Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2018

Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2018 by walrus01 on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @12:45PM (#18970344)

If I had to guess, the seagates are sufficiently cheap in ridiculous quantities, and Backblaze's multi-pod redundancy/parity and drive monitoring is good enough, that even if they have a 3% failure rate and the HGSTs have a 0.75% failure rate, that it's still an acceptable risk for them.

If you're an individual person with a 12-drive ZFS RAIDZ2 with hotspare, in a file server in your garage or something, you might prefer to pay the premium to buy HGST, because what if you have a double drive failure during a three week period while you're on vacation out of the country?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2018 by loeg on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @01:08PM (#18970589)

Especially if you're an individual person with a non-raid6 / hot spare system, you might pay a premium for a lower failure rate (standalone drive, RAID1, or RAID5, for example).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2018 by walrus01 on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @01:15PM (#18970662)

Although in the year 2019 it would be pretty reckless to use RAID5 without hotspare. Or even RAID5 with hotspare. This has been true for a long, long time:

https://www.google.com/search?&q=why+raid5+stops+working&ie=...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2018 by loeg on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @06:45PM (#18974062)

I'm certainly not advocating for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]