"Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"

"Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...ility-q4-2015/

"By the end of 2015, the Backblaze datacenter had 56,224 spinning hard drives containing customer data. These hard drives reside in
1,249 Backblaze Storage Pods. By comparison 2015 began with 39,690 drives running in 882 Storage Pods. We added 65 Petabytes of
storage in 2015 give or take a Petabyte or two. Not only was 2015 a year of growth, it was also a year of drive upgrades and
replacements."

Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing. And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.

Lynn

On 2/17/2016 5:07 AM, pamela wrote:
On 20:31 16 Feb 2016, Lynn McGuire wrote:


Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing.
And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.


Wasn't Seagate doing badly not long ago at Backblaze?


Seems that we'd better stay away from hard disk with capacity larger
than 2TB...

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
^ ^ 21:36:01 up 3 days 21 min 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.05
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 02/16/2016 04:07 PM, pamela wrote:

On 20:31 16 Feb 2016, Lynn McGuire wrote:

"Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...bility-q4-2015
/

"By the end of 2015, the Backblaze datacenter had 56,224
spinning hard drives containing customer data. These hard drives
reside in 1,249 Backblaze Storage Pods. By comparison 2015 began
with 39,690 drives running in 882 Storage Pods. We added 65
Petabytes of storage in 2015 give or take a Petabyte or two. Not
only was 2015 a year of growth, it was also a year of drive
upgrades and replacements."

Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing.
And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.

Wasn't Seagate doing badly not long ago at Backblaze?

The 3TB Seagates were bad; the other capacities were much better. But
the design of the 3TB ones*might* have improved since.

I have a bunch of 2TB "Desktop" Seagates running 24/7 in a FreeNAS
machine. One -- an older model that came with a 5-year warranty --
failed and was replaced by a newer model (one that normally comes with
only a 2-year warranty but carried the remainder of the original 5-year
warranty). One of the newer models (out of warranty) showed a read error
but was "fixed" by SeaTools and now, even after an extensive workout (HD
Sentinel PRO's 34-hour read, write, read), shows no errors.

If you read the NewEgg reviews, you will find that for *every* brand of
hard disk there are people who will never buy one of that manufacturer's
products again.

Perce

On 02/16/2016 04:07 PM, pamela wrote:

"Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...bility-q4-2015
/

"By the end of 2015, the Backblaze datacenter had 56,224
spinning hard drives containing customer data. These hard drives
reside in 1,249 Backblaze Storage Pods. By comparison 2015 began
with 39,690 drives running in 882 Storage Pods. We added 65
Petabytes of storage in 2015 give or take a Petabyte or two. Not
only was 2015 a year of growth, it was also a year of drive
upgrades and replacements."

Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing.
And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.

Wasn't Seagate doing badly not long ago at Backblaze?

Now that I have looked at Backblaze's report, I see that the 3TB
Seagates that they have now quit using were *really* bad: 23.86% failure
rate; and some others were not good either.

It's interesting that the HGST figures are significantly better than the
WDC figures, even though HGST is now owned by WDC.

It's also interesting that the 6TB Seagates they are using at present
are the ST6000DX001, which are what I found in "retail" STBD6000100
packages, whereas the only "bare" Seagate 6TB Desktop drives are
ST6000DM001.* Is there a material difference between them? (In many
other capacities the STn00DXnnn drives are SSHD models, but there is no
indication that the 6TB ones are SSHD -- just "spinning rust.")

*I have seen comments on Amazon from people who bought "bare"
ST6000DX001 drives and then found that the Seagate warranty check
indicates that they were originally sold as component parts of some
other unit -- presumably an external drive that has been sold without
its case and USB adapter. Why are external drives (with case and USB
adapter) often cheaper than the same ones sold as "internal"?

Perce

In the last episode of , "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
said:

On 2/17/2016 5:07 AM, pamela wrote:
On 20:31 16 Feb 2016, Lynn McGuire wrote:


Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing.
And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.


Wasn't Seagate doing badly not long ago at Backblaze?


Seems that we'd better stay away from hard disk with capacity larger
than 2TB...

Look closer, the larger drives are generally doing better than some of
the 1.5TB-3TB ranged stuff.

--
For recreational use only.

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote
pamela wrote
Lynn McGuire wrote

Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing.
And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.

Wasn't Seagate doing badly not long ago at Backblaze?

Seems that we'd better stay away from hard disk with capacity larger than
2TB...

Dunno, the Hitachi/HGST are doing ok.

Remains to be seen what will happen
with the drive quality now that they have
been taken over by Western Digital tho.

Don’t like their warranty approach myself,
pay for return of the drive to them. That
can mean that it isnt worth the cost for me.

Only a relatively minor consideration with a 2% failure rate tho.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 02/16/2016 04:07 PM, pamela wrote:

On 20:31 16 Feb 2016, Lynn McGuire wrote:

"Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...bility-q4-2015
/

"By the end of 2015, the Backblaze datacenter had 56,224
spinning hard drives containing customer data. These hard drives
reside in 1,249 Backblaze Storage Pods. By comparison 2015 began
with 39,690 drives running in 882 Storage Pods. We added 65
Petabytes of storage in 2015 give or take a Petabyte or two. Not
only was 2015 a year of growth, it was also a year of drive
upgrades and replacements."

Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing.
And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.

Wasn't Seagate doing badly not long ago at Backblaze?

The 3TB Seagates were bad; the other capacities were much better. But the
design of the 3TB ones*might* have improved since.

I have a bunch of 2TB "Desktop" Seagates running 24/7 in a FreeNAS
machine. One -- an older model that came with a 5-year warranty --
failed and was replaced by a newer model (one that normally comes with
only a 2-year warranty but carried the remainder of the original 5-year
warranty). One of the newer models (out of warranty) showed a read error
but was "fixed" by SeaTools and now, even after an extensive workout (HD
Sentinel PRO's 34-hour read, write, read), shows no errors.

If you read the NewEgg reviews, you will find that for *every* brand of
hard disk there are people who will never buy one of that manufacturer's
products again.

There is a big difference in the 1 star review percentages with
Hitachi/HGST and the rest tho. But quite low total number of
drives with Newegg. Not very visible on Amazon for some reason.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 02/16/2016 04:07 PM, pamela wrote:

"Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-...bility-q4-2015
/

"By the end of 2015, the Backblaze datacenter had 56,224
spinning hard drives containing customer data. These hard drives
reside in 1,249 Backblaze Storage Pods. By comparison 2015 began
with 39,690 drives running in 882 Storage Pods. We added 65
Petabytes of storage in 2015 give or take a Petabyte or two. Not
only was 2015 a year of growth, it was also a year of drive
upgrades and replacements."

Uh oh, the WDC 2 TB and 3 TB drive failure rate is climbing.
And the WDC 6 TB is scary also.

Wasn't Seagate doing badly not long ago at Backblaze?

Now that I have looked at Backblaze's report, I see that the 3TB Seagates
that they have now quit using were *really* bad: 23.86% failure rate; and
some others were not good either.

It's interesting that the HGST figures are significantly better than the
WDC figures, even though HGST is now owned by WDC.

It's also interesting that the 6TB Seagates they are using at present are
the ST6000DX001, which are what I found in "retail" STBD6000100 packages,
whereas the only "bare" Seagate 6TB Desktop drives are ST6000DM001.* Is
there a material difference between them? (In many other capacities the
STn00DXnnn drives are SSHD models, but there is no indication that the 6TB
ones are SSHD -- just "spinning rust.")

*I have seen comments on Amazon from people who bought "bare" ST6000DX001
drives and then found that the Seagate warranty check indicates that they
were originally sold as component parts of some other unit -- presumably
an external drive that has been sold without its case and USB adapter. Why
are external drives (with case and USB adapter) often cheaper than the
same ones sold as "internal"?

Presumably because they are sold in rather
higher volume by operations like Amazon.

On 2/18/2016 9:48 AM, DevilsPGD wrote:

Look closer, the larger drives are generally doing better than some of
the 1.5TB-3TB ranged stuff.


So the problem is in exactly 3TB drives?

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
^ ^ 19:18:01 up 3 days 5:54 0 users load average: 1.05 1.03 1.05
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

In the last episode of , "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
said:

On 2/18/2016 9:48 AM, DevilsPGD wrote:

Look closer, the larger drives are generally doing better than some of
the 1.5TB-3TB ranged stuff.


So the problem is in exactly 3TB drives?

Largely, yes.

--
"And the information superhighway showed the average person what
some nerd thinks about Star Trek"
-- Homer