Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
backblaze.com
Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
1–10 of 116 posts
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#2Really surprising to me that some disks have 4-5% failure rate yearly. Great data
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#3Backblaze is consistently a great service. Needs a Linux client though.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#4Backblaze is consistently a great service. Needs a Linux client though.
Yev from Backblaze here -> have you checked out B2? We likely won't have a Linux client for our backup service any time soon, but our B2 service has a lot of integrators (like Cloudberry and Duplicity, HashBackup, etc..) that can back up Linux machines, a lot of folks have been going that route.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#5Backblaze is consistently a great service. Needs a Linux client though.
Yev from Backblaze here -> have you checked out B2? We likely won't have a Linux client for our backup service any time soon, but our B2 service has a lot of integrators (like Cloudberry and Duplicity, HashBackup, etc..) that can back up Linux machines, a lot of folks have been going that route.
> We likely won't have a Linux client for our backup service any time soon
Ok. But why ? Technical obstacles such as having to deal with distribution diversity - or is it a way of market segmentation ?
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#6Anyone have a reason why the WD30EFRX has such poor reliability in their last table? Granted it's a smaller sample size.
Only asking 'cause it's my main data hard drive...
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#7Backblaze is consistently a great service. Needs a Linux client though.
Yeah, not being able to backup the Linux machine at my house means that I really don't want to bother with buying it on my Macs/Windows machines either - having two solutions is a pain :/
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#8How are people using Backblaze's excellent hard drive reliability reports in making purchasing decisions?
For example when I search for HGST HMS5C4040ALE640 on Amazon I get a dealer selling old out of warrantee drives as new.
https://www.amazon.com/HGST-MegaScale-HMS5C4040ALE640-Coolsp...
I get similar results with many of the other drives listed and with other websites such as NewEgg.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yev from Backblaze here -> have you checked out B2? We likely won't have a Linux client for our backup service any time soon, but our B2 service has a lot of integrators (like Cloudberry and Duplicity, HashBackup, etc..) that can back up Linux machines, a lot of folks have been going that route.
> We likely won't have a Linux client for our backup service any time soon Ok. But why ? Technical obstacles such as having to deal with distribution diversity - or is it a way of market segmentation ?
Probably because the market is too small to justify the developer time when other developers are willing to spend the time integrating their B2 cloud offering as a driver.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yev from Backblaze here -> have you checked out B2? We likely won't have a Linux client for our backup service any time soon, but our B2 service has a lot of integrators (like Cloudberry and Duplicity, HashBackup, etc..) that can back up Linux machines, a lot of folks have been going that route.
> We likely won't have a Linux client for our backup service any time soon Ok. But why ? Technical obstacles such as having to deal with distribution diversity - or is it a way of market segmentation ?
Their MacOS client is amazing, so I doubt it's a technical constraint. My guess is that because they don't have size limits on their backups, if all of their customers are backing up terabytes, Backblaze bleeds money, so they depend on most people only backing up a couple hundred gigabytes. Linux users may have a wildly higher amount of stuff to back up such that it's not profitable. And changing their branding to have mostly unlimited except for some people is probably not too appealing either.