The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
backblaze.com
The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
1–10 of 158 posts
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#2>>>All 40 of the Dell servers which make up these two Vaults were relocated to the top of 52U racks, and it appears that initially they did not like their new location.
Or the way in which they were handled during the relocation?
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#3Looks like ~3,087 Petabytes of total storage!
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#4>>>All 40 of the Dell servers which make up these two Vaults were relocated to the top of 52U racks, and it appears that initially they did not like their new location. Or the way in which they were handled during the relocation?
Maybe they moved them again to confirm location was the issue
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#5Is there any information what lead to Backblaze to stop making their own hardware and going with COTS?
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#6Is there any information what lead to Backblaze to stop making their own hardware and going with COTS?
> Over the last few years, we began using storage servers from Dell and, more recently, Supermicro, as they have proven to be economically and operationally viable in our environment.
Sounds like it was money.
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#7I love these so I'm really sad to say this: What's missing is an AFR based on deployed time in increments, not total time.
For example: there should be a sliding window (or a histogram) relating to AFR after deployment for a time frame.
IE: AFR between 0-300 days, AFR between 301-600 days, AFR between 601-900 days (etc).
Otherwise we're looking at failures historically for the entire period, which might hide a spat of failures that consistently occur 3 years in, giving a relatively unfair advantage in numbers to newer drives.
That said, I really do love these and I hope they continue.
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#8Is there any information what lead to Backblaze to stop making their own hardware and going with COTS?
Yes, building your own shit is expensive.
Tale as old as time.
Before someone uses Google's servers as an example, I would say that strapping together consumer grade components with zip ties and no case isn't what I'd consider a 'server'; rather, a loose collection of parts.
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#9Is there any information what lead to Backblaze to stop making their own hardware and going with COTS?
They may have just reached a scale where it was viable, where it wasn't before. The bigger you are, the bigger discounts you can negotiate. They also certainly have the leverage to walk away from a deal, since they have proof "hey, we'll just build our own if we don't like your offer."
Re: The drive stats of Backblaze storage pods
#10If there is one company that could give accurate stats on what drives actually perform better and what drives are the worst and fail more often it is Black Blaze, but yet they don't. What a missed opportunity to provide some insight.