A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage (alt)
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Some observations from Backblaze Q1 stats.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 28th 17, 02:10 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Percival P. Cassidy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 184
Default Some observations from Backblaze Q1 stats.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...rates-q1-2017/

1. Seagate ST6000DX000 6TB "desktop" drives --

seem to be significantly more reliable than the

WD 6TB WD60EFRX NAS drives

2. Seagate 8TB ST8000DM002 "desktop" drives

seem to be somewhat more reliable than the

Seagate 8TB ST8000NM0055 "Enterprise" drives.

Perce
  #2  
Old August 28th 17, 08:19 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,297
Default Some observations from Backblaze Q1 stats.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...rates-q1-2017/


1. Seagate ST6000DX000 6TB "desktop" drives --

seem to be significantly more reliable than the

WD 6TB WD60EFRX NAS drives

2. Seagate 8TB ST8000DM002 "desktop" drives

seem to be somewhat more reliable than the

Seagate 8TB ST8000NM0055 "Enterprise" drives.

Perce


You would have to normalize their chart to show drives having the same
effective I/O load over the same duration to know which were the winners
and losers. That chart by itself is useless. We're supposed to assume
that "drive days" means each drive brand receives the same I/O load. We
don't know and they don't say. How does Seagate's 267 failures in 34540
drives come to a 3.27% failure rate? I get 0.77% (267 / 34540 * 100).
Presumably this is over more than a 1 year test duration so the annual
failure rate would be even lower. Simple math on the worst Seagate
shows a 8.8% failure rate (over how long is not divulged) instead of
their cited 35%. For the annualized failure rate to be so much higher
for Seagate means those drives received a lot higher I/O load. If
Seagate is so bad, why does Backblaze still buy so many of them?

The article has a link to supposedly the hard drive statistics data.
Really? I went there and there was no statistical data, no spreadsheet,
nothing there to do a separate and accurate statistical analysis. May
the 2017 .zip files had that data but all I got was a constant waiting
for their site to respond (deliver the file).

Nowhere do I see mention of burn-in to eliminate bias due to infant
mortality rate. Drive vendors, RAID vendors, and the industry talk
about it but not Backblaze. Does Backblaze run the new drives through a
burn-in period? Does whomever they buy the drives do a burn-in?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2016" Lynn McGuire[_3_] Storage (alt) 4 February 3rd 17 10:12 PM
Backblaze pods harder on Seagate / Lawsuit Ed Light Storage (alt) 3 May 26th 16 03:57 AM
BackBlaze Storage Pod 5.0 - 180 TB Lynn McGuire[_2_] Storage (alt) 4 December 25th 15 11:20 PM
Backblaze dumps hard drive data Neill Massello[_3_] Storage (alt) 9 February 20th 15 06:45 PM
Backblaze on their experience with enterprise drives Neill Massello[_3_] Storage (alt) 2 December 8th 13 06:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.