Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

I love the data, but I'm a little mad that Hitachi had to die as a company and got sold into pieces.

I'm not sure if I trust what you guys did, calling the old Hitachi Drives as HGST. Technically, the 3.5" drives from Hitachi got sold to Toshiba.

For example, the Toshiba DT01ACA300 is allegedly the same design as the Hitachi 7k3000.

In the following link, note that the "HDS723030BLE640" is the model number to the 7k3000 with ridiculously low failure rates in the Backblaze study.

http://goughlui.com/2013/02/26/toshiba-dt01aca300-aka-hitach...

I don't know if HGST drives are related to the old Hitachi models at all.

Again, I hate to criticize such awesome research that you've given away for free in your blog. But I'd definitely would like some research and clarification on the Hitachi -> Toshiba or Hitachi -> HGST situation.

View on HN

Backblaze employee here - we're also going to release the raw data in a few weeks, which I believe will have every last drive serial number (that uniquely identifies the hard drive in the universe) plus a metric ton of other stuff, so hopefully you can mine that for the info you want.

> I'm not sure if I trust what you guys did, calling the old Hitachi Drives as HGST.

> I don't know if HGST drives are related to the old Hitachi models at all.

FTA:

> Some of the HGST drives listed were manufactured under their previous brand, Hitachi. We’ve been asked to use the HGST name and we have honored that request.

I do realize that is what was asked of them. But that doesn't necessarily mean that was the correct way to go about it.

The Serial Number / Model Number information on the other hand should work if enough details are provided.

>We’ve been asked to use the HGST name and we have honored that request. //

Intriguing - that suggests some sort of advertising deal? Which calls in to question the impartiality of the report.

Who asked them? In what context? Why accede to a third parties interference in the report?

Are Backblaze getting reduced price HGST drives now?

The manufacturer of the hard drives was listed incorrectly by Backblaze. It's as simple as that.

Hitachi (owned by Toshiba) and HGST (owned by WD) are two different companies. You can't say a drive was manufactured by Hitachi/Toshiba when it was actually a HGST drive.

If the drive has|had the Hitachi brand on it you absolutely can say that's what brand of drive it is|was.

As I understand: WD bought HGST (Hitachi Global Storage Technologies), then sold on the manufacturing of 3.5" drives to Toshiba to comply with EU and FTC requirements (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5635/western-digital-to-sell-h...). WD retained the 2.5" side of the HGST manufacture.

I doubt anyone wants to buy a WD HGST branded drive on the strength of the past manufacture in what are now Toshiba owned factories. WD would want the past drives, sold as Hitachi, to be called HGST as it boosts that brand - but to some extent that would be misinformation.

So back to this:

>Some of the HGST drives listed were manufactured under their previous brand, Hitachi. //

Those Hitachi brand drives were it seems made in facilities that Toshiba own now. HGST is now a WD brand (though they were not quite one company as of Dec 2014) - unless the "Hitachi" drives were made in WD facilities the calling them HGST gives quite the wrong impression.

It's quite convoluted and I don't really follow HDD manufacture news that much; please correct me if I'm wrong.

That is exactly how i understand it as well. HGST, or all HDD from Hitachi are now basically under Toshiba. Those 2.5" HDD capacity that sold to WD are all under WD brand.

This is my understanding as well, but as you note its very convoluted.

Which is why I'm sure the HGST label on the graphs is an honest mistake. The hard drive world was severely shaken up as Hitachi got bought out by WD, and then FTC / EU split that company up on monopoly grounds.

There's no need to use a conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, it seems like the super-reliable "Hitachi 7k3000" of old is in fact a Toshiba drive today.

I'm a little confused why we expect people to be hostile to friendly requests in the absence of back-room dealing... what's the harm in saying "sure" and including that footnote? And don't we expect enough human decency for them to mention if there were financial considerations in the reporting?

The "harm" is in misinformation, and damage to the brand.

The Hitachi 5K3000 and Hitachi 7K3000 are amongst the most reliable hard drives in the report. Those drives are 3 years or more old and yet have some of the lowest failure rates in the study.

Unfortunately, Hitachi doesn't exist anymore. Hitachi as a company was split and sold in pieces. It is either HGST (owned by WD) or Toshiba.

I want to buy the 7k3000 today. Which hard drive manufacturer is making the modern equivalent? Is it the Toshiba DT01ACA300, or is it the "HGST Deskstar" ??

Despite sharing the same branding, I don't think HGST Deskstar is in fact from the same factory as the Hitachi Deskstars. When you look at the HGST Deskstars, they have WD Technology in them ("Coolspin" RPM).

The Toshiba DT01ACA300 has very similar performance characteristics to the old Hitachi 7k3000 drive.

So its a confusing situation. Which is why I'd like clarification. I bet that the Toshiba DT01ACA300 is actually the super-reliable hard drive that I want, but I admit that I'm a bit ignorant on this front.

Switching factories could certainly happen without a corporate structure change, though, right?

If it's important to track this information, I think it's relevant to mention it specifically, and I'd expect an honest review to discuss important changes like this (if they're aware of them), regardless of the brand names mentioned. If HGST requested that the review not mention a change in factory or technology, or refused to answer questions about it, then yes, I'd suspect malice somewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com