31–40 of 165 posts
They also open sourced their server chassis which is awesome!
It's nice to see a reduction of the failure rates as a whole. It looks like the next few years will be some interesting times for the growth in storage capacities for HDDs.
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?
> 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?
Backblaze offers a "Backblaze Rapid Ingest Fireball" to allow you to ship us 60 TBytes of data on an appliance.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/introducing-backblazes-rapid-...
If you only have 2 - 10 TBytes, I suggest you get a faster network connection, or carry your laptop to a location (like your work place, or a library, or your neighbor's house) with a fast connection and just upload it. You might be surprised how easy and fast it is to upload a couple of TBytes nowadays. Using the Backblaze Personal Backup with 30 threads, I can upload about 1 TByte every 12 hours or so. So if you can leave your laptop at your workplace for 4 days you can upload 8 TBytes, then bring your laptop back home for the incrementals.
BackBlaze spent ~12 million dollars on 12TB Seagate drives (at full retail)
Good thing they charge me $0.94 a month for my B2 storage. Gotta make that budget from somewhere!
> Good thing they charge me $0.94 a month for my B2 storage.
We thank you for your business! :-) The absolute beauty of Backblaze B2 (or Amazon S3 or Azure) is that we can build a storage system at scale, and sell off all the little pieces of that. You win because you get a fair price on a sliver, and we win because we add up 100,000 customers like you and make about $1 million per year.
The very best business is where the customer and provider are happy with the relationship.
Do larger capacity drives have higher failure rates?
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 ."
That Seagate 10 TB was the singular standout in terms of reliability. Maybe it is worth checking out.
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 I had to guess, the seagates are sufficiently cheap in ridiculous quantities, and Backblaze's multi-pod redundancy/parity and drive monitoring is good enough, that even if they have a 3% failure rate and the HGSTs have a 0.75% failure rate, that it's still an acceptable risk for them. 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 pr…
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.
In my recent experience there is not a lot of speed difference anymore between multiple manufacturers' 6TB to 12TB sized hard drives, when comparing between two competing products in the same rpm class (5400 or 7200) and areal density. Assuming similarly sized RAM cache on drive and not something like a drive with 64GB of SSD cache (hybrid drive).
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.
In my recent experience there is not a lot of speed difference anymore between multiple manufacturers' 6TB to 12TB sized hard drives, when comparing between two competing products in the same rpm class (5400 or 7200) and areal density. Assuming similarly sized RAM cache on drive and not something like a drive with 64GB of SSD cache (hybrid drive).
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 ."