I really enjoy reading the Backblaze analysis on this every year, it's such a valuable and interesting data set. I do have one suggestion: it would be great to

I really enjoy reading the Backblaze analysis on this every year, it's such a valuable and interesting data set. I do have one suggestion: it would be great to go one step further and add confidence intervals for the AFR estimates. E.g. if you see 0 drive failures, you don't really expect an AFR of 0 (that is not the maximum likelihood estimate), and the range of AFR's you expect for each drive decreases as a function of the number of drive days (e.g. if one drive has 1 day of use, we know basically nothing about AFR so confidence interval would be ~0-100% (not really, but still quite large), or it would be smaller if you wanted to add a prior on AFR). It would also be interesting to see the time-dependence (i.e. does AFR really look U-shaped over the lifetime of a drive?). That would require a dataset with every drive used, along with (1) number of active drive days, and (2) a flag to indicate if the drive has failed and of course (3) which kind of drive it is. Does Backblaze offer this level of granularity? EDIT: They offer the raw data dumps! https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html#downloading-the-raw-hard-drive-test-data https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html#downl... Backblaze, god bless you.