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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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