Looks like they're offline. Google cache link: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DNdyZ1...
Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
21–30 of 116 posts
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#22404 File Not Found Not so reliable I gather
Yev from backblaze here -> Yea we're kicking a server or two, it's been loading slow from all the traffic so we put top men on it. TOP MEN!
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#23Backblaze is consistently a great service. Needs a Linux client though.
RClone [1] will back up to Backblaze and is a very versatile tool. Why would you want a CLI per hoster, if there are CLIs that target most hosters? Service? [1] http://rclone.org
That's B2 not the standard backup service
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#24https://www.backblaze.com/blog/ - 404 right now?
Yev from Backblaze here -> We're kicking a couple of server. Lots of load from the traffic so we're putting top me on it! TOP MEN!
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#25Anyone 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...
Yeah unfortunately 4/5 of my drives are those as well... gulp...
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#26With hard drive size increasing so quickly but hard drive transfer speeds basically flat, I wonder if there are long-term implications for them with respect to recovery from backup and downtime. For example, if a whole rack goes down, and they are on 32TB drives in the future, for example, could it takes a week or more for their data to get online?
The Backblaze Vault design mitigates that as the "raid array" is scattered across 20 different Storage Pods in twenty different racks. You'd need more than three racks to go down before you would be offline. Backup systems in place make that highly unlikely. Andy at Backblaze.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#27Looks like they're offline. Google cache link: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DNdyZ1...
Website is fine, Backup service is fine. Blog is overloaded and we're working on it.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#28How 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.
I chose to get 4 ST4000DM000 drives based on previous reports. Sure HGST drives never die, but it's cheaper to RMA or buy a single new drive if one fails, than the added cost of 4 reliable drives. Assuming only one fails, which is a risk I'm willing to take with my very non-mission-critical data.
I don't read this as 'which drive to buy' but more as 'which drive not to buy'.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#29Backblaze is consistently a great service. Needs a Linux client though.
Just use the backblaze API in a script with a cronjob, that's what I do. It's linux, you're going to end up writing some code to get what you want, heh.
Re: Backblaze hard drive reliability stats for Q3 2016
#30Looks like they're offline. Google cache link: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DNdyZ1...
Website is fine, Backup service is fine. Blog is overloaded and we're working on it.
You should really consider moving this webpage and report to something like AWS S3 when you first release it. Then move back to your usual servers when traffic has fallen off. Your poor servers must melt down when this shows up on Hacker News and Slashdot.