Comments on: What Can 49,056 Hard Drives Tell Us? Hard Drive Reliability Stats for Q3 2015

By: albundy57

albundy57 — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:12:00 +0000

Thank you, you beautiful bastards, for giving us the real down and dirty on actual functioning drives. Im very tired of some manufacturers saying 2,000,000 Hrs before MTF in their literature and their arrays being rebuilt almost every other week due to failure. My own experiences directly relate to your statistical findings! Going to buy some Hitachi drives today for a new audio-visual NAS device.

By: Oliver St.John-Mollusc

Oliver St.John-Mollusc — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:02:00 +0000

I have a 1TB WD blue drive used only for backups that is goosed after only 26 days and 10 hours of “POH” -power on hours

By: Jus' Sayin'

Jus' Sayin' — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 23:49:00 +0000

I ran across an impressive second take on Backblaze’s data.

Kudos and thanks to both Backblaze and the scientist.

https://bioinformare.blogspot.com/2016/02/survival-analysis-of-hard-disk-drive.html

By: Max

Max — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:13:00 +0000

In reply to Steve Irons. lol savage baby from mad max2

By: Dave Grodzki

Dave Grodzki — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 05:15:00 +0000

In reply to Paul Biedler. Small world Paul... Stumbled upon this article looking into some reliability for a drive I use in my NAS, and saw your comment. Your plot is very useful.

By: Karmakat

Karmakat — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 04:28:00 +0000

Ok, does anyone have a recommendation on a hard drive (At least 3TB total) that would hold up well under constant media streaming use? I currently have a 1.5TB WD that is from 2009 that I have used constantly (24/7 streaming of audio and video media over a network) and it hasn’t given me any trouble until a couple days ago and now I have to figure out what to get to replace it. The big thing is that it needs to be fast enough to stream without lagging and be able to handle heavy, heavy constant use. Any accurate info would be helpful!

By: 2005OEFArmy .

2005OEFArmy . — Wed, 18 May 2016 20:09:00 +0000

I know it’s bad to bump an old blog, but: 1) 50% of HGST drives were enterprise class drives 2) You can’t compare such drastically different sample sizes of HGST+Seagate drives vs Toshiba+WD, because as I assume you know, that larger sample size decreases the variance of the sample space. Meaning, that Backblaze, could have easily “varied” in to a better than average population of Toshiba drives(there were only 200 some) than Seagate drives(31,000). 3) You should not be running desktop drives in enterprise applications , and the fact that you do so should have your customer base outraged.

By: galan

galan — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:18:00 +0000

In reply to timothyhood. In the past 15 years I've owned dozens of Seagate and Western Digital drives. I've had numerous failures from both. I don't love one brand more than the other. I recently had a 2tb WD Green drive die after about 5 years, but I still have some Seagate 250gig drives that I've had since 2004-2006 that still work perfectly well. The 7200.11 series drives from Seagate were awful, and they sullied Seagate's reputation, but their other drives haven't had significant problems.

By: Panayiotis Black

Panayiotis Black — Sat, 23 Apr 2016 04:31:00 +0000

Τhe graph does not even say half the truth.
Wd sold 204 m hdds in 2015,and hgst 76m.

According to this and your numbers,the failure rate between them is 2.14/1.
But their production difference is 2.68/1.

Furthermore,the 8% of Wd broken disks could be up and running for over 7 years.
So why bothering writing an article that mirrors the truth in absolute numbers,but has no real value when it comes down to comparing reliability?