Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #6800

Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"

Show all headers | View raw

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

>> "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015"
>>      https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-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

Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

"Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-02-16 14:31 -0600
  Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" pamela <invalid@nospam.com> - 2016-02-16 21:07 +0000
    Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 21:52 +0800
      Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2016-02-17 17:48 -0800
        Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 19:27 +0800
          Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2016-02-26 13:04 -0800
      Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 13:05 +1100
        Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" Sam <newsgroup2003@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 19:53 -0700
          Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:53 +1100
    Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-02-17 10:10 -0500
      Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 13:08 +1100
    Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-02-17 11:01 -0500
      Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 13:10 +1100
  Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" pedro1492@lycos.com - 2016-03-18 19:07 -0700
    Re: "Hard Drive Reliability Review for 2015" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 06:56 +1100

csiph-web