Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2017 - HGST HDDs Very Reliable

even WD owned HGST, not sure if HGST hdd manufactured in same factory
i mean HGST line probably still on their old way/factory which make the different from WD hdd model

based the table list...
for WD they use WD-RED line (intended for NAS) instead enterprise model
while the HGST hdd they use is enterprise model cmiiw

maybe some can say there no different between enterprise model vs end-user/consumer model
but still the spec listed for enterprise model is usually higher (workload,reliability rate)

nowdays kinda hard to find HGST drive, as WD seems directed them to enterprise rather than consumer

 

I got 2 of them boss! I'm crossing fingers and toes too, for both of us!

 

had 3xwb 750gb years back all 3 dead on arrival ... click click grrrrrr click click ...dead ...all 3 of em ...and now my bios screaming to backup and replace my wd Blue due to S.M.A.R.T. diagnosis 1tb i have since 2011 or 12 , although already backed up what i wanted from it about a month ago since it suddenly started disappearing from my computer every now and then . hard drives are the luck of the draw most likely over the years you will have a drive at least that will fail no way around that

 

being wholly owned by WD still doesn't stop it being an entreaty within WD with a degree of autonomy, with its own board concerned with running HGST and its own QA and dedicated facilities etc.

the world is full of companies that are wholly own by larger enteritis and still operate with a degree of autonomy and their financial liabilities separated from the parent company and have their own products and keep their intellectual properties separate and cross licence them with the parent company.

its basic business.

 

I've had drives from every MFG fail on me over the course of about 30 years. To be honest, WD has never seemed much/any better than Seagate. The numbers in these charts look that way too.

Maxtor can go straight to he|| though.

 

... 10 000+ 4TB hgst...

 

Looks like I dodged a bullet with the later 4TB Seagate drives... or maybe not. I got a 4TB SkyHawk, but that's not their bottom of the barrel one. I look forward to the day where everything is solid state or something else which is more reliable.

 

When we will get the same chart, but with SSDs?

 

I was thinking like you until they goes Seagate for the server at work...
They are noisy with strange "tzzzzzt" sometime but more or less the same reliability than previous WD.

Hopefully they rise up the quality at each gen.

 

SSD are still lot less reliable than HDD, at home i am at my 3rd one (1 corsair and 2 samsung pro) while the HDD it's at 1/4 of it's expected life.

but one day it will happen, little by little SSD get Gig each year and get more secure even without raid.

 

Contrary to popular belief caused by sensationalist reporting and basic exaggeration, most IBM deskstars and ultrastars were extremely reliable, far more reliable than the crap many manufactures were putting out at the time.


e.g. I have old IBM IDE deskstars still in service, much like I have early Hitachi deskstars and ultrastar still in service, and granted they may now be secondary PC but up to March 2017 the IBM IDE deskstars were in my main PC and gave >16 years of faultless service.

 

It is raw information for costumers to draw their own conclusion.

 

If that was the case, then why bother to peddle it still further here in this thread.


You’re the one who peddled the links and the image in a sensationalist manner with little/NO further explanation or correction on why you cited them.

 

Well, anyone drawing any kind of brand conclusion on this is running a fools race.

The Seagate sampling is 67,125 total drives. That is just over 73% of *all* the drives tested. WDC only has 662.

There is simply no way the sample sizes are enough to making any meaningful assessment for WDC … the Hitatchi values are the balance and do fair better at the larger volume.

The price point of the drives is also a factor. The Seagates' are all likely running in a high redundancy environment where total deployment of drives matters more than statistical reliability (to a point). If they are 20% less per unit but only have a failure rate of ±.75% the economics are far more important.

This is compounded by the fact that there is *nothing* in the report on ow these drives are used, where, under what issues etc. A manager with a Drobo does not have the same workload as a fileserver at RAID10 or whatever.

Also, the 29% on that Seagate M005 is questionable as it looks like a data entry error, not a calculated value.

 

It's not an error, it's "annualised" failure rate. They calculate that based on the number of total days the drives have been active. It's "drive failures" / "years active"... which is 29.08 for the M005. Although they installed 60 drives, they had only been active for an average of 3 weeks each when the data was taken. So one of the 60 drives died early (or out of the box?) and skewed the stats.

I agree with you generally however and I'm certainly *not* defending the conclusions people draw from surface level reading of these stats. There's a reason researchers spend a long time and draw on extensive expertise to design and conduct a serious trial.