lower power consumption, and likely better reliability (don't have to worry about MLC wear).
ST500LM000 has better random access performance.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 17, 2018)

If you aren't doing too many writes SSHD is the better solution, 7200 rpm drive if you need to write lots of data. Of course I'd suggest a cheap TLC drive, if storage space isn't an issue & price isn't a major concern.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 17, 2018)

agent_x007 said:


> In that case, do a coin toss between 5400RPM and 7200RPM.
> Winner gets the job





eidairaman1 said:


> @Bluescreendeath just drop the 5400RPM in and call it a day, it's a general purpose laptop, not specializing in anything, battery life will be more important than super performance.



Thanks. Yep, it's a general purpose laptop with nothing intensive. I'll just drop in the 5400 SSHD and leave it at that.



FordGT90Concept said:


> MQ01ACF050 only has a 16 MB cache which is ridiculously tiny.  I wouldn't use that one at all.
> HTS725050A7 has better sequential performance, lower power consumption, and likely better reliability (don't have to worry about MLC wear).
> ST500LM000 has better random access performance.



How important is that 16MB cache? It did seem pretty low at first glance, but userbenchmark seems to think the MQ01ACF050 is a pretty decent model that outperforms comparable Hitachi Travelstar 2.5 500GBs and even WD Blacks 2.5 500GBs from around the same time (2013-2014).

https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compa...s-HGST-Travelstar-7K750-25--500GB/m7527vsm789
This one says the Toshiba is effectively 8% faster than a WD Black.
https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compa...500GB-vs-WD-Black-25--500GB-2013/m7527vsm3355


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2018)

Quite.  The cache is a DRAM chip that acts as a buffer between the computer and the head.  If the computer is not ready to receive the bytes or the head is not ready to write bytes, it waits in the cache.  The more cache the drive, the bigger the backlog it can handle before the drive starts ignoring requests.  It's like cache everywhere: it's enough until it isn't.

500 GB drives should have 32-64 MB of cache.

HTS725050A7*E63* is faster by 5% (because newer).
HTS725050A7*E630* is slower by 17% (because older).

Synthetic benchmarks may not run into cache issues.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 18, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Quite.  The cache is a DRAM chip that acts as a buffer between the computer and the head.  If the computer is not ready to receive the bytes or the head is not ready to write bytes, it waits in the cache.  The more cache the drive, the bigger the backlog it can handle before the drive starts ignoring requests.  It's like cache everywhere: it's enough until it isn't.
> 
> 500 GB drives should have 32-64 MB of cache.
> 
> ...



Thanks. It seems I have the slower E630 version. 

So Toshiba > HGST in this case?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2018)

If you want to go by synthetic benchmarks but I would still take 64 over 16 even if the average is slower.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Oct 18, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you want to go by synthetic benchmarks but I would still take 64 over 16 even if the average is slower.



Neither drive has 64mb of cache. The HGST has 32mb and the Toshiba has 16mb.

https://www.hgst.com/products/hard-drives/travelstar-z7k500

Would 32mb vs 16mb be more evenly matched or tip the scales to the Toshiba?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2018)

Huh, wonder where I got 64 from.  I'd say Toshiba then.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 18, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Cool story bro, been doing this 20.



Thanks! True story too. 

@ bluescreendeath, like ive said before any of those drives will do fine when running Windows 7. By now you could of install it on both drives and found out for yourself really.


----------



## seagate_surfer (Oct 18, 2018)

Bluescreendeath said:


> Hello, I am upgrading a family member's old laptop and I have a few 5400rpm SSHDs and 7200rpm HDDs lying around. Which would be better for ordinary day to day use? This person doesn't play games and doesn't transfer a lot of large files often. Just internet usage and occasional movies.
> 
> The options I have are:
> 1) used Seagate SSHD with 5400 rpm speed (ST500LM000)
> ...



Based on the needs of your family member, (just internet usage and occasional movies) any of those drives you mention will work just fine. Go with what you are comfortable with and base yourself from your research.


----------



## king of swag187 (Oct 18, 2018)

SSHD's dont really work well in practice, the 7200RPM will be better 90% of the time


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Oct 18, 2018)

Seems like we're all over the place in the suggestions.... why not try each and tell us which one works best?  I'm definitely curious.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 18, 2018)

king of swag187 said:


> SSHD's dont really work well in practice, the 7200RPM will be better 90% of the time



Save the 7200 for performance laptop


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 20, 2018)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Those seagates have never really been reliable at all... Either go full ssd or go home.
> 
> If an ssd is not an option then take the Toshiba. Their drives are pretty good



We have used nothing else but SSHDs having dropped HD usage 7 - 8 years ago ... no failures as yet.  Over the same period, installed just as many SSDs ... 3 failures, 1 being a warranty replacement that also failed.

As for reliability .... RMA rates for desktop drives (no data available on laptop drives) ... but the Seagate SSHDs prove to be a hair more reliable than WD Blacks.... Im happy with anything under 1.5%

0,45% WD Black WD2003FZEX
0,43% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001
As for performance ... Boot Times in same box bootable via BIOS selection:

Samsung Pro SSD = 15.6 seconds
Seagate 7200 rpm SSHD = 16.5 seconds
Seagate 7200 rpm HD = 21.2 seconds

We put a SSD + SSHD in most builds, not unusual to have 2 of each.   For budget builds, adding the SSD used to mean dropping down 1 GFX card niche so wasn't anywhere near worth it.  If it was one or the other, the SSHD was the proverbial no brainer as moving from an X60 to a X70 was far more of an impact than an SSD.  Downside was ... when user had the budget to later add the SSD, they'd be like ... "Eh ... what's the big deal".  Gives great benchmarks but anytime we've gone into any user's box and switched from booting off the SSD to booting off the SSHD, no one has yet noticed.

You can use benchmarks to show how much faster the SSD is but if ya built the box to run apps and games, instead of running benchmarks 24/7 ... the user remains the bottleneck.  It doesn't matter if the box boots 0.9 seconds faster if i spend the next 10 minutes after sitting at my desk in the morning listening to phone messages and returning them.  When gaming I don't care if the game loads faster when it takes 44 seconds for the game to sync with the MMO server or just as long to unplug the charging cable from headset, open discord and load the websites I'll have open with game data.

With prices dropping quickly, I think we'll soon get to the point where it matters less and SSDs do become a no brainer ... but not there yet.   I'll never argue against getting an SSD, I'm a nerd so if "it's there, I must have one".... but buying a HD for bulk storage is simply very hard to justify.

All that being said, OPs dilemma is SSHD or HD ... SSD is not on the table as those are both free.  In that case, the questions is how is the lappie used ?  As OP said, he does'n't routinely open, save or use multi GB files or play games with 40 GB footprints ... so the obvious answer is the SSHD.

Performance wise, the Seagate 5400 rpm drives are a relatively new development; the older 7200 rpm drives had much lower areal density so the performance difference between Seagates original 7200 rpm laptop SSHDs is very close to the newer 5400 rpm laptop drives with greater aereal densities.   So the question as to what's faster involves looking at rpm and data read per rpm.

Our 2 lappies ... one has a Samsung Pro SSD + 2.5" 7200 rpm hard drive and the other has 7200 rpm older 2.5" SSHD ...when someone is going out in the field / out of town, they one with SSHD is always 1st one taken.  As to the reason Seagate moved to the 5400 rpm in the 2.5" laptop drives should be obvious ... 7200 rpm eats more power .. that's kinda "a thing" for lappies .  In addition, if one has a concern about storage subsystem speed, they would be well advised to steer clear of laptops .   Due to the small platter diameter, areal density is substantially reduced ... at the outer edge by a factor 2... far more relevant that rotational speed which has a factor of 1.33

So in the end, its probably 6 of one and half dozen if the other ... as OP hase both ... the only path not on the table is "buy a new SSD".  Since OP had both, he could install one of each and test boot times on both to see how it turns out ... or install one of each (after all cost is the same) assuming it will hold 2.  Then user can boot off one and use the other for extra storage.



spectatorx said:


> I would ask different question: Who the f... in the world did come with an idea to design 5400RPM SSHDD in the first place?! 5400rpm and sshdd both contradict each others' purposes.
> 
> If the only thing you care about is speed then go with sshdd, otherwise go with anything but seagate. Forgetting backblaze's stats from personal experience i had more failed seagate hdds than from any other manufacturer.



We don't have to rely on BB's non-relevant server info where they very features that make a consumer drive "failure resistant" make it fail prematurely in a server environment ... we also don't have to rely on single user experiences.   I don't see the 8 years of 0 failures which we have observed here as statistically reliable but real industry data is readily available for the period that the subject devices were released.

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/954-6/disques-durs.html

Seagate 0,72% (0,69%)
Toshiba 0,80% (1,15%)
Western 1,04% (1,03%)
HGST 1,13% (0,60%)
There's 9 such reports on the site and Seagate finishes with the lowest RMA rate in at least 7 of them, never finishing worst than 2nd.


----------

