The bigger HDDs come, the harder they fall. Well, kind of

HarborFront

Level 71
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
6,040
Read inside link

1683164024915.png


1683164048821.png


It’s no surprise that Seagate has the lowest reliability rating; Backblaze reported this was the case in late 2021 and, as these are annualized numbers, it will take years for the failing Seagate drives to disappear from the stats.

Average failed disk age


This time around, the Backblaze team examined the average age of failed drives, a topic which B&F reported on here. Data recovery business Secure Data Recovery found the average failed hard drive was just two years and 10 months old. Was the same true for Backblaze’s failed HDD population?

That population totalled 17,155 drives, dating from April 2013 up to the end of March this year. Their average age when they failed was two years and six months; not much different from the Secure Data Recovery number. The calculation was rerun to exclude drives which were still in operation, and therefore likely to fail at some point.

This revealed “35 drive models consisting of 3,379 drives that have a failed average age of two years and seven months.”

1683164167287.png
 

HarborFront

Level 71
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
6,040

Brahman

Level 17
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Aug 22, 2013
833
Best is to get 16TB HDDs from WDC for backup use
16TB hdds are very costly and sells in lower numbers than 4 Tb ones, hence their failure rate is lower. I would still make my bet on 4Tb
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and Sorrento

HarborFront

Level 71
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
6,040
16TB hdds are very costly and sells in lower numbers than 4 Tb ones, hence their failure rate is lower. I would still make my bet on 4Tb
Huh?

So if there are 10x 16TB HDDs and 1 fails = 10% failure rate

whereas if there are 1000x 4TB HDDs and 1 fails = 0.001% failure rate

So, who has a lower failure rate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento

MuzzMelbourne

Level 15
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 13, 2022
599
So, who has a lower failure rate?

Ahhh, well you have to factor in the total number of user hours, multiplied by the amount of read/write cycles, divided by the average current draw and add the square root of date of manufacture. But, at the end of the day, it depends on what colour cable you plug into it.
 
  • Hundred Points
  • HaHa
Reactions: Nevi and oldschool

Zero Knowledge

Level 20
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Dec 2, 2016
842
Never liked Seagate. This is why. And the reason for higher fail rates in 4TB would be number in use for servers and NAS/PC builds.

BTW anyone remember the IBM Death Stars? Or the early Sata II OCZ SSD's? Both had huge failure rates. We have come a long way baby :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and Sorrento

HarborFront

Level 71
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
6,040
Ahhh, well you have to factor in the total number of user hours, multiplied by the amount of read/write cycles, divided by the average current draw and add the square root of date of manufacture. But, at the end of the day, it depends on what colour cable you plug into it.

Does the HDD capture and store those accumulated numbers you mentioned? If yes, which software can display them?
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top