BACKBLAZE Releases HDD Stats for Q2 2018

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 25, 2018.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    40,590
    Likes Received:
    8,964
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    As of June 30, 2018 they had 100,254 spinning hard drives in Backblaze’s data centers. Of that number, there were 1,989 boot drives and 98,265 data drives. This review looks at the quarterly...

    BACKBLAZE Releases HDD Stats for Q2 2018
     
  2. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    i guess this the answer for people been questioning is enterprise hdd more reliable than consumer ?

    enterprise Longer Warranty: 5 vs. 2 years vs consumer Lower price: up to 50% less

    so reliable-wise enterprise hdd isnt much better than consumer
    basically the extra-price for warranty.... aside added parts/feature/firmware, the hdd itself seems same

    for enterprise it more convinient to get enterprise hdd in long-run, because they can RMA the drive when fail, for data-center like backblaze i bet they have direct communication for RMA handling, so it should be quick, i bet they even getting tons of spare hdd to use when RMA drive in exchange-process

    for consumer, not worth to get enterprise drive that 2x price, as the warranty wont cover data-recovery whatsoever... and rather long RMA-consumer-process, it much simple just buy/order new drive
     
  3. Margalus

    Margalus Master Guru

    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    57
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    I don't see how this shows that enterprise hdd's aren't much better than consumer drives.

    Also, prices aren't always double. Sometimes they are less. I have two WD 4TB drives, a black consumer hdd and a gold enterprise hdd. The gold enterprise was $140, the black consumer was $230. So enterprise was cheaper.
     
  4. waltc3

    waltc3 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    401
    GPU:
    AMD 50th Ann 5700XT
    Nice numbers...makes me feel very good about the cheap ($92) 4TB 5400rpm 256MB cache Seagate (ST4000DM004) I just bought...should easily outlast the two year warranty--especially because I am nowhere near as hard on it as these guys have to be. Actually, I've never owned a drive that's failed after < 4 years of deployment--and I've got drives in other systems around the house that have seen 10 years service (couple of old Maxtor slow SATAs still chugging away in a RAID 0 config)--all consumer drives, too. I think maybe out of some 50-60 drives owned by me personally during my career--all brands, pretty much--I've had exactly one of them to fail (but fortunately not before I could transfer the data!) after ~4 years of service, and the others I just decommissioned or moved elsewhere before they failed.

    I think another interesting fact is that some people still think that if you use RAID 0 (say, with just two drives) that you are twice as likely to have a drive failure, simply because two drives are involved instead of one, but numbers like these in which you are looking at 27,000+ drives like the 4TB Seagate--prove that estimate wholly inaccurate as the failure rate is 1.85%--certainly not 50% or higher...;) The drive cares not whether it is run as RAID 0 or IDE, etc. Anyway, don't mean to open that can of worms!

    Worse drive I ever owned? My first--a 500MB Great Valley Products scsi drive installed in my Amiga 2500...;) Talking about negative inflation, that drive cost me $500, not counting the controller, which I thought was cheap at the time. SCSI. Horrible experience (I mean, scsi was better by far at the time than IDE)--write errors out of the yin-yang--this improved a lot when C= moved to the Fast File System--but still--well, the tech was new...;) Imagine, at first I had to format the drive with C='s FAT file system--488bytes of data to the 512-byte block--the difference was overhead...;) When FFS emerged I finally 512-bytes out of 512, and things were better--but *nothing* as nice as IDE/AHCI today...!
     

  5. Margalus

    Margalus Master Guru

    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    57
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    @waltc3, not trying to be rude, but I think your memory is a little off. There was no such thing as a 500MB HDD back in the Amiga days, the only hdd available for the Amiga was actually 50MB.
     
  6. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    146
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    well, I remembered the box of my 1200 had the HDD sizes listed on the side, so I googled it:

    [​IMG]

    funy thing is, if you thought SSD is revolutionary when you first got it, you haven't seen when booting OS went from Floppy to HDD :D
     
  7. Margalus

    Margalus Master Guru

    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    57
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    @gx-x, you had the 1200 which came out 5 years after the 2500. The Amiga 1200 had more options and was more advanced, and hdd's were much more common and much larger at the time the 1200 came out. For the Amiga 2500 in question, the only option was a 50MB hdd.
     
  8. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    146
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    I had Amiga 500 too. I didn't have 2000 thou. I did have an accelerator card for both A500 and A1200 so I didn't really felt left out. I don't remember if any HDD was available for A500/2000 back in 1980s. It was ~30 years ago after all :) I looked for the info now, but cant find any mention of 50MB HDD. 20,40,60,80 etc, yes. 50, no.
     

Share This Page