I did, I picked HGST because of their reports. No problems so far.
When you buy hard disks ONLY buy from Amazon or Newegg directly - never buy from a 3rd party seller on their site. Especially for hard disks there is too much fraud, and for a hard disk especially the risk of data loss makes it just too risky (unlike other items).
Just bought some drives that were fulfilled via Amazon (but not sold by Amazon.com LLC themselves). You've given me something to check when they arrive.
I don't always buy the exact models, but I've switched to HGST few years ago after studying Backblaze reports and so far, no regrets (I'm running heavily used postgres on these drives at home)
I chose to get 4 ST4000DM000 drives based on previous reports. Sure HGST drives never die, but it's cheaper to RMA or buy a single new drive if one fails, than the added cost of 4 reliable drives. Assuming only one fails, which is a risk I'm willing to take with my very non-mission-critical data.
I don't read this as 'which drive to buy' but more as 'which drive not to buy'.
Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze. I know you didn't mean that as an absolute, but I just want to point out 100% of drives fail. It's my OCD that makes me point this out. We have NEVER found a drive that lasted forever. There are two types of drives: 1) those that have already failed, and 2) those that are about to fail. For any data you would be annoyed to lose, you need three copies in three locations with three separate vendors (three different pieces of software that don't share any lines of code).
18 disk zpool with three raidz2 vdevs, with 2 disks from 3 different vendors per vdev, bought in two batches per vendor and evenly spread across the case. That's about as paranoid as I consider practical for the homelab/online part of my storage needs.
Also, not sure there are three pieces of storage software that I trust and are readily available to me.
To be somewhat similarly OCD, if your software is controlling storage to each of those drives, then there are many shared LOC involved; indeed, this is the reason why async replication into separate clusters is always recommended for data which can't be lost.
Note to self: stay the hell away from Western Digital. Good lord, an 8.2% annualized failure rate? That's unbelievable. They have the first, second, and third worst failure rates on that chart.
A few years ago, you could have said the same for Seagate. Even worse, actually. Certain models had over 10% failure rate. Some WD models almost had HGST levels of relibility.
Hmmm. Curious. I wonder if Seagate has improved their production somehow to avoid those failure rates, because even with those previous very high rates, they fare much better on the 2013-2016 total chart.
They might have. But I also wonder if those drives were among the first after the 2011 Thailand floods, and if Seagate's factories were still a bit dirty after resuming production.
For example when I search for HGST HMS5C4040ALE640 on Amazon I get a dealer selling old out of warrantee drives as new.
https://www.amazon.com/HGST-MegaScale-HMS5C4040ALE640-Coolsp...
I get similar results with many of the other drives listed and with other websites such as NewEgg.