![]() ![]() In aggregate, the number of drive days is still on the lower side, but the obvious difference in the AFR between the HDD and SSD boot drives is eye-opening." Going forward, Backblaze says it will take a look at data showing HDD failure rates in their early years of use and compare it with SSDs for a more accurate picture, as well as build a library of SSDs for its storage farm.Īdditionally, Backblaze published an updated list of lifetime annualized failure rates for HDDs, noting that lifetime AFR figures across all drives continue to decrease, with the latest average AFR of 1.49 percent being the lowest value on record. "None of the models by themselves had enough drive days to be statistically relevant. An important factor here is the drive age, which can skew the data somewhat in favor of SSDs and was the reason why Backblaze didn't break them down by their individual models. The failure rate for these drives has been compared with another group of HDDs that Backblaze says have been performing the "same functions in the same environment" over time. Instead of regular HDDs used to store data, and which make for an overwhelming 98 percent majority of the company's 175,443 total drive count, these SSDs are only used for booting its storage servers, keeping log files, and other diagnostic data. The other two drives are much newer additions to this testing, and include the Toshiba 16TB MG08 series that have an average age of just over 4 months and Western Digital's 16TB Ultrastar drives, whose average age across 520 units is just 0.4 months.Īnother interesting insight this time around (and going forward) is the addition of reliability data for SSDs, which Backblaze says it started using just over two years ago. Among these are Seagate's 6TB and Toshiba's 4TB disks, which have an average age of almost six years with lifetime annualized failure rates - April 2013 to March 2021 - coming in at under 1 percent. ![]() The traditional hard disk drives, with their. The SSDs had an annualized failure rate of only 0.58 - or roughly 1 in every 200 drives. However, even this preliminary data - for the latest quarter - shows a noticeable difference between annualized failure rate (AFR) for both categories, standing at under 1 percent for SSDs and just over 10 percent for HDDs.įor its latest quarterly report on hard drive reliability, Backblaze notes four models that stood out with zero drive failures through the first three months of 2021. Comparison of SSD and hard disk failure rates. As Backblaze notes, these drives are fairly recent compared to their HDD counterparts (fewer drive days). As a consumer – forget the reviewer bit – I just don't yet trust drives larger than 2TB for mainstream or production use.Bottom line: In addition to the quarterly reports on HDD failure rates published by Backblaze, the cloud backup and storage company has now added SSD boot drives to its data starting with Q1 2021. I can deal with losing 2TB of data (and it's easier to back up), but losing 4TB is just too much. Number of Hard Drives by Model at Backblazeįor personal use, I tend to stick to 2TB WD Black HDDs and have not yet gone over 2TB in capacity. Smaller drives – like 1TB WD devices – have proven more stable. ![]() WD 3TB drives aren't immune to worsened lifespan, though, and have also jumped from 4% to 7% in annual failures. The latest report reinforces earlier data that Seagate has some of the poorest longterm endurance of all tested devices, with 3TB drives climbing to a 15% annual failure rate (from 9% at the time of last reporting). BackBlaze just reported its annual failure rate for 34,881 drives that house 100 petabytes of data (that's 100,000,000 gigabytes). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |