The ages of the drives are right there is red, green, and blue. The graph is plotted by drive age.Without knowing the age of the drives, the overall percentage of failures is meaningless.
In a way, yes. Their business model is built around low overhead on storage. Good software, good management, cheap drives. It's kind of a popular thing, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even enterprise file systems are now built to work in such environments, because even those drives are not offering enough data-level reliability to be trusted implicitly, as they had been in the past. So, assume everything that can fail will, design around that, and then brag when failures end up not causing any data loss or downtime, or only minor downtime .This backblaze outfit seems kind of low rent.
They describe the pods elsewhere, including offering parts lists and CAD files, so you can make your own, but it's basically just a tightly packed x86 storage server, that, aside from the case, can be done as a kit. The second question is answered in the article. If you don't get how RAID arrays work, I don't know how to describe it in a concise way, though.What is a storage pod and why do these drive failures require so much human finesse to get going again?
Exactly what I was getting in my first reply. I think the trend of Seagates wearing themselves out, yet WDs and Hitachis not, is quite clear, but what do their time frames translate into with different workloads and environments? Not that they would have the answers, but it is something to keep in mind. I've never had any trouble with WD Green drives, FI, other than performance, but I've only ever used them in external drives with low duty cycles, or internal drives with, drum roll please, low duty cycles, and not with many other drives in the case.Also, the environment these are being using in means your failure rates in your desktop chassis will be nothing like theirs. They are using desktop drives in a major enterprise array. What's with all the vibration?
No, it doesn't. Seagate drives typically have the same 2 year warranty as WD Blue. Toshiba has 1-2 year warranty depending on the drive. And WD Black's 5 year warranty doesn't mean it's more reliable, it just makes it more expensive.
Really? My understanding is WD Blacks go through more rigorous testing, hence they're confident it'll last 5 years. otherwise why provide a longer warranty on just the same drive as the Blues?
Because customers have to pay more for a longer warranty?
heh, your humor is not lost but Seagates tend to be less expensive than WD models and in some cases faster (ST1000DM001 vs WD Blue) however you get what you pay for IME.That's a nice trick for amateurs such as WD.
Real pros like Seagate increase the price and reduce the warranty. That's how you win the game.
however you get what you pay for IME.
and as others have pointed out the drives need to be compared on a model by model basis to actually reach a conclusion.Basically, we buy the least expensive drives that will work
If you don't get how RAID arrays work, I don't know how to describe it in a concise way, though.
If you want to try to learn, though, I can try to offer some context, in that a redundant RAID array is there to keep good data in the array of drives, in the event of a drive failure. The array is either good or failed. However, there are levels of parts failures while the array is still good (IE, parts may be dead or malfunctioning, but the data volume is fine, because it's designed to handle those failures). If too many drives fail too quickly, data on the array can be compromised. If a drive acts up, the RAID controller, be it software or hardware, will generally decide that drive is not trustworthy, at which point a human must check things out and judge the situation.
Well, you were acting like it didn't make any sense, despite being exactly what SMBs and larger startups have been doing for at least a decade, just going farther than most reasonably can. The case and software are all they have that's particularly special, and not done elsewhere.Gee thanks for explaining to the IT director of a medium sized city how RAID works. And being [lousy] at it too.
Though, it does make sense, given that you haven't read the linked content, merely been trying to infer things which would are plainly stated (IE, they've been doing exactly that, with design revisions, mentioned mere clicks away from the main link).If they are having vibration enough to kill drives they need to seriously redesign their pods.
For $50/yr, without storage caps, you would expect what, exactly? A cheap always-online backup is the point, and it's not easy to do with high-cost hardware, such as any big vendor's HDDs, or non-rebranded HDDs marketed for RAID at higher prices. It's like a ZFS backup box taken to a much larger scale.Like I said, sounds low rent to me.
Gee thanks for explaining to the IT director of a medium sized city how RAID works. And being [lousy] at it too.
Gee thanks for explaining to the IT director of a medium sized city how RAID works. And being [lousy] at it too.
Me thinks tard just got busted, lol
Good choices :thumbsup:I am the CEO, Creative Director and IT Manager of a small imaging and video production company. We use mostly 1TB WD RE and Black drives in our workstations, a couple 2TB WD Reds in a NAS and 4TB Hitachi drives in our servers. We've had good success with all of them.
Warranty or not it has a far greater chance of making five years than equivalent Seagate models.That seagate 1.5 model that had issues, I have about 14 of them from 2008/2009 with 5yr warranty, only had 2 bad disk, and I just retired them last week and got the 4tb hitachi drive, the hitachi only has 3 yr warranty.. too bad it didn't have 5.
As of last year, it was the fastest 4tb drive on the market.