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

Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

backblaze.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#151

Post by BSDobelix »

kridsdale1 wrote: post #22
ecliptik wrote: post #14

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…

No RAID 0 for the bulk storage? What’s your disaster plan?

Disaster-plan is always backup (away from location) or out-of-house replication, raid is NOT a backup but a part of a system to keep uptime high and hands-on low (like redundant power and supply)

Disaster = Your DC or Cellar is flooded or burned down ;)

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#152

Post by Macha »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #127
ecliptik wrote: post #14

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…

Nobody should ever have peace of mind about a single drive. You probably have odds around 5% that the storage drive fails each cycle, and another 5% for the OS drive. That's significant. And in your particular situation, 3 refurbished WUH721414ALE6L4 are the same total price. If you put those in RAIDZ1 then that's 28TB with about as much reliability as you can hope to have in a single device. (With backups still bein…

My understanding is that with the read error rate and capacity of modern hard drives, statistically you can't reliably rebuild a raid5/raidz1

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#153

Post by pabs3 »

echoangle wrote: post #79
userbinator wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An amazing amount if you consider that 16EB is the amount of data a 64-bit quantity can address, and this is over a quarter of that.

Wow, that’s a cool stat. I wonder if people will ever seriously use 16EB of memory in a single system and will need to change to a more-than-64-bit architecture or if 64 bit is truly enough. This has „640k ought to be enough for anybody“ potential (and I know he didn’t say that).

RISC-V has got us covered with the RV128 variant.

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#154

Post by t0mas88 »

crazygringo wrote: post #89
dharmab wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to restore my media server without a backup would cost me around a dozen hours of my time. 2 bucks a month to back up to Glacier with rclone’s crypt backend is easily worth it.

Have you checked the costs for restoring from Glacier? It's not the backing up part that's expensive. I would not be surprised if you decided to spend the dozen hours of your time after all.

AWS Glacier removed the retrieval pricing issue for most configurations, but the bandwidth costs are still there. You pay $ 90 to retrieve 1 TB.

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#155

Post by t0mas88 »

walrus01 wrote: post #55
didntcheck wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For essential personal data you're right, but a very common use case for a home NAS is a media server. The library is usually non-essential data - annoying to lose, but not critical. Combined with its large size, it's usually hard to justify a full offsite backup. RAID offers a cost-effective way to give it some protection, when the alternative is nothing

For a number of people I know, they don't do any offsite backup of their home media server. It would not result in any possibly-catastrophic personal financial hassles/struggles/real data loss if a bunch of movies and music disappeared overnight. The amount of personally generated sensitive data that doesn't fit on a laptop's onboard storage (which should all be backed up offsite as well) will usually fit on like a 1…

Same here, I use raid 1 with offsite backups for my documents and things like family pictures. I don't backup downloaded or ripped movies and TV shows, just redownload or search for the bluray in the attic if needed.

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#156

Post by t0mas88 »

ipsento606 wrote: post #59
walrus01 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAID doesn't cover all of the scenarios as offsite backup, such as massive electrical power surge, fire, flood, theft or other things causing total destruction of the RAID array. Ideally you'd want a setup that has local storage redundancy in some form of RAID and offsite backup.

for the home user backing up their own data, I honestly think that raid has limited utility. If I have 3 disks to devote to backup, I'd rather have 1 local copy and two remote copies, vs 1 local copy with RAID and 1 remote copy without.

If it's infrequently accessed data then yes, but for a machine that you use every day it's nice if things keep working after a failure and you only need to plug in a replacement disk. I use the same machine for data storage and for home automation for example.

The third copy is in the cloud, write/append only. More work and bandwidth cost to restore, but it protects against malware or fire. So it's for a different (unlikely) scenario.

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#157

Post by [deleted] »

CTDOCodebases wrote: post #72
ecliptik wrote: post #14

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…

[deleted]

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#158

Post by lofaszvanitt »

frontierkodiak wrote: post #120

I've owned 17 Seagate ST12000NM001G (12TB SATA) drives over the last 24mos in a big raidz3 pool. My personal stats, grouping by the first 3-4 SN characters: - 5/8 ZLW2s failed - 1/4 ZL2s - 1/2 ZS80 - 0/2 ZTN - 0/1 ZLW0 All drives were refurbs. Two from the Seagate eBay store, all others from ServerPartDeals. 7/15 of the drives I purchases from ServerPartDeals have failed, at least four of those failures have been wit…

"All drives were refurbs."

refurbs have terrible reliability... They offer 5 year warranties, yet the replacements they send back have terrible quality......

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#159

Post by atYevP »

mhh__ wrote: post #117
theandrewbailey wrote: post #6

> 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.

So long and thanks for all the disks!

Yev here -> That's what I said!!! Great minds :P

Re: Backblaze Drive Stats for 2024

#160

Post by userbinator »

loeg wrote: post #39

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.)

Seagate seems to be very much hit-or-miss.
Post reply on HN