Slashdot Mirror


How Reliable Are 10TB and 12TB Hard Drives? Backblaze Publishes Q1 2018 Hard Drive Reliability (zdnet.com)

Wolfrider writes: Backblaze's hard drive report for the first quarter 2018 makes very interesting reading for anyone who is interested in hard drive performance and reliability. As of March 31, 2018, the company had 100,110 hard drives working for it, made up of 1,922 boot drives and 98,188 data drives, ranging from 3TB WDC WD30EFRX drives all the way up to 10TB and 12TB Seagate ST10000NM0086 and ST12000NM0007 drives, along with 10 Samsung 850 EVO SSDs. [...] The overall Annualized Failure Rate (AFR) for Q1 sat at just 1.2 percent, well below the Q4 2017 AFR of 1.65 percent. Some drives had an AFR of 0 percent (in other words, no drives failed during the period), while the 4TB Seagate ST4000DM000 had the highest AFR of 2.3 percent (out of 30,941 drives the company had in service, 178 failed during the Q1 period).

123 comments

  1. Largest drive I have = 2 TB by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    My NAS has 2 TB drives... I think it's maybe 10% full.

    1. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by ledow · · Score: 3, Informative

      My laptop has 2 x 1Tb drives.

      Both are full.

      I don't even go mad - I store no video, I don't even OWN any music, my family photos take up about a gig.

      But things like virtual machines, programming environments, and even installing, say, 10% of my Steam games fills my hard drives up ludicrously fast.

      Compare and contrast to my workplace - where we have about 20-30Gb for each user at maximum and about 10% of that is used. 600+ users, 12Tb of active storage (not counting reserved space, backup, replication, etc.).

      It very much depends on what you want to do, but my Steam library could easily hit 300-400Gb on its own. If anyone else used the laptop but me you could likely have each user doing that.

      Then things like virtual machines etc. can whack it up enormously.

      If you're not a gamer, a video-hoarder, a photographer, a content-creator, a developer, etc. then, sure, you can cope on less space.

      Personally, I'm just glad my laptop has two drive bays.

    2. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I *wish* my current laptop had two drive bays. My partially retired 2011 17" MacBook Pro has a 512 GB SSD and a 1 TB spinner inside. Much easier to deal with large video projects than the Thunderbolt hard drive attached to my newer 15 incher. Be nice if Apple actually understood that some projects have to be longer than 30 seconds and displayed on screens larger than an iPad. ..... Sadly wanders off to look at his collection of Firewire stuff......

      (My NAS has 32TB of space and it's half full. Video is a bitch.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0

      Umm. Has Slashdot deprecated the Return key? Are we going back to EDBIC or something?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My gaming rig alone (also treated as media server) has 1x1TB (OS), 1x3TB (data & games), and 2x6TB (media). I have another 20x3TB in external drives serving as backups.

    5. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      EBCDIC. If you're going for nerd cred, at least get it right.

    6. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Or if you run a large project.

      My "small" environment at work produces 40GB of final product for every full build, every day. If we include intermediate products (which make troubleshooting much easier), it's pushing 120GB per build... and we're trying to ramp up to about 20 full builds each day. Quick computation estimates about 48TB per month at that rate.

      Now, we don't need to keep old builds around forever... most of the time. We currently have about 15TB of data we can't get rid of for contract reasons, and have to protect in various inconvenient (offline, checksummed, archived) ways. All together, we have about 150 hard drives to keep track of, scattered around our environment in various places*.

      Bigger drives would make my life easier.

      * Let's not get into a discussion about architecture... management doesn't agree with the silly concepts like "best practices" that the sysadmins keep talking about.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You have 60TB to back up 20TB of data?

    8. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      That's roughly where I was at for a number of years, but when my wife got pregnant last year we figured it was time to assemble some local storage on our network for keeping original copies of our photos and videos, storing our Time Machine backups, and hosting our Plex and (old, not-yet-stripped-of-DRM) iTunes content, so I picked up 4 x 5TB drives and slapped them in a directly-connected enclosure with a RAID 5 configuration. It's FAR more than we currently need, but Black Friday served up some steep discounts on large, high quality drives, and it's nice to know that we have room to grow without concern for many years. Plus, as a direct-connected enclosure, it gets backed up to Backblaze with the computer to which it's attached, whereas a NAS would require a separate backup plan.

      At this point we're using about 1.5 of the 15 TB available for storage (the other 5 TB go to parity for RAID 5), but I still need to move our Time Machine backups to it and I'm still nowhere close to being done (re-)ripping the discs we own for Plex, so I expect we'll be closer to 3-5 TB by the time I'm done with what we currently have.

    9. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      You have 60TB to back up 20TB of data?

      That sounds right to me. I don't know how may TB of storage I have as I haven't bothered to add it all up in a while. But I have three times that amount in backups. I run one mirrored backup daily to a set of drives, another that runs monthly, I think that one's differential, and a third that runs two weeks after the monthly backup to external drives that I swap out to an offsite location. Actually I guess since I keep a set of external drives on site and one off site, I actually have 4X the drive capacity for backups than what I'm actually storing. Plus a couple TB of internet storage for family pictures and videos.

    10. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats cause you have no media....

    11. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Causemos · · Score: 1

      While I'm impatiently waiting until the 16TB drives are released so the 12TB prices will come down to reasonable levels.

    12. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I have a 6TB of RAID storage and it's nearly full. Almost all of that is ripping all Blu-Rays, DVDs and CDs to central storage.

    13. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually have 4X the drive capacity for backups than what I'm actually storing.

      Man... that makes no sense. Nowadays compression and deduping are mainstream. Unless absolutely all your data is already compressed or unique, I don't see how 3X is justified, let alone 4X.

    14. Re: Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, but it looks like their [x] post anonymously feature isn't working for you

    15. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by GoTeam · · Score: 1

      Seems like some simple deduplication would do wonders for your environment. Many storage arrays support it now. Some do better work than others.

    16. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like us would benefit from more detailed info about SSD reliability.

      I don't need many disks for capacity, but I do run multiple spindles 24/7 for redundancy and hot-sparing. I want the hot spare so it can detect a disk failure and start rebuilding immediately rather than waiting until I notice and get around to installing a replacement. I've run in this mode for ~ 15 years without any data loss. I've only fed it replacement drives from newegg and replaced the non-storage guts once in a while when the market had moved along sufficiently and/or to deal with a failed component.

      For the power/heat savings, performance, and quiet, I'd gladly rebuild my NAS again with a new motherboard with a couple nvme SSDs. I'm just worried that I don't understand the failure modes well enough to expect this kind of system to also keep running in a painless fashion for many years and no ugly data-destroying surprises.

      I try to do some offline and even offsite backups, but given that I've never had to actually recover from a total loss, I don't trust my discipline as well as I do the more automatic protection of RAID and nightly online backups I run within the system itself.

    17. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even simple things to protect data, like ZFS? It's checksummed, redundant, has snapshots, and copy on write without you having to do anything. And it's FREE (as in beer).

    18. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If his builds are mostly the same data with only a few GB worth of actual changes, ZFS would be amazing for his organization. He could rsync the current build to the NAS running ZFS and then snapshot the build. The next build could overwrite the previous build and the snapshot would hold the diffs. The actual disk space taken by each build would only be the size of the diff. Turn on LZ4 compression and things get even better.

    19. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by ruddk · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I run virtual machines on my QNAP, backups and volume snapshots that takes up space. Then there's all my home videos, 400GB recorded on my last vacation of boring stuff. :D I have no problem filling the 4x8TB drives and the 4*4TB drives.
      The 4TB drives are WD drives that have run for 5 years now, iirc, the scheduled disk scrubbing havent revealed anything yet on those , but the 2TB drives that were replaced with 8TB because they were starting to get recoverable errors and have been with me since 2 QNAPs ago(but also only been running for 5 years).
      I get a lot of milage on my drives. :D

    20. Re: Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's just a demonstration of the power of Apple computers.

    21. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      I don't know in what industry you work, but this makes me cringe... in finance or pharma this is just a regulatory risk waiting to turn into huge fines and more important, loss of reputation. Maybe you could point out to your managers that damage to reputation will always be much more expensive than the cost of a decent storage system.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    22. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just put these 3x or 4x drives into same box, and dedupe them, then you'll only need 1x.

      Sarcasm aside this is all home computer data. The guy has two 6TB drive for media : this is compressed and unique. If you remember mp3 files and divx .avi movies, we've been able to easily fill up drives with compressed and unique data for a long time.

      Games have more compressible data.. but might not be worth it and on the contrary most of it might be compressed : textures and sounds, the biggest data eaters, which were typically not compressed in older times but do are now.

    23. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have more backed up than just my gaming rig, plus I have secondary back ups for really irreplaceable stuff (and even tertiary for the most important).

    24. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a very large media collection (CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays) that are backed up on many of those external drives (and actually there are more than 20. that was just a top-of-head guess). There is no sense in trying to compress them. All my PCs are imaged and compressed with Clonezilla. They don't really take a lot of space because I only image the system drive. All my games and stuff are on other drives.

    25. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      ZFS is not permitted, for reasons mostly boiling down to either "we didn't pay enough money for it" (for anything BSD) or "that's too expensive" (for anything Oracle). Free (as in beer) is a big scary concept according to one of our contract terms, but they still won't approve purchases.

      I've been pushing the idea of a BTRFS-based NAS to get most of the same features, but even going to a NAS at all is a big architecture change, enough to require many assurances that "centralized is a good thing" and "this is cheaper in the long run (of the next 2 months)". Add on to that that BTRFS is new and scary, and the guy in charge just wants a nice big RAID 5 array, because that's what he's comfortable with... and I don't have nearly enough rum to discuss this further.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    26. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a government contract, passed through several rounds of subcontracting... In the eyes of management, the risk of having to redo documentation and approvals is scarier than the risk of data loss. There's no risk to reputation, because this architecture was properly approved by the customer back when it was built, when the builds were only a few tens of megabytes. Any failure now is not our problem.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    27. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Android OS builds run about 300 GB each. And I usually have to track 3 trees. Builds go massively faster if I'm on an SSD, so my most active development goes there. You'd think a Fortune 500 company would buy every developer a massive multi-terabyte SSD, but part of our success is not spending money until we absolutely have to (or so I assume). I managed to get a 512GB drive, and that's how I and most other developers have been functioning for the last 3 years.
      The difference in built time on HDD and SSD is about 2.5 hours versus 75 minutes. Is developer time worth the price of an SSD? Sure. But I don't sit there doing nothing waiting for my builds to complete, so it's hard to say that the time is really lost. It's more like added latency than wasted time.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    28. Re: Largest drive I have = 2 TB by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      "... we figured...". Smart. Always good to include the wifey for cover when she asks wtf this $1000 bill for hard drives.

    29. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Hmm okay. I understand. It still makes me cringe.

      I think due diligence here means covering your ass with a few formal warnings here and there. You know it will all come down crashing at some point, and then everyone will look downward for someone to blame and they end up with the IT people as potential scapegoats.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    30. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      I also don't own much of the music I store. ;-)

    31. Re:Largest drive I have = 2 TB by ledow · · Score: 1

      Sure.

      But I literally don't have music. Because I don't listen to it.

      If I hear it, fine. But I don't purchase, "steal", stream or store it.

      I think I "own" a single music track, and that was purchased for something to do with work.

  2. So, by the sound of it... by Type44Q · · Score: 1
    So, by the sound of it, Seagate still has the highest failure rates - by far - for mechanical drives.

    I recall their SCSI drives being the shit...

    1. Re: So, by the sound of it... by Type44Q · · Score: 2, Informative

      Their "lifetime" chart,however, might reveal a different story...

    2. Re: So, by the sound of it... by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      HGST 4TB's (three different models) look the best, if I'm interpreting the data correctly...

    3. Re: So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But if you look at lifetime stats the two Western Digital drives have the highest failure rates.

      https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/blog-Q1-2018-lifetime-drive-stats.png

    4. Re: So, by the sound of it... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      Rows with less than 10K drive count should be ignored because they tend to have a higher error margin. This leaves Seagate as highest failure rate with 2.9% for their 4TB drives.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:So, by the sound of it... by ledow · · Score: 2

      Anecdotal evidence:

      I've been at my current workplace for 4 years. In that time EVERY SINGLE Seagate-branded drive has failed - dozens and dozens of them. In RAID arrays, in servers (15K SAS etc.), in NAS, in desktops, in clients.

      Replacing with WD as we go - and repurposing old WDs they already had to serve in the Seagate's places - I've had precisely one WD failure. And we think that took a whack because it hit the floor.

      Seagate drives honestly are shocking in their build quality.

    6. Re:So, by the sound of it... by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time Seagate was the premiere hard drive to have. Those days are long gone as Western Digital has been the ranking king of at least 10 years now.

    7. Re: So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But that is unfair as none of the stats for WD would be included - doh! Either include and compare or filter and ignore, you can't have it both ways?

    8. Re: So, by the sound of it... by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Not really. Rows with less than 10K drive count should be ignored because they tend to have a higher error margin. This leaves Seagate as highest failure rate with 2.9% for their 4TB drives.

      Why "not really"? They list the error margins and the failure rate for WD 6 TB drives remains higher than Seagate 6 TB even taking into account the reported confidence interval. Also, the confidence intervals for about 1,000 drives are very similar to those of about 10,000 drives. You don't need 10k drives to get an accurate estimate.

    9. Re: So, by the sound of it... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a reason why they have fewer Western Digital drives...

    10. Re: So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I prefer real science and not anecdotal evidence. Was your firm intentionally sold a dodgy batch? Chinese owned parent company? Perhaps the firmware implants did their job. Who knows.

    11. Re:So, by the sound of it... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      So, by the sound of it, Seagate still has the highest failure rates - by far - for mechanical drives.

      In general, yes.

      I'm not really surprised though, given how much cost-cutting goes on - the real reason is they are stupidly cheap - HGST drives are horrendously expensive (but yeah, they have a way lower failure rate) and WD drives are somewhere in the middle. And yes, if retailers can heavily discount Seagate drives, it really means they didn't cost too much to begin with.

      So far the worst drives universally are the "green" ones - really cheap, but really poor quality no matter who made them. Those fail rapidly and always.

    12. Re:So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I back up your anecdotal evidence with more of the same. Over the course of decades, I've used or supported desktop machines and notebooks that use Seagate, WD, IBM, HGST, Toshiba, Quantum, etc.

      HGST (nee IBM) haven't been that common, but have been very reliable. I bought a fair number during the DeskStar days and was very happy with them. I still have a few HGST humming happily away.

      WD have been largely as reliable; they haven't been perfect, but they've been much less failure-prone than Seagate.

      Seagate have had all kinds of issues and failures over the decades. I haven't allowed them in my personal computers or NASes for years, but we still end up with a bunch of them in OEM computers at work. And they continue to fail much more often than the WDs. When running verification scans of drives, it's been my observation that Seagate seems to rely heavily on ECC as part of the business-as-usual of data retrieval rather than as a safety net to deal with exceptions. I don't trust hard drives with no safety net.

    13. Re: So, by the sound of it... by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Yeah the HGST drives are looking very good. The seagate drives (the first 2, might work out to the better investment though; due to being 2.5 to 3 times the size).

      (ie If you have 1000 seagate 12TB drives (12000TB), and need to replace 10 per year (1% failure rate), that might still work out better than having 3000 HGST 4TB drives (the same 12000TB), where you need to replace 0.5% year because that's 15 of them.

      I'm guessing that 10 12TB costs probably costs around twice as much as a 15 of the 4TB drives, but the power, and space, and enclosure cost savings of the higher density still might put the seagates ahead.

      Depends on

    14. Re:So, by the sound of it... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      HGST (nee IBM) haven't been that common, but have been very reliable. I bought a fair number during the DeskStar days and was very happy with them. I still have a few HGST humming happily away.

      You may have had the HGST Deskstars, but it's obvious you didn't ever use any of the IBM Deathstars. I had hundreds of the 60GB ones fail from the click of death. 100% failure rate on those damn things. I have 15K RPM SCSI Seagates that still work fine, along with an array of Micropolis Tomahawk SCSI drives. Not that I spin those up very often. They sound like a jet engine starting.

      I've said it before, but hard drive manufacturers have been pretty cyclical over the years as to which was good and which was bad. Seagate, WD, Connor, Micropolis, Quantum, etc all ranged from being the best hard drive manufacturer to the worst on a fairly regular interval. At this point there are only two real HD companies left. Seagate and WD. One of those two companies acquired all of the others that are left. All of the other manufacturers are bankrupt or their parent company closed down HD operations. HGST, Samsung, Toshiba, etc. are all owned by Seagate or WD. Some of those are still operating independently as part of the terms of their sale, but they will all be folded into their parent company at some point.

    15. Re:So, by the sound of it... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      No, that's not what the report shows at all. The first chart you're basing that on is the stats for this quarter alone. Seagate drives failed the most simply because Backblaze uses a lot more Seagate drives than other brand drives.

      The chart you want to look at is the last one in the report - lifetime failure rates. Mainly the annualized failure rate and confidence interval high/low columns. Those percentages take into account the number of drives in the sample, and how many days they've been in service. WD drives are by far the worst, with the highest annualized failure rate. Only a single Seagate drive model performs worse than the best WD drive model (which has a small sample size so the confidence interval is large - i.e. the uncertainty in its failure rate is large).

      Past Backblaze reports also tried to normalize by years in service (under the assumption that drives which have been in use longer have a higher chance of failing). But they don't seem to be doing that anymore.

    16. Re: So, by the sound of it... by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I think that reason is that while the WDs might be more reliable, their extra cost doesn't usually make it worth while for the scale they are working at.

    17. Re: So, by the sound of it... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      HGST drives have been the most reliable ones for at least 3 years now. I only buy HGST drives and across all my computers, not a single one has failed, not even a bad block.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    18. Re:So, by the sound of it... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Are you being paid by WDC? Because the stats published in TFA don't support your contention that WDC is the king.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re: So, by the sound of it... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Yes, price. Backblaze buys the cheapest HDDs they can find.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    20. Re: So, by the sound of it... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I assume you are talking about confidence intervals. The problem with them is that they are calculated solely based on sample size. They're not weighted against the possibility of having a bad batch, for example. Improperly stored or transported or built drives could severely skew the data.

      But even if we reduce the lower range bound to 1000 drives, the classification remains unchanged.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    21. Re: So, by the sound of it... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Rule #3 of analytics: data is politically neutral.
      So all WD drives would be excluded, so what? We won't include them in the comparison either.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    22. Re:So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correct, the stats published by back-blaze do not.

      BUT the stats published by both companies to the SEC as a part of their quarterly reporting requirements unequivocally show WDC is doing much better on sales ,eps and growth basis. it's not even close.

    23. Re:So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the sound of it, Seagate is the ONLY manufacturer for which they tested 10TB and 12TB drives, so we don't really have anything to compare to, except other size drives. Lame.

      Anyway, looks like they're saying the newer, bigger Seagates are approximately as reliable as the 6TB and 8TH Seagates, but more reliable than the legendarily-bad 4TB Seagates, slightly better than the new HGSTs but not as good as the old HGSTs. (And they use so few Western Digital ones, that their numbers are too noisy.)

    24. Re: So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that 10TB Seagate seems pretty solid. Lowest failure rate and even at the high end of the confidence interval about as good or better than anything other than the HGSTs (we'll ignore the HGST with the obviously wrong high confidence value of 0.10%).

    25. Re:So, by the sound of it... by Calydor · · Score: 2

      I don't care about sales, eps and growth.

      I care about hard drive reliability.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    26. Re: So, by the sound of it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're a complete moron, you'd never do 1000 12TB (not TiB) drives as 12000 TB (again, not TiB) of storage.
      The first 12TB drive itself would crash old-fashioned RAID5 recovery.

      You'd probably want to do something like 3 way mirroring, where each set of 3 disks added to the zpool are mirrored that way.
      You go from 12000TB to 4000TB, but your performance and availability go up.
      You could do single pair mirror and engage multiple copies per file for crucial datasets as another way to boost space, but allow for additional redundancy for critical data.

    27. Re: So, by the sound of it... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Rule #2 of analytics: your subjective choices and interpretation are wildly biased.

      The correct approach is to compare drives or manufacturers based on statistical testing while making a minimum of arbitrary choices.

    28. Re: So, by the sound of it... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you have the right data for it. If you don't, you include the subset you have enough data for and don't talk about the drives/manufacturers you don't have enough data for.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    29. Re: So, by the sound of it... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      what the fuck are you gibbering on about?

      Obviously, filesystem volume capacity due to RAID organization sits on top of total underlying physicl drive capacity. But that makes no difference here.

    30. Re: So, by the sound of it... by ledow · · Score: 1

      I'm discussing THOUSANDS of individual purchases, from all kinds of manufacturers, dozens of different resellers, at all kinds of levels (everything from servers to storage arrays, desktops, hard drive purchases) bought over nearly a decade.

  3. seagate---never again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Still will not purchase seagate for myself due to past failure rates and garbage warranty. i suspect they give backblaze the cream of the crop.

    couple months back, a separate division of my employer had 3 of a 16 disk group fail within 2 days -- killing a raid-6 group. These were 8TB seagate disks and were ~6 months old.

    1. Re:seagate---never again by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 2

      couple months back, a separate division of my employer had 3 of a 16 disk group fail within 2 days -- killing a raid-6 group. These were 8TB seagate disks and were ~6 months old.

      This is why, as a rule, you shouldn't populate a RAID with drives from the same manufactured batch.

    2. Re:seagate---never again by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Very true, old advice, but can not be repeated often enough!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Burst coin by iTrawl · · Score: 0

    If they're not mining Burst they're missing out on some money.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    1. Re:Burst coin by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If they're not mining Burst they're missing out on some money.

      Burstcoin was a cute idea, but no --- mining it's not profitable if you buy 4TB drives for that: you'll lose money on the purchase,
      and probably cause a premature failure of your hardware.
      The coin would either need much more value, or we'd need a much cheaper storage medium than even tape.

    2. Re:Burst coin by iTrawl · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about us guys, but the guys in the article, who are keeping almost a hundred thousand drives powered up all the time for their tests. It's a positive delta if they get some Burst while at it. While it's a rounding error for you and me, the rounding error might become noticeable at that capacity.

      --
      "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  5. Name a time and place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ...and we can have a "discussion" about this.

    1. Re:Name a time and place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitting "your kind" is asking for AIDS. No thanks. I heard ALL about you "fellas" (all triggered by this hit song) https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12063858&cid=56548400/

  6. Personally have had good luck with Seagate by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Over time I've had pretty good luck with Seagate drives, and if you look at the data it seems some models are more stable than others...

    That said it does seem like in recent years HGST has gotten pretty good so I've started to shift to them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Personally have had good luck with Seagate by DaMattster · · Score: 2

      I still believe that the best hard drives are Western Digital Black and Gold models. I have some that are well past their prime and should have failed but keep on reliably clicking away. I just re-formatted one and still no bad sectors.

    2. Re: Personally have had good luck with Seagate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here but I honestly don't care as long as yearly failure rates stay below a few percent. Lifetime rates should be considered against warranty period too as MTBF from vendors can change too. Enterprise versus commodity quality unsure how much it matters between tech across different models, more platters used to mean higher risk of heads crashing.

    3. Re:Personally have had good luck with Seagate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still believe

      The hard data on over 100,000 drives operating 24/7 offers slightly more credence than "believing" in your two or three data-points.

    4. Re:Personally have had good luck with Seagate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I still believe that the best hard drives are Western Digital Black and Gold models. I have some that are well past their prime and should have failed but keep on reliably clicking away. I just re-formatted one and still no bad sectors.

      Now that you've said that, watch Murphy's law kick in.

    5. Re:Personally have had good luck with Seagate by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Over time I've had pretty good luck with Seagate drives, and if you look at the data it seems some models are more stable than others...

      Yeah, I outfitted a RAID array with the infamous ST3000DM001 several years ago and had to replace three or four of them during the two-year warranty period (as I recall, one of the warranty replacements itself crapped out fairly quickly). After the warranties ran out, I started replacing failures with WD and HGST and things have stabilized. Had I originally sprung for 4TB Seagates I probably would have been fine in comparison.

    6. Re:Personally have had good luck with Seagate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here... Anecdotes trump 100000 data points any day of the week on this forum.

    7. Re:Personally have had good luck with Seagate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Over time I've had pretty good luck with Seagate drives

      I've had drives fail from every manufacturer. I've only had drives fail suddenly without any forewarning from Seagate.

  7. I have one word for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung.

    Their drives are tops. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

    1. Re:I have one word for you. by BRTB · · Score: 1

      FYI Samsung only makes SSDs at this point. They sold off their HDD business to Seagate at the end of 2011: https://www.seagate.com/about-...

  8. WD? Samsung would like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to have a word with you about that.

  9. A good use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put Facebook's entire database on them. The only sure-fire way to lose the data.

  10. What a great public service by Black.Shuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do any other cloud-storage services publish stats like this?

    Thank you, Backblaze.

    1. Re:What a great public service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Thank you, Backblaze.

    2. Re:What a great public service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, they consider that "a competitive advantage"/"trade secret" so won't blab about it. Of note, Backblaze tends to use consumer drives (sometimes recovered from retail purchases), while many legacy cloud storage services either use enterprise drives, or special bulk buys of consumer type drives direct from the manufacturer, so conditions are different. Backblaze stats are probably more relevant to average consumers, but they do not power cycle like home users, so it's still a bit of wash. That said, their general recommendation of HGST uber alles is from experience usually the correct choice.

  11. Re:Libeling me JustAnotherOldDouche? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen this Slashdot video yet? Have you bought the family freindly Goat C shirt?

    - FatCashewsLoveMe

  12. Yes he can. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Molesting" covers many things. He could merely be groping kids. That is not sex.

    1. Re:Yes he can. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Molesting" covers many things.

      Can you innumerate them? Asking for a friend.

  13. "Impersonating" me again? LOL, ok... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A viral hit by "The SoyBoyz" 4u: 'If you're going to TransManCisco? Wear jimmyhats + preparation H there. If you're going, to TransManCisco: You're going to meet a lot of transtesticle soyboy not men there. All across the nation: Surgical sawblade vibration! Surgeons in motion, Sawing peckers + balls off tossing them into the SF Bay Ocean - You're a WHOLE GENERATION w/ Soy + bisphenol A estrogen mimicker EXPLANATIONS! For those who go, to TRANSManCisco - Summer time, will be shitpiles from junkies there.. In the streets of TransManCisco!'

    * FYI - 'cover' of Scott McKenzie "SanFranCisco" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I0vkKy504U/

    APK

    P.S.=> They're playing YOUR SONG again - hahahaha classic... apk

    1. Re:"Impersonating" me again? LOL, ok... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure know a lot about soy boys there APK is there something your need to tell us.

    2. Re:"Impersonating" me again? LOL, ok... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody requires better teachers than your kind providing your example. You show all anyone needs to know about your kind.

  14. Too small a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As of March 31, 2018, the company had 100,110 hard drives working for it".

    38 hard drives is a bit insufficient of a sample size to come to any conclusions. Wait, that's not binary? Silly humans.

  15. Re:Libeling me JustAnotherOldDouche? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You projecting that you do AIDS boy? I heard your 'song' (lol) https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12063858&cid=56548400/

  16. Re:Hey faggot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soyboy your kind end yourselves up in hospitals ending yourselves. I heard your song you know (lol) https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12063858&cid=56548400/ thanks for being your own unnatural genetic aberration crowd control! Hahahaha!

  17. Re:Libeling me JustAnotherOldDouche? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christard, do you really think FatCashewsLoveMe would make this spelling mistake:

    "Have you bought the family freindly Goat C [amzn.to] shirt?"

    Those gigantic stubby mongoloid fingers of yours get in their own way!

    (Never mind that you should hyphenate "family-friendly")

  18. Japanese brands reliable, American brands bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the summary every time they produce these reports. If you want quality and reliability, you buy Hitachi/HGST or Toshiba, and avoid Western Digital/WD and Seagate.

    1. Re:Japanese brands reliable, American brands bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HGST is a WD brand.

  19. MTBF = LOL by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    I have a Synology NAS loaded with Western Digital Red drives configured in a Raid 10 array.

    First drive failure happened a few days ago with an unimpressive 385 hours on it. Drives normally run around 88f temp wise.

    Considering the MTBF is supposed to be around 1,000,000 hours I am less than impressed with its lifespan. Glad I don't have their 10TB models installed as the cost to replace one is triple.

    So, take any claims of how reliable it is with a grain of salt because while Unit X may outlast the universe, Unit Y may keel over tomorrow.

    1. Re:MTBF = LOL by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      First drive failure happened a few days ago with an unimpressive 385 hours on it. Drives normally run around 88f temp wise.

      Considering the MTBF is supposed to be around 1,000,000 hours I am less than impressed with its lifespan.

      MTBF is a statistic that captures randomised failures and accelerated failures due to end of life. What you described is an infant mortality failure and is completely meaningless to MTBF figures. They are purposely filtered out to not skew the results due to a shoddy production.

      Unit Y may keel over tomorrow

      Yes that's where the "mean" under mean time between failures comes in. There's no guarantee that it will last 1000000 hours. That said failures that exclude infant mortality follow a standard statistical curve, and statistically it is more likely that if your drive survives the first few months that it will get to somewhere near 1000000 hours than die in month 4.

      Don't laugh at something just because you don't understand its application.

    2. Re:MTBF = LOL by Walter+White · · Score: 1

      First drive failure happened a few days ago with an unimpressive 385 hours on it.

      So... still under warranty right?

      Better than the WD Red that failed on me about a year out of warranty.

  20. How many hard drives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the company had 100,110 hard drives...

    So, they had 38 hard drives?
    Oh wait, that's a decimal number.

  21. Anecdotally... by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    The thing is all of the hard drive failures I've ever had have been Western Digital, so I've grown very reluctant to buy products from them. In fact just recently I had to buy a Western Digital drive as it was the only SD reader integrated unit I could find that worked standalone well... the only problem is that transfer speeds when you connect it via USB are at USB2.0 speeds it seems like, making it worthless for anything but a standalone drive.

    So even though Black and Gold models are probably very nice, I simply will no longer consider Western Digital as they have screwed me enough over my life I don't need more exposure.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. Warranty Turnaround Times by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a wide variety of drives at work, both HDD and SSD. I mostly buy "enterprise" grade drives, and specifically look for models with a 5-year warranty. What I've discovered recently, however, is that here are huge differences in how manufacturers fulfill their warranties. When a drive fails, what I'm looking for is to obtain a replacement as soon as possible. I can live with a degraded RAID array for a few days, perhaps, but not for weeks. With an "Advance RMA", the manufacturer will ship a replacement drive immediately rather than waiting to receive the defective drive. (A credit card is provided to cover their loss if the defective drive is never received).

    My most recent experiences can be summarized as follows:

    Western Digital HDD - Advance RMA is available
    Seagate HDD - Advance RMA is not available
    HGST HDD - Advance RMA is not available

    Even with Advance RMA, I have to wait for ground shipping. I wish that expedited (air) shipping was also available.

    I'm saving a special category of experiences for Intel SSDs - experiences so awful there are in a class by themselves. I've had the misfortune to suffer two failed Intel SSDs. Both happened to be M.2 format SSDs. One was SATA, the other NVMe. Firstly, just getting an RMA started with Intel is painful. Be prepared to disassemble whatever computer is affected, because providing a model number and serial number are not enough. They also require something called an "SA" number that can only be found on a sticker attached to the device. Second, be prepared to wait a LONG time. I'm talking weeks to MONTHS to get a replacement. If you need the affected computer back up and running within a reasonable timeframe, you'll need to purchase another SSD in spite of your warranty coverage.

    1. Re:Warranty Turnaround Times by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Strange, in the past I've filed advance replacements from Seagate.

    2. Re:Warranty Turnaround Times by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have too, but recently I did not see that option.

    3. Re:Warranty Turnaround Times by imidan · · Score: 1

      Be prepared to disassemble whatever computer is affected

      I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I thought this might help. I ran in to this issue some time ago, and now before I put a new hard drive into a computer, I lay it on the flatbed scanner and scan the top of it (and the bottom, if there's anything to see there).

  23. HGST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HGST is owned by WDC. Strange to see such a difference in the data.

  24. My experience w/Seagate's engineers by asackett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once upon a time in the penultimate decade of the last century, I was chief fixer dude for a manufacturer which had built some custom stuff Seagate used to bulk-test drives in their engineering department. That stuff kept coming back for warranty service but nothing was ever found to be wrong with it, which was a red flag, and the creation of the test setup required about six hours of tech labor so the damn flag was on fire. I got nowhere in my first round of calls to Seagate, but when the stuff came back yet again I was more persistent and finally got to the bottom of it.

    Seagate had a guy who was somehow involved with that engineering test system, and every time something went wrong, whether it was an actual system failure or just an unexpected outcome, said guy jerked everything still under warranty out of the system and sent it back to the manufacturers for service. Everything, whether it was potentially related to the troubling observation or not. In driving my way to someone in charge I spoke with folks at Seagate who were incredibly frustrated with the shotgun approach because it kept their test system out of service for far longer than it ever should have been, and eventually they allowed me to reach the shotgun monkey's boss's boss. I explained to him that our warranty terms applied only to product which had failed in normal service, and that on-demand conformance testing was a full pop T&M (time and materials) service for which they would henceforth be charged.

    The stuff was not seen again in the time I remained employed by that company and I've happily avoided Seagate ever since.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    1. Re:My experience w/Seagate's engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 80s was a long time ago...

  25. victory: MBA by epine · · Score: 1

    Yes, price. Backblaze buys the cheapest HDDs they can find.

    No.

    Efficient frontier

    Shannon's theorem: as you approach the Shannon coding limit, the cost of failure becomes linear.

    The primary term in the linear model is cost_of_drive / (mean_working_life * drive_capacity). In metric, the unit comes out to Big Macs/B-s, but we'll use USD/TB-year.

    There is also a power consumption term, and a performance term. The first of these is significant to Backblaze, whereas the second does little to differentiate the qualified brands in the present Backblaze business model (though it could quickly push you into a different product mix between HDDs and SSDs if the model changed; the proximal economic margin is vertical, not horizontal).

    The main effect of the power term is that technological evolution in W/TB-year makes it reasonable to hard-cap drive service life somewhere around seven years (it used to be much less, but times they aren't a-changing very much these days).

    If one brand hits the seven year wall with 95% of the drives functional, and another brand hits the wall with 98% of the drives functional, this justifies about a 3% difference in drive sticker price for the same capacity (and mean power draw under the specified workload).

    Now, if you were working with a business model where coincident failures could feasibly add up to a risk of total loss, this calculation starts to involve an exponential term, and the factor of two in failure rate over seven years begins to matter again. Even if your total loss is just a spindle loss, and you have a 24-hour from tape, the magnitude of your 24-hour out-of-normal-service event starts to lift the exponential term into economic view.

    I've given enough information here to construct a pretty good first-order linear approximation to Backblaze's efficient frontier.

    Hint: to usefully diagram this, you need to 86 your third-year engineering school log-linear graph paper, and haul out some third-year elementary school linear-linear graph paper.

    Over in MBA school—which you like to pretend is populated by linear-linear spreadsheet-toting cluetards—they will teach you that one of the arts of business is to devise a business model which runs against the grain of prevailing economic assumptions.

    Shannon's theorem, properly understood, allows one to do this.

    And, yes, the exponential cost model requires engineering school to properly understand, while the linear cost model requires only Econ 101 to fully understand, so of course, as hugely overtrained engineers we deride this model, with a sniff, as merely buying the cheapest shit they can find.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum: it's the engineers here who have failed to make the cognitive leap on Shannon's model, properly understood.

    Shannon's corollary: once my theorem is properly understood, you don't even need to be smart anymore.

    Shannon's theorem, properly understood, is a universal wormhole from log-linear to linear-linear. This pretty much makes it the most Fucking A theorem of the 20th century.

    These an underlying reason why our digital technology grew like the Beanstalk of Babel, yet never ultimately toppled over under its own weight.

    Victory: MBA.

  26. *hug* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone needs a hug

  27. Talk to me in a year.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at a Linux computer from ZaReason...has 5 or 6 drive bays and plan to put all 10TB or 12TB drives in them. Save one 10TB drive for backups, content, etc... and the other 40TB will be for a Video surveillance system and video...
    32GB DDR4-2133 RAM
    4 X Gigabit Ethernet ports
    Biggest power supply they allow

    Cannot wait. If drive fails, as long as its not the 'backup' drive, who cares....just replace it and keep on recording....

    Fiber to out buildings (because of lightning strikes)
    Cat 6A to the HD (8MP or better) Cameras

    Connect up both the 55" and 65" TVs, add some streaming server software so I can stream to the TVs....looking forward to it!

    Betting I will not have a failure with a 10TB or 12TB drive for the first 3 - 4 years if then....

    cboslin