backblaze released first drive stats report

Looking at a chart of annualized failure rates over time and by manufacturer, it might appear that much of the overall rise over the past year has been driven by Seagate and Toshiba models.

Yes, it's true: Hard drive failures creep up as disks age.

Backblaze thinks SSDs are more reliable than hard drives.

New SI prefixes clear the way for quettabytes of storage.

Barge off: Nautilus to bring floating datacenters to two new sites in US, France.

Fast evaluation - SSD is better.This increase as a drive model ages follows the bathtub curve, whereby a typical drive can be expected to exhibit a rash of early failures, followed by a period when there are relatively few, followed by an uptick once more as all the drives approach the end of their lives and wear out. So this is another point of view for the data regularly published from BB.įor someone it's enough. Btw - I have list of unanswered questions from last BB drive report. Because it's wrong.Īnd when the methodology is missing, there is a space for unanswered questions. No described methodology.įollow the data from BB - it means every single SMART record. There isn't exactly defined - what does mean the Failure. no defined FS or redundancy operation mode for each drives (no chance to understand the failures deeply). OK, there is the SMART E09 value (but you can't check of the value validity) Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2020 (backblaze. no defined date of operation - mandatory for Read errors evaluation, etc. published its latest quarterly report detailing the reliability of disk storage deployed in. OFC the types mentioned above (HDD/SSD) also are missing specially when you need to merge 92 CVS you need get cleaner datasets single column for the vendor is missing there are missing principles of data taxonomy again same mistakes in the datasets from previous Q. On second side, there is an unprofessional mess: But something is missing or wrong there - I mean the data quality.įrom one point of view, I appreciate the attitude of BB to publish the data. But in deep dive I found 789 next SSDs with higher value than 17 520, much higher. Include all the SSD drives.Ĭlick to expand.then 2y x 36d x 24h = 17 520 hours = max possible value for this indicator. Every single disk drive (defined by SN, then by disk vendor, PN) has complex SMART events evidence on daily basis for the Q1 2021.

No one knows what kind of drive are used there.Ģ. btw it's about +100 unique SNs discovered with 250GB capacity. as you can se there is one drive defined as 'Seagate SSD'. Seagate Seagate BarraCuda SSD ZA500CM10002 SSD 2.5 Seagate Seagate SSD SSD

Seagate Seagate BarraCuda SSD ZA250CM10002 SSD 2.5 At the end of Q2 2023, Backblaze was monitoring 245,757 hard drives and SSDs in our data centers around the world. Seagate Seagate BarraCuda SSD ZA2000CM10002 SSD 2.5 Seagate Seagate BarraCuda 120 SSD ZA250CM10003 SSD 2.5 But it's simple to recognize just the SSD drives there (incl. Some insights re: SSDs used for the BB booting purposes only from the BB Q1 2021 datasets:ĩ2 CSVs, each per single day of operation from Jan 1st, 2021 till March 31st, 2021ġ. That’s down from 2.47 in 2015 and well below the 6.39 failure rate for 2014. The overall hard drive failure rate for 2016 was 1.95. Of course, that’s easy for me to say, since I am not the one swapping out drives. I know the datasets from BB (analyzed many times in past by me) That’s 3.36 drive failures per day or about five drives per workday, a very manageable workload.

Backblaze released first drive stats report