Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2016
by pooloo1 on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @09:10PM
(#13537554)
How is the benefit negligible? You are running consumer drives that are not designed to be run at a 100% load 100% of the time. The drives are not meant to be spun up constantly; in fact, many of them have mechanisms designed for them to spin down between use and lower power consumption. It's like complaining about a drag racer not being able to haul a ton of bricks without breaking the transmission on a regular basis.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Has anyone done a teardown of two drives and compared the materials? Many enterprise and OEM drives really just seem to be the same hardware as consumer drives, only with different firmware (the "power-saving" spindown) and more rigorous QC.
Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2016
by rubber_duck on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:17AM
(#13539454)
>How is the benefit negligible?
I believe when you're buying as much drives as they do and produce the kind of reports they do they measure and compare before reaching that conclusion.
Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2016
by greyskull on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @09:48PM
(#13537754)
The decision can't be made in isolation. They need to ensure that the extra cost of the drives makes up for the increased reliability - that's not necessarily the case.
> The drives are not meant to be spun up constantly;
I think having the drives spin constantly is the best for lifespan, because there are less spinups and thus components wear less.
Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2016
by Already__Taken on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:16AM
(#13539450)
There should be no wear at all once it's running, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_bearing
So barring any manufacturing defects that I'm soure would be abundantly clear early on, it's down to logic or electrical failures.