21–30 of 165 posts
Anything interesting in this one? I've stopped reading them because they all seem to be "Seagates fail kind of a lot but we use them because reasons. HGST doesn't fail a lot, but we also have statistically insignificant numbers of them, so ."
They can get large numbers of them cheap, and their system is good at detecting and replacing bad drives, so why not use them?
BackBlaze spent ~12 million dollars on 12TB Seagate drives (at full retail)
Anything interesting in this one? I've stopped reading them because they all seem to be "Seagates fail kind of a lot but we use them because reasons. HGST doesn't fail a lot, but we also have statistically insignificant numbers of them, so ."
I would be surprised if the number of drives they have is actually "statistically insignificant" \* but I haven't crunched the numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson%27s_chi-squared_test
\* By this I guess you mean that the null hypothesis of "they have the same failure rate" is not rejected.
If you have terabytes to back up, are there still any backup services left that'll let you ship them a drive for a faster initial backup?
Anything interesting in this one? I've stopped reading them because they all seem to be "Seagates fail kind of a lot but we use them because reasons. HGST doesn't fail a lot, but we also have statistically insignificant numbers of them, so ."
They have over 20 thousand HGST drives now, according to this year's report, which seems significant to me.
They continue to have lower failure rates than the Seagates.
Anything interesting in this one? I've stopped reading them because they all seem to be "Seagates fail kind of a lot but we use them because reasons. HGST doesn't fail a lot, but we also have statistically insignificant numbers of them, so ."
If you're an individual person with a 12-drive ZFS RAIDZ2 with hotspare, in a file server in your garage or something, you might prefer to pay the premium to buy HGST, because what if you have a double drive failure during a three week period while you're on vacation out of the country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not going to be skewed. HGST disks are usually more expensive, so that limits the quantity that they buy. The seagate disks are usually cheaper but have a slightly higher (except when it's a brand new line) failure rate. When filling out a single server I go with the HGST disks because the premium price and quality means fewer failures, but it's more cost effective to go for lots of seagate disks when you hav…
I built a server a few years ago, and I determined it was more cost effective for a drive to fail than to use HGST. It would be more inconvenient, but having a drive fail on a home server with only 6 drives didn't seem very likely anyway.
Anything interesting in this one? I've stopped reading them because they all seem to be "Seagates fail kind of a lot but we use them because reasons. HGST doesn't fail a lot, but we also have statistically insignificant numbers of them, so ."
I'm interested in failure rate per iops. If the drive fails infrequently, great, but if it's also the worst performing drive, screw that. Would rather buy drives that perform as well as possible with the least failure rate.
I realize my comment is a tangent. I'm hoping folks might be understanding and hopefully have some advice. If you have terabytes to back up, are there still any backup services left that'll let you ship them a drive for a faster initial backup?
Haven't used it personally, but did a fair amount of digging ~3 years ago. It was a potential backup solution, but we ended up shipping a 4U server full of 4TB drives to a partner for off-site backup, since they needed routine access anyways.
Check out the AWS page: https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/