111–120 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nowadays you can get a petabyte in a single machine (50 drives 20TB each).
Out of curiosity, what server cases can actually accommodate 50 drives?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you purchase them all at the same time from the same store? I've had a batch of SSDs fail from the same vendor / mfg timeframe. I started ordering a couple here and there form different vendors where possible. So far i've been lucky to get drives that aren't from the same batches. I tend to buy Exos from seagate and WD gold though so there's a bit of a premium tacked on.
No, that's the weird thing. Even the RMA models were failing. But sure enough, it wasn't just some incompatibility with the NAS because I tested them on PCs to confirm they were failing, and they were.
Hard to argue with those WDC/Toshiba numbers. Seagate's are just embarrassing in contrast. (HGST drives -- now WDC -- were great, but those are legacy drives. It's been part of WD for some time. The new models are WDC branded.)
...and many used Seagate drives have been resold as new in the last 3 years. They were used for crypto mining and then had their SMART parameters wiped back to "new" 0 hours usage. https://www.heise.de/en/news/Hard-disk-fraud-Increasing-evid...
It's not a best practice, but the last 10 years I've run my home server with a smaller faster drive for the OS and a single larger disk for bulk storage that I choose using Backblaze Drive Stats. None of have failed yet (fingers-crossed). I really trust their methodology and it's an extremely valuable resource for me as a consumer. My most recent drive is a WDC WUH722222ALE6L4 22TiB, and looking at the stats (albeit…
True enterprise drives ftw - even Seagate usually makes some very reliable ones. They also tend to be a little faster. Some people have complained about noise but I have never noticed. They are noticeable much heavier in hand (and supposedly most use dual bearings). Combined with selecting based on Backblazes statistics I have had no HDD failures in years
One of these blogs literally told us that enterprise drives were no better. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/enterprise-drive-reliability/
True enterprise drives ftw - even Seagate usually makes some very reliable ones. They also tend to be a little faster. Some people have complained about noise but I have never noticed. They are noticeable much heavier in hand (and supposedly most use dual bearings). Combined with selecting based on Backblazes statistics I have had no HDD failures in years
I'm not sure I follow you, are you really saying that your choice of Seagate was based on Backblaze's statistics? Maybe I'm missing something but aren't they the overall least reliable brand in their tables?
> I have been authoring the various Drive Stats reports for the past ten years and this will be my last one. I am retiring, or perhaps in Drive Stats vernacular, it would be “migrating.” Thank you for all these reports over the years.
It's not a best practice, but the last 10 years I've run my home server with a smaller faster drive for the OS and a single larger disk for bulk storage that I choose using Backblaze Drive Stats. None of have failed yet (fingers-crossed). I really trust their methodology and it's an extremely valuable resource for me as a consumer. My most recent drive is a WDC WUH722222ALE6L4 22TiB, and looking at the stats (albeit…
Take these stats with a grain of salt. I am becoming more and more convinced that hard drive reliability is linked to the batch more than to the individual drive models themselves. Often you will read online of people experiencing multiple failures from drives purchased from the same batch. I cannot prove this because I have no idea about Blackblazes procurement patterns but I bought one of the better drives in this…
Don’t know about disk batches, though. Took used old second hand drives. (Many different batches due to procurement timelines.) Half of them was thrown out because they were clicky. All were tested with S.M.A.R.T. Took about a week. The ones that worked are mostly still around. Only a third of the ones that survived S.M.A.R.T. have failed so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hopefully you have 2x of these drives in some kind of raid mirror such that if one fails, you can simply replace it and re-mirror. not having something like this is risky.
Wasn’t the issue with large drives that remaining drive has a high chance of failure during re-silvering?
I originally used the Backblaze when selecting the drive I'd build my storage pool around. Every time the updated stats pop up in my inbox, I check out the table and double-check that my drives are in fact the 001Gs.. the drives that Backblaze reports has having 0.99% AFR.. I guess the lesson is that YMMV.