4 ms·

I don't follow. The statistics backblaze post doesn't implicate that you should buy the same drives they do. It is because of theses statistics that you have (

by tjoff 4y ago

I don't follow. The statistics backblaze post doesn't implicate that you should buy the same drives they do. It is because of theses statistics that you have (at least an inkling of) a fighting chance to pick the drive that more suits your usecase. Or perhaps a notion of brand performance. Of course, you won't get statistics about drives that they don't buy. And if you then assume that more expensive drives have better failure rates then that might skew the data. But in there lies a lot of assumptions you really can't make. For one, that an expensive drive for a consumer is also an expensive for backblaze. And also, that there is correlation between end user price and failure rates. Which generally I don't really think there is, within the alternatives that the consumer have access to (and reasonable price-ranges) at least. And it probably will vary between different markets as well.

Macha 4y ago
Backblaze's article points out that sometimes they will buy drives that are less reliable but cheaper, as that makes sense for their business model. The top level commenter points out that this strategy may not make as much sense for the individual consumer where you don't have backblaze levels of drives to amortise the failure probability and deal with it. That's it, that's the point. It's not a rebuttal of the backblaze post at all, nor is it intended to be. The top level commenter was simply pointing out "don't buy mostly seagate drives because backblaze does" as backblaze explained their strategy in drive selection and some people may not consider the differences between their use case and backblaze's.
- tjoff 4y ago
  The whole point of the statistics is that you can pick what you want. Why would you dismiss the statistics and buy what backblaze does? Defeats the entire point of the statistics and article in the first palce. Top level comment: >This means that these stats may not be a very meaningful indication when purchasing a few drives from a retailer. That doesn't follow.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >Why would you dismiss the statistics and buy what backblaze does? You assume people read the fine print and consider fine details. The vast majority of Joes are going to ask who/what Backblaze is and what they're buying most and buy that, screw the details.

by tjoff 4y ago

Macha 4y ago

Backblaze's article points out that sometimes they will buy drives that are less reliable but cheaper, as that makes sense for their business model. The top level commenter points out that this strategy may not make as much sense for the individual consumer where you don't have backblaze levels of drives to amortise the failure probability and deal with it. That's it, that's the point. It's not a rebuttal of the backblaze post at all, nor is it intended to be. The top level commenter was simply pointing out "don't buy mostly seagate drives because backblaze does" as backblaze explained their strategy in drive selection and some people may not consider the differences between their use case and backblaze's.

tjoff 4y ago
The whole point of the statistics is that you can pick what you want. Why would you dismiss the statistics and buy what backblaze does? Defeats the entire point of the statistics and article in the first palce. Top level comment: >This means that these stats may not be a very meaningful indication when purchasing a few drives from a retailer. That doesn't follow.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Why would you dismiss the statistics and buy what backblaze does? You assume people read the fine print and consider fine details. The vast majority of Joes are going to ask who/what Backblaze is and what they're buying most and buy that, screw the details.