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

[HarborFront]

Content source

https://blocksandfiles.com/2023/05/03/when-do-hard-disk-drives-fail-how-old-are-they/?td=rt-3a

Read inside link

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.”

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

To be clear, these are mechanical HDD's and NOT digital SSD's?

 

[HarborFront]

To be clear, these are mechanical HDD's and NOT digital SSD's?

Yes, for HDDs only

For SSDs can refer below.....................but no Samsung SSDs

The SSD Edition: 2022 Drive Stats Review

Welcome to the SSD Edition of the 2022 Annual Drive Stats Reports. Check out the data and let us know what you think in the comments.

www.backblaze.com

 

[Brahman]

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

 

[HarborFront]

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?

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

....but no Samsung SSDs

Great... wanted to see how my T7 stacked up. Maybe they just don't fail...

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

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.

 

[Zero Knowledge]

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

 

[HarborFront]

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?