On 28 March 2018 at 01:43, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <[email protected]> wrote: > Digging around on the pointer from Al to backblaze, I found this, which, > to me is far more meaningful in terms of presentation of data: > > https://hackernoon.com/applying-medical-statistics-to-the-backblaze-hard-drive-stats-36227cfd5372
Remarkable and fascinating. The charts for Seagate are especially reliable. It came as a surprise to me. In 30y in the business, almost anyone involved in selecting, specifying, purchasing, or maintaining hardware inevitably has _strong_ opinions on the reliability, or lack thereof, of certain brands of hard disk. Personally, I've used them _all_. I've seen several-decades-old hard disks working perfectly, I've seen brand new drives fail, I've watched batches of them die progressively. They can _all_ fail. I have no angels or demons -- I have seen random sudden failures of every vendor known to humanity, and superb longevity from every vendor too. But if there's a general trend, it's that the bigger, the more fragile. I have decade-old 300GB drives in routine use that are fine. I've also had multiple failures of new multi-terabyte-class drives, to my personal cost. -- Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: [email protected] • Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: [email protected] Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
