Slashdot Mirror


Who Makes the Best Hard Disk Drives?

Hamsterdan writes "Backblaze, the cloud backup company who open sourced their Storage Pod a few years ago, is now providing information on drive failure rates. They currently have over 27,000 consumer grade drives spinning in Backblaze storage pods. There are over 12,000 drives each from Seagate and Hitachi, and close to 3,000 from Western Digital (plus a too-small-for-statistical-reporting smattering of Toshiba and Samsung drives). One cool thing: Backblaze buys drives the way you and I do: they get the cheapest consumer-grade drives that will work. Their workload is almost one hundred percent write. Because they spread the incoming writes over several drives, their workload isn't overly performance intensive, either. Their results: Hitachi has the lowest overall failure rate (3.1% over three years). Western Digital has a slightly higher rate (5.2%), but the drives that fail tend to do so very early. Seagate drives fail much more often — 26.5% are dead by the three-year mark."

36 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Amazing how times change. by t0qer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember when WD caviar drives were the most replaced component on systems I serviced. Seagate was the top contender with their SCSI 10krpm drives.

    1. Re:Amazing how times change. by ZenMatrix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seagate drives are terrible drives now. I've had three of there external drives not last more then a year.

    2. Re:Amazing how times change. by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seagate drives are terrible drives now. I've had three of there external drives not last more then a year.

      Agree, I bought 3 2TB Seagates for my home server a few years back...2 of them failed within a year. Yet another brand name I used to trust, now shot to shit.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    3. Re:Amazing how times change. by gigne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I only have a couple of home servers with a total of 24 disks, 50% WD, the rest seagate. Never had to send a WD back. Those Seagate drives fail all the damn time. I have replaced 25% of them in 1.5 years. Sometimes the brand new replacement (as in a new retail drive) fails very quickly; 1-4 months.
      I also refuse to use any of their RMA replacement drives as they seem to go bad within 6 months. Not a single RMA's drive has lasted more than 1 year.
      At this point I am actively migrating data off those RAID arrays onto the new WD drives. I have no faith in seagate.

      --
      Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
    4. Re:Amazing how times change. by NormAtHome · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you sure about 5TB drives being available on Amazon for a couple hundred dollars? I didn't think Western Digital had released those yet and their website shows 4TB as the max capacity for their Green, Black and Red series drives and Amazon doesn't have any listings for 5TB drives? If they are available can you share a link?

    5. Re:Amazing how times change. by scubamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also a study in the law of large numbers. If 10 million people all say seagate's drives suck, there is a very good possibility that seagate's drives do in fact suck.

    6. Re:Amazing how times change. by QRDeNameland · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is why you just buy whatever is cheap and rig up a RAID 5. A drive craps out and you throw another one in and keep on going.

      That's exactly what I did...note I did not claim to have lost any data when the drives failed. The point is that when you have a 66% failure rate on brand new drives within a year, you start reconsidering your choice of vendor, no?

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    7. Re:Amazing how times change. by brianwski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I'd really recommend RAID6 with at least 2 parity drives. But always remember, RAID is *NOT* backup. RAID doesn't protect against user stupidity like backup does. RAID does not protect against theft. You don't have to use Backblaze for backups, but for goodness sake USE SOMETHING.

    8. Re:Amazing how times change. by unitron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They bought maxtor. The evil was contagious.

      Too young to remember the Conner acquisition?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    9. Re:Amazing how times change. by dfghjk · · Score: 4, Funny

      "RAID doesn't protect against user stupidity ..."

      In fact, RAID 6 depends on it.

    10. Re:Amazing how times change. by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      NewEgg doesn't sell any 5TB drives, internal or external, and nobody makes them either (yet), so... no you can't?

    11. Re:Amazing how times change. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seagate drives are terrible drives now. I've had three of there external drives not last more then a year.

      Agree, I bought 3 2TB Seagates for my home server a few years back...2 of them failed within a year. Yet another brand name I used to trust, now shot to shit.

      Why? Because you bought three drives from the same batch. Perhaps they had an issue with that version, or the firmware. Hard drives are extremely cyclical in regards to quality. I remember when Micropolis, Seagate, Western Digital, Quantum, IBM, Conner, and a couple of others used to trade spots for being the best and worst drive manufacturers on an almost yearly basis. I've gone through a hell of a lot of drives over the years, and don't really have a favorite brand. I've had many WD and Seagate drives fail over the years, though proportionally more WD drives. Currently I have a bunch of Seagate and WD spinning drives, along with a couple of Samsung's. I am pretty superstitious regarding anything call Desk Star though. I've had at least half a dozen different models of Desk Stars from both IBM and Hitachi fail with little warning.

    12. Re:Amazing how times change. by elbonia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was MiniScribe, from the court documents:

      In mid-December 1987, Miniscribe's management, with Wiles' approval and Schleibaum's assistance, engaged in an extensive cover-up which included recording the shipment of bricks as in-transit inventory. To implement the plan, Miniscribe employees first rented an empty warehouse in Boulder, Colorado, and procured ten, forty-eight foot exclusive-use trailers. They then purchased 26,000 bricks from the Colorado Brick Company.

      On Saturday, December 18, 1987, Schleibaum, Taranta, Huff, Lorea and others gathered at the warehouse. Wiles did not attend. From early morning to late afternoon, those present loaded the bricks onto pallets, shrink wrapped the pallets, and boxed them. The weight of each brick pallet approximated the weight of a pallet of disk drives. The brick pallets then were loaded onto the trailers and taken to a farm in Larimer County, Colorado.

      Miniscribe's books, however, showed the bricks as in-transit inventory worth approximately $4,000,000. Employees at two of Miniscribe's buyers, CompuAdd and CalAbco, had agreed to refuse fictitious inventory shipments from Miniscribe totalling $4,000,000. Miniscribe then reversed the purported sales and added the fictitious inventory shipments into the company's inventory records.

    13. Re:Amazing how times change. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DO NOT buy 5 identical drives at the same time from the same place and same manufacturer or face increased risk of more than one dying at (or near) the same time.

      Also keep in mind that raid will not protect you from data corruption (or more correctly, it will assure that you retain corrupt data). The happiest event is when a drive flat out dies.

    14. Re:Amazing how times change. by BLKMGK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that but I prefer to keep my data in MY control and not shoot it up someplace where someone might decide they want to peek at it! Apparently encryption these days offered by vendors is something that can be counted on to be compromised if someone decides to serve them papers. I'll keep my stuff mine thanks...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    15. Re:Amazing how times change. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is why you just buy whatever is cheap and rig up a RAID 5. A drive craps out and you throw another one in and keep on going.

      RAID-5 on a system where you don't think you have high quality drives, a high quality power supply, battery backup (for the RAID card) plus a high quality UPS unit (preferably multiple UPS units hooked up to a set of redundant PSUs inside your case) -- is simply a bad idea. Sooner or later, you *will* lose the array due to a double-drive failure. Oh and make sure that you have plans to swap out drives on a regular basis and have a working backup plan.

      RAID-6 is better, but not by much. It can at least deal with a double drive failure. But performance still goes in the gutter while it's degraded and/or rebuilding.

      One of the more fault-tolerant setups is a 3-way RAID-1 mirror where you can lose 2 of 3 drives without losing data. The downside is that it is only 33% efficient while RAID-6 (1 spare, 2 parity, 5 data) is 62% efficient. A well configured RAID-10 setup also works well, but never gets much above 40-45% space efficiency if you set aside a hot spare for it.

      Main reason why I prefer RAID-10 for larger arrays is that the time to rebuild a failed disk is linear to the size of a single disk within the array (because you have mirror pairs). With RAID-5 / RAID-6 the rebuild time scales with the total size of the array. For a 15-20 drive array, that means RAID-10 could rebuild the failed drive in 1/5 to 1/10 the time of the RAID-5 or RAID-6 array with the same number of spindles.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    16. Re:Amazing how times change. by horza · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have RAID 5 with 4 x 3TB seagate drives. 1 drive failed after a year and the 2nd in the same NAS failed a couple of days later before a replacement could come in the post. So far 3 / 8 Barracuda drives failed in just over 1 year. After just losing 4TB of data, including my entire photo collection, I've sadly realised RAID 5 isn't enough.

      Phillip.

  2. I was shopping for one recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I built a new gaming rig the weekend after Black Friday and had to comparison shop all the consumer hard drives on the market (read: offered by Newegg). From the reviews, Hitachi is a relative unknown, Seagates tend to last just until their three year warranty is up, and Western Digital offers a five year warranty (and a price premium to match). I ended up grabbing the WD Black. Struck by how crap seek times are on 7200 RPM TB+ sized drives.

    1. Re:I was shopping for one recently by Jamu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm currently running a WD Green with an old Samsung SSD 830 as cache. I get the occasional pause if a game loads in something that isn't on the SSD. Overall though it's very fast with that combination and seek times, in particular, aren't an issue except for the first time you play a new game. A WD Black with an SSD as cache should be even better.

      My statistical insignificant experience with HDDs: WD: Old WD Caviar died, but the replacement lasted years. Two WD Greens still working. IBM (Now Hitachi): Had one die, two others still work. Samsung: Both still working. Seagate: Never had any.

      --
      Who ordered that?
  3. Ignorant to their own research by danknight48 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After all this research, Backblaze still pick the highest failing drive.

    "What Drives Is Backblaze Buying Now?
    We are focusing on 4TB drives for new pods. For these, our current favorite is the Seagate Desktop HDD.15 (ST4000DM000)"

    So what was the point in this advert again?

    1. Re:Ignorant to their own research by Derec01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they are fairly fault tolerant, a reasonable Seagate discount percentage would overcome that higher failure rate, even allowing for installation costs. They can spread that failure out. An individual cannot, therefore I appreciate that they released the statistics.

    2. Re:Ignorant to their own research by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe it's a canny strategy. Seagate drives are slightly cheaper because they are significantly less reliable, but tend to fail within the warranty period so they can return them for a referb that has at least been fully tested and maybe lasts another year or two.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Ignorant to their own research by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Informative

      After all this research, Backblaze still pick the highest failing drive

      They're looking for 4TB models. They only cite two models without any further information.

      Seagate ST4000DM000
      vs
      Hitachi HDS5C4040ALE630

      You can look up technical details, benchmarks, etc. but perhaps the decision is simply in the price.
      Seagate: $164.99
      Hitachi: $295.00

      For the Hitachi model to start making sense, price-wise, that Seagate model would have to fail a lot more than their numbers are currently showing,

      ( And yes, I'd imagine they can squeeze better deals than regular consumer prices out of the companies - but then, they could do that for either brand, and probably through an intermediary anyway. )

    4. Re:Ignorant to their own research by brianwski · · Score: 5, Informative

      After all this research, Backblaze still pick the highest failing drive.

      Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze. Every month we ask a list of about 20 suppliers for their best price on a variety of drives. There is a little spreadsheet we have that kicks out which drive to purchase based on those prices and drive failure rates. Even if Hitachi is the very highest reliability in our application, it only justifies a SMALL price premium because when one drive dies, we don't lose any customer data. It saves our datacenter IT team 15 minutes to *NOT* swap a drive, so that's worth 15 minutes of salary to us, but not more.

    5. Re:Ignorant to their own research by BLKMGK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A question if I may - what are the experiences of BackBlaze when it comes to so called "bit rot"? You guys have enough drives in operation that this is a potential issue and I'm curious as to experience and countermeasures if any. With the rise of ZFS and BTRFS etc. this has been something that has caught my eye but I'm not yet sure it's something I'm inclined to worry about so i'm curious as to unbiased experiences. i know there has been an article or two in the past about how BackBlaze works but I don't recall these kinds of low level details being in it. Can you share?

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  4. And what about... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enterprise grade disks? The cheapest disk is not always the cheapest disk in the long run. I can buy consumer disks for my disk servers, but when they fail I have to spend time replacing them and paying for them myself. When my enterprise grade disks fail, they're under warranty and are replaced "free".

    1. Re:And what about... by brianwski · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze. I object to the marketing term "Enterprise grade", it is confusing, and I'm not even sure they have the attributes you think they have. There is a completely different blog post Backblaze did about "Enterprise vs Consumer Drives" which comes to the conclusion Enterprise isn't better: http://blog.backblaze.com/2013...

    2. Re:And what about... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      I object to the marketing term "Enterprise grade", it is confusing, and I'm not even sure they have the attributes you think they have.

      Obviously, they're designed to work on the Enterprise. Now whether that's the aircraft carrier, space shuttle, or star ship is unclear.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:And what about... by brianwski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Write-mostly workloads to a bunch of consumer grade disks will have errors that you may never detect.

      At Backblaze, we try to pass over the data about once every two weeks. We re-read it from disk, recalculate a SHA1 checksum to make sure there wasn't any bits flipped or lost. It is my (informed) opinion that *ALL* hard drives and *ALL* configurations will have errors you may never detect unless you do this. You can't ever trust any file system.

      I think many people assume RAID does this checksumming, as far as I know RAID handles entire drives failing, but it doesn't really have anything to do with a drive that has begun to fail and is starting to flip a few bits here and there but the drive is still mostly responsive.

  5. That's interesting by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the past 11 years, I used nothing but Seagate drives in my builds for clients. Over those past 11 years, I built something like 20 systems a month (on average) with occasional large scale orders of 200. The number of failed Seagates I could count *on one hand* YMMV clearly, but I stand behind Seagates.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:That's interesting by fisted · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well I don't know how many fingers your have on one hand, but it can't be possibly be just five.

  6. Depends on model by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you RTFA, they break down the failure rates by model (no pun intended). There's a pretty huge variation between models (or at least the Seagate models). That's also what I saw in the StorageReview reliability database back when people were actively updating it (unfortunately you have to add a drive to the database to get access to it, so it was never very popular). The same manufacturer can make a gem and a stinker of a model. e.g. the IBM 75GXP (aka Deathstar) drives had one of the highest failure rates in the database. The drive which replaced it (60GXP I think) had one of the lowest failure rates in the database.

    So it's more nuanced than "Seagate stinks, Hitachi rules." (Hitachi is a subsidiary of WD now, operating separately only because that was a condition China placed on them before they'd OK the merger.)

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Re:More Backblaze slashvertising by oneiron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Slashvertising? Oh welll... I, for one, am happy to have a source of failure rate data from an entity that uses a high volume of consumer level hard drives. I hope they continue to publish these numbers because HD failure rates are a moving target. The only thing better would be to have failure rates on specific model numbers. I'm now tweaking my slickdeals alert to filter for hitachi drives.

  9. Re:Amazing how times *don't* change. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Informative

    And in the last 25 years I've replaced about 200 failed drives. The Maxtors failed at about 5x the rate of the Seagates. That shows you want ancidotal evidence is worth.

    To know actual reliability, you need stats on the level of Google or Amazon, that can tally failures by the 10's of thousands.

  10. Google has already done this by cpm99352 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I searched on 4+ comments, and didn't see anything, so here is Google's study> (they go through a lot of drives)