this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
210 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60704 readers
4013 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Take this data with a grain of salt. They buy consumer drives and run them in data centers. So unless your use case is similar, you probably won't see similar results. A "good" drive from their data may fail early in a frequent spin up/down scenario, and a "bad" drive may last forever if you're not writing very often.
It's certainly interesting data, but don't assume it's directly applicable to your use case.
Sure, YMMV for any statistical study but it’s also the best source that exists for stats on consumer Hard Drives tested at scale.
It's absolutely useful data, but there are a bunch of caveats that are easy to ignore.
For example, it's easy to sort by failure rate and pick the manufacturer with the lowest number. But failures are clustered around the first 18 months of ownership, so this is more a measure of QC for these drives and less of a "how long will this drive last" thing. You're unlikely to be buying those specific drives or run them as hard as Backblaze does.
Also, while Seagate has the highest failure rates, they are also some of the oldest drives in the report. So for the average user, this largely impacts how likely they are to get a bad drive, not how long a good drive will likely last. The former question matters more for a storage company because they need to pay people to handle drives, whereas a user cares more about second question, and the study doesn't really address that second question.
The info is certainly interesting, just be careful about what conclusions you draw. Personally, as long as the drive has >=3 year warranty and the company honors it without hassle, I'll avoid the worst capacities and pick based on price and features.
You’re correct, but this is pretty much “Statistics 101”. Granted most people are really bad at interpreting statistics, but I recommend looking at Backblaze reports because nothing else really comes close.
I agree it's good data, but good data isn't particularly useful if you don't know how to interpret it. It seems to largely answer questions I don't have, and finding relevant answers is a bit harder since the data is focused on datacenter use.
So I personally look for support quality first (very imprecise, but I look for anecdotes about good and bad customer experience) and avoid the capacities that seem to have consistently high failure rates and low average age in Backblaze data (e.g. 10TB drives). In the past, they largely used consumer drives (not even NAS drives), and now they largely use enterprise drives, neither of which I'm planning to buy anyway, so the main commonality between drives I'll consider and drives they monitor are the platters, hence the focus on capacity.
I'm glad they publish it, I just think people misinterpret it more often than not.
Is a home NAS a frequent spin up/down scenario though? I'd imagine you'd keep the drives spinning to improve latency and reduce spin-up count. Not that I own any spinning drives currently though - so that's why I'm wondering.
My drives are usually spun down because it's not used a ton. Everything runs off my SSD except data access, so unless there's a backup or I'm watching a movie or something, the drives don't MHD need to be spinning.
If I was running an office NAS or something, I'd probably keep them spinning, but it's just me and my family, so usage is pretty infrequent.
Or just read their raw charts. Their claims don't tend to line up with their data. But their data does show that Seagate tends to fail early
All that tells you is that Seagate drives fail more in their use case. You also need to notice that they've consistently had more Seagate drives than HGST or WD, which have lower failure rates on their data. Since they keep buying them, they must see better overall value from them.
You likely don't have that same use case, so you shouldn't necessarily copy their buying choices or knee-jerk avoid drives with higher failure rates.
What's more useful IMO is finding trends, like failure rate by drive size. 10TB drives seem to suck across the board, while 16TB drives are really reliable.
Ye, Seagate is cheap, that's the value. I've had a tonne myself and they're terrible for my use too