Hard Drive Endurance

[Giles Orr]

> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Lennart Sorensen <
lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:26:05AM -0500, Giles Orr wrote:
>> > "Which hard drive to buy" has come up a couple times on this list:
>> >
>> >
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/01/21/2232235/who-makes-the-best-hard-disk-drives
>> >
>> > The original article, if you want to bypass Slashdot:
>> >
>> > http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/
>> >
>> > Backblaze buys the cheapest model of HD they can find, but they use
them by
>> > the thousands.  The stats they generate are of course for their
specific
>> > use case, but it's interesting.  The short version: Seagate: Bad,
Western
>> > Digital: OK, Hitachi: Good (others: not enough data).  I've favoured
WD, so
>> > I may need to rethink that.  Definitely interesting.
>>
>> The IBM deskstar still worries me, which may be why I never have given
>> Hitachi a chance.
>
> On 22 January 2014 12:27, Do-Ming Lum <do.ming.lum-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Agreed. Every IBM or Hitachi drive I have ever owned failed.  Admittedly
not
> a very large sample because I have mostly stuck with Seagate and WD. The
> Seagate stats are worrying, though.

Can't trust anything these days:

http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/selecting-a-disk-drive-how-not-to-do-research-1.html

Also from Slashdot, it's a refutal - by someone who claims no association
with Backblaze, Seagate, or any other HD manufacturer.  I admit to not
having read it, but Slashdot's summary claims that Backblaze's Seagate
drives were all significantly older than the other drives and some had
known problems - so of course they failed first.

--
Giles
http://www.gilesorr.com/
gilesorr-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20140130/34399c5a/attachment.html>