News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Dispelling Backblaze's HDD Reliability Myth. Parent comment

Re:Dispelling Backblaze's HDD Reliability Myth by wiredfool on Friday January 24, 2014 @09:17PM (#7119540)
I find it particularly galling that "Everybody knows temperature is important" is the rebuttal to a bunch of data saying "we didn't see an effect".

If you've got data, post it. If not, it starts to sound like astroturf.

Fwiw, with my small sample size, I agree with backblaze. Seagates appear to be failing more, and avoid wdc greens.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dispelling Backblaze's HDD Reliability Myth by zzzcpan on Friday January 24, 2014 @09:39PM (#7119619) 

  > and avoid wdc greens
Why? Backblaze reports 3.6% AFR on wdc greens over 4.4 years, which is pretty good.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dispelling Backblaze's HDD Reliability Myth by sexmonad on Saturday January 25, 2014 @12:15PM (#7121358)
Anecdotally, at my last job, we had used them on several of our internal file and VM servers (because they were cheap), and they had a nasty habit of falling off the bus overnight, causing the RAID controller to go berserk.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dispelling Backblaze's HDD Reliability Myth by wiredfool on Friday January 24, 2014 @11:22PM (#7119839)
I think they had issues with early death from vibration, and they don't perform well in anything like demanding performance situations.

Though that may just be my faulty memory of he The original piece.

[ Parent | on HN ]