Everything You Know About Disks Is Wrong

modapi writes "Google's wasn't the best storage paper at FAST '07. Another, more provocative paper looking at real-world results from 100,000 disk drives got the 'Best Paper' award. Bianca Schroeder, of CMU's Parallel Data Lab, submitted Disk failures in the real world: What does an MTTF of 1,000,000 hours mean to you? The paper crushes a number of (what we now know to be) myths about disks such as vendor MTBF validity, 'consumer' vs. 'enterprise' drive reliability (spoiler: no difference), and RAID 5 assumptions. StorageMojo has a good summary of the paper's key points."

Comments

Re:MTBF

[Wilson_6500]

Um, but doesn't the summary of the paper say that there is no infant mortality effect, and that failure rates increase with time, and thus the bathtub curve doesn't actually apply?

Re:MTBF? RTFA.

[Vellmont]

You might get an MTBF of say, two years, when the reality is that the distribution has a big spike at one month, and the rest of the failures forming a wide bell curve centered at say, five years.


Well, the article actually says that drives don't have a spike of failures at the beginning. It also says failure rates increase with time. So you're right that MTBF shouldn't be taken for a single drive, since the failure rate at 5 years is going to be much higher than at one.

The other thing that the article claims is that the stated MTBF is simply just wrong. It mentioned a stated MTBF of 1,000,000 hours, and an observed MTBF of 300,000 hours. That's pretty bad. It's also quite interesting that the "enterprise" level drives aren't any better than the consumer level drives.

This paper and the Google paper are complementary

[Thagg]

What's interesting about both of these papers is that previously-believed myths are shown to be, in fact, myths.

The Google paper shows that relatively high temperatures and high usage rates don't affect disk life.
The current paper shows that interface (SCSI, FC vs ATA) had no effect either. The Google paper shows
a significant infant mortality that the CMU paper didn't, and the Google paper shows some years of flat
reliability where the current paper shows decreasing reliability from year one.

The both show that the failure rate is far higher than the manufacturers specify, which shouldn't come
as a surprise to anybody with a few hundred disks.

I'm particularly pleased to see a stake driven through the heart of "SCSI disks are more reliable."
Manufacturers have been pushing that principle for years, saying that "oh, we bin-out the SCSI disks
after testing" or some other horseshit, but it's not true and it's never been true. The disks are
sometimes faster, but they're not "better".

Thad

Re:moving parts

[NMerriam]

I thought flash memory had a lower read/write cycle expectancy before crapping out?

They do have a limited read/write lifetime for each sector, BUT the controllers automatically distribute data over the least-used sectors (since there's no performance penalty to non-linear storage), and you wind up getting the maximum possible lifetime from well-built solid-state drives (assuming no other failures).

So in practice, the lifetime of modern solid state will be better than spinning disks as long as you aren't reading and writing every sector of the disk on a daily basis.

Re:moving parts

[wik]

Not true. Transistors at really small dimensions (e.g., 32nm and 22nm processes) will experience soft breakdown during (what used to be) normal operational lifetimes. This will be a big problem in microprocessors because of gate oxide breakdown, NBTI, electromigration, and other processes. Even "solid-state" parts have to tolerate current, electric fields, and high thermal conditions and gradually break down, just like mechanical parts. Don't go believing that your storage will be much safer, either.

Re:Desktop vs Server usage.

[MadMorf]

Most enterprise level operations that relies on their data replace drives before they fail.

You worked at an unusual place!

I'm a Tech Support Engineer for a large storage system manufacturer and I can tell you that NONE of our customers replace disks before they fail unless our OS detects a "predictive failure" for the disk. Our customers are some of the biggest names in business from all over the planet.

Re:Infant Mortality and stuff

[duffbeer703]

That may be the new 'theory' but we all know about theory vs reality. Here in reality if you put a couple of dozen new drives into service you have one or two spare hard drives to replace the ones that WILL fail in the first week. Especially with consumer grade drives typical in workstation deployment. If you only have one dud out of twenty it was a good rollout.

This study looks pretty realistic to me, in fact its better data than the Google paper's because they are looking at different usage scenarios. The study also jives with vendor's warranty periods -- right around the 3 year mark (end of warranty) failures start going up.

I take issue with your "real world vs. theory" argument version workstation disks and server disks as well, only because I have my own numbers. Based on numbers that my company gathers for its 50,000 workstations, the disk failure rate is around 1.9% annually. (Still alot of disks) There are exceptions -- those numbers are driven upward by one deployment of workstations from a vendor that had a 22% failure rate. (the PCs were replaced by the vendor) Server disks are in the same ballpark - slightly less that 2%.

Vendors provide more evidence of that fact. Many servers are being shipped with SATA disks, often the same as what you'll find in workstations. If SATA was less reliable, that would increase the vendor's support costs and they wouldn't ship them.

You're totally right about RAID-5... it can be a dangerous thing for an inept admin. Bad disks often come in batches, and bad controllers can ruin your day. A redundant array of bad data isn't very helpful ;)