Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

research.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#21

Post by ippisl »

wazoox wrote: post #11

Among other interesting insights: * a machine that crashed once is 100 times more likely to crash again; the more it crashes, the more it's prone to fail again. * overclocking significantly reduces reliability. One CPU vendor (AMD or Intel, but unspecified) is much worse in this regard, too. * conversely, underclocking improves reliability. * branded computers are more reliable than beige boxes. * laptops are more re…

>> branded computers are more reliable than beige boxes.

This is meaningless.

The real question is how those compare to beige box that uses a decent parts. But Microsoft definitely has interest in helping manufacturers of brand computers because piracy is more prevalent in beige boxes.

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#22

Post by Zenst »

Interesting read though why can't Microsoft just tell me that my CPU or HD or memory is borking and suggest I RMA it instead of saying everytime - have you applied the latest updates, which I get to click unhelpful.

Most important thing in a PC I have found for reliability above everything else is a good PSU, realy does make a difference on the hardware side as you give your kit cleaner power. Add UPS/surge protector and you can double the lifetime of kit. Least from experience I've had it has been noticable.

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#23

Post by Zenst »

josephturnip wrote: post #18
hollerith wrote: post #17

The result most surprising to me is that laptops are between 25% and 60% less likely than desktop machines to crash from a hardware fault during the first 30 days worth of measurements. The much larger weight and volume of desktops would seem to make them easier to cool.

That caught my eye too.. perhaps it's because laptops are designed with being carried around in mind? Or, to draw on the other conclusions from the paper, because laptops generally have lower-frequency chips (and for that matter, slower memory and disks too)?

Laptops also have in effect a cleaner power source with UPS built in so any power glitch's get filtered on a laptop as standard compared to a desktop.

Least I have found desktop's with a good quality PSU and UPS noticable more reliable than those without.

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#24

Post by thechut »

cs702 wrote: post #10

Very useful -- I will take this analysis into account when it's time to upgrade my current personal machine or configure the next one! Thank you for posting this here. The only thing I would have wanted to see but didn't in this analysis is how failure rates vary for different types of disk subsystem -- specifically, traditional hard drives versus the newer solid-state devices. I suspect, but don't know for sure, tha…

cs702, this is the article I looked at before buying my SSD recently: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-...

It's talking specifically about disk failures though, not comparing whole systems

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#25

Post by scott_s »

ippisl wrote: post #21
wazoox wrote: post #11

Among other interesting insights: * a machine that crashed once is 100 times more likely to crash again; the more it crashes, the more it's prone to fail again. * overclocking significantly reduces reliability. One CPU vendor (AMD or Intel, but unspecified) is much worse in this regard, too. * conversely, underclocking improves reliability. * branded computers are more reliable than beige boxes. * laptops are more re…

>> branded computers are more reliable than beige boxes. This is meaningless. The real question is how those compare to beige box that uses a decent parts. But Microsoft definitely has interest in helping manufacturers of brand computers because piracy is more prevalent in beige boxes.

This paper was written by researchers in Microsoft Research, and accepted in an academic conference. It is not marketing. To be clear, you are suggesting that the researchers were dishonest in order to help their company. I find this unlikely.

Disclaimer: I am a researcher in a corporate lab.

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#26

Post by scott_s »

latch wrote: post #3

Is there a compelling reason for this to be a PDF rather than HTML? I'm genuinely curious.

As mbafk and josephturnip state, they simply put online the same copy that was published in the conference. Academic conferences typically publish papers in PDF form.

But, that doesn't actually answer your question, which I think is "Barely." I feel silly preparing PDFs for publication when I know that most people will read it on their computer, not print it out. Many conferences no longer even have an actual, physical copy of the proceedings, instead just giving out USB sticks with all of the PDFs. (Which is what we want anyway.)

I think it would be fantastic if there was a standard HTML5 template that researchers could use to publish their papers. There are Latex-to-HTML compilers, but I've never been impressed with the results. I think people outside of academia would be more likely to read our papers if they were in HTML rather and PDF.

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#27

Post by wazoox »

cs702 wrote: post #15
wazoox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far numbers I've seen seem to acknowledge a failure rate of SSDs in the same ballpark as spinning rust but it's only been slightly over a year that most SSDs are actually reliable. Many, many old models were absolutely terrible. Hence I think it may be difficult yet to draw reliable conclusions.

wazoox: thanks. Do you recall the source(s) for those numbers?

So far, the best source I can recall is this study: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-...

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#28

Post by jseliger »

Zenst wrote: post #23
josephturnip wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That caught my eye too.. perhaps it's because laptops are designed with being carried around in mind? Or, to draw on the other conclusions from the paper, because laptops generally have lower-frequency chips (and for that matter, slower memory and disks too)?

Laptops also have in effect a cleaner power source with UPS built in so any power glitch's get filtered on a laptop as standard compared to a desktop. Least I have found desktop's with a good quality PSU and UPS noticable more reliable than those without.

Laptops also have in effect a cleaner power source with UPS built in so any power glitch's get filtered on a laptop as standard compared to a desktop.

I've heard this theory before but never seen it substantiated. Do you have a link to any research or articles that explains how this works?

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#29

Post by mbafk »

scott_s wrote: post #26
latch wrote: post #3

Is there a compelling reason for this to be a PDF rather than HTML? I'm genuinely curious.

As mbafk and josephturnip state, they simply put online the same copy that was published in the conference. Academic conferences typically publish papers in PDF form. But, that doesn't actually answer your question, which I think is "Barely." I feel silly preparing PDFs for publication when I know that most people will read it on their computer, not print it out. Many conferences no longer even have an actual, physic…

I agree it would be great if there was a good HTML template the IEEE or ACM used. Even using Latex you spend ages making it look exactly the way you want and don't want to upload a dodgy HTML version.

Re: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs

#30

Post by glhaynes »

ippisl wrote: post #21
wazoox wrote: post #11

Among other interesting insights: * a machine that crashed once is 100 times more likely to crash again; the more it crashes, the more it's prone to fail again. * overclocking significantly reduces reliability. One CPU vendor (AMD or Intel, but unspecified) is much worse in this regard, too. * conversely, underclocking improves reliability. * branded computers are more reliable than beige boxes. * laptops are more re…

>> branded computers are more reliable than beige boxes. This is meaningless. The real question is how those compare to beige box that uses a decent parts. But Microsoft definitely has interest in helping manufacturers of brand computers because piracy is more prevalent in beige boxes.

Would you be happier with it if it said "a randomly-chosen branded computer is, on average, likely to be more reliable than a randomly-chosen beige box"?
Post reply on HN