Comments on: Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2019

By: ISoUgly

ISoUgly — Fri, 04 Dec 2020 19:02:56 +0000

I don’t understand the data. I’m not suggesting the data is bad or wrong. I just don’t understand it. Under what load are these drives under? Are they writing, reading or both? Are they running 24/7? How long on average is an individual drive lasting. The data doesn’t make sense to me. For example on chart shows more than 52 million drive days. I don’t know how that’s being measured or how it correlates to useful information for someone like me.

Maybe I’m just not looking at the information in the correct way to understand it. But the kind of information I need is the total on time per a drive, the read/write duty cycles compared to the on time, spin up cycle counts and average hours/days/years per failure. Without that information I can’t understand the implications of the data.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:10:31 +0000

What is your opinion on NAS drive vs regular drive? Is there a reason that why most of your drive consist of regular drive instead?

By: Claus

Claus — Fri, 31 Jul 2020 21:49:41 +0000

Do the Toshiba MG drives ever emit a beep, or extended buzz, at random intervals? I just bought a pair of 12TB drives, and they both emit a beep, sometimes seconds apart, minutes, or much longer. Also, in the SMART details, the value for Disk_Shift is very, very high, as in 8 digits and growing higher every day. Yet, the drives pass the SMART tests? Any help is appreciated.

By: alice

alice — Fri, 19 Jun 2020 07:49:45 +0000

spinning boot drives?? surely at this point there are 32GB msata SSDs that would be cheaper and more reliable? heck, even a usb flash drive would probably be fine for boot considering you’re probably loading a fixed set of daemons and then never really reading again

By: alice

alice — Fri, 19 Jun 2020 03:57:05 +0000

In reply to molitar. might wanna look into whether it's secretly an SMR drive, all the major manufactures were recently caught selling SMR disks as normal ones.

By: rhaphazard

rhaphazard — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 03:00:28 +0000

In reply to Jayson Wayne. I was being sarcastic.

By: Jayson Wayne

Jayson Wayne — Tue, 09 Jun 2020 02:05:21 +0000

In reply to rhaphazard.

Yes that’s what I told you. And I really don’t know why you kinda appear surprised? I can easily bet that at least 99% of people who read the annual hard drive reliability report of BB aren’t BB customers. I know it, you know it, and even BB knows it.

99% of people have been here year after year because BB reports are somehow the best reports you can find to compare the reliability of HDD. Some people have got upset for this loss. Nothing else.

By: rhaphazard

rhaphazard — Tue, 09 Jun 2020 00:27:16 +0000

In reply to Jayson Wayne.

So you’re telling me people actually believe a business should change their practice to their own detriment to appease people who aren’t even necessarily customers?

If people were upset because they believed using Seagate drives compromised the Backblaze service, I would understand. But people are upset because they don’t get the information they want from a blog post they didn’t pay for?

By: Jayson Wayne

Jayson Wayne — Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:31:30 +0000

In reply to rhaphazard.

People aren’t for this reason! They are just disappointed because the new direction taken by BB makes that all new reports won’t help people to compare WD and Seagate hard disks. Yes, WD is overall better than Seagate, but this a so large spectrum of HDD, it has usually happened that some Seagate HDD were better than their equivalent from WD. That’s the point here!

For people wishing to buy HDD of 3, 4, 5 To for example, the current and future reports of BB are useless from now as long as there is no way to compare WD and Seagate HDDs.

For the rest, everybody here doesn’t care for what BB personally uses. Go in Japan, and most Japanese companies will use Japanese brand HDD. Go to Korea and it will be Korean… well it was.