3 ms·

How would they lead you astray? I wouldn't consider a drive failure in a home NAS to indicate that - even their most statistically reliable drives still require

How would they lead you astray? I wouldn't consider a drive failure in a home NAS to indicate that - even their most statistically reliable drives still require redundancy/backup - if you haven't experienced a drive failure yet, that's just chance.

paulmd 3y ago
ever since backblaze started doing these there has been a dedicated set of seagate fanboys (I know, it’s the oddest thing to fanboy over) who come up with literally any excuse to avoid acknowledging that seagate might have higher than normal failure rates, and that has included throwing shade at “well, you don’t know the failure rate of those Toshibas and WDs in home usage!!!”.
jpgvm 3y ago
Well.. that might be true for a lot of normal NAS with 8 drives or less. I on the other hand have a 4U 48 bay Chenbro so drive failures are somewhat significant for me lol. Redundancy wise it's 4 raidz2 vdevs with 12 drives each and backed up to rsync.net I have had 2 drive failures, one was shortly after commissioning and the other happened a few months ago which was pretty random. I'm using HGST drives, specifically 8TB He8 and they have been really solid in operation since 2016. I don't have any spares left now though so when I get back to where the chassis is hosted I will be doing a rebuild onto 16TB drives. On the other hand in my professional life I experienced arrays that had multiple drives fail in quick succession (especially around 2010-2012 era) from less ... reliable brands cough Seagate cough. So I would consider 2 failures from ~1.5M drive hours to be very good and thank Backblaze for convincing me to shell out on these rather more expensive drives.
- Marsymars 3y ago
  I'd note a couple things: 1. 2 failures across 1.5M hours is something around a 1.2% AFR, which is good, but not significantly below Backblaze's average. Definitely better than the stats on their worst drives. 2. Assuming some premium for higher-reliability drives, and some required storage growth over time, the most efficient drives to buy are those that fail at exactly the rate that lets you replace them at with higher-capacity drives as needed for storage growth. I'm personally at the point where I'm decommissioning 2TB drives with 100k hours; I'd be better off having saved some money and having the drives fail now.

paulmd 3y ago

ever since backblaze started doing these there has been a dedicated set of seagate fanboys (I know, it’s the oddest thing to fanboy over) who come up with literally any excuse to avoid acknowledging that seagate might have higher than normal failure rates, and that has included throwing shade at “well, you don’t know the failure rate of those Toshibas and WDs in home usage!!!”.

jpgvm 3y ago

Well.. that might be true for a lot of normal NAS with 8 drives or less. I on the other hand have a 4U 48 bay Chenbro so drive failures are somewhat significant for me lol. Redundancy wise it's 4 raidz2 vdevs with 12 drives each and backed up to rsync.net I have had 2 drive failures, one was shortly after commissioning and the other happened a few months ago which was pretty random. I'm using HGST drives, specifically 8TB He8 and they have been really solid in operation since 2016. I don't have any spares left now though so when I get back to where the chassis is hosted I will be doing a rebuild onto 16TB drives. On the other hand in my professional life I experienced arrays that had multiple drives fail in quick succession (especially around 2010-2012 era) from less ... reliable brands cough Seagate cough. So I would consider 2 failures from ~1.5M drive hours to be very good and thank Backblaze for convincing me to shell out on these rather more expensive drives.

Marsymars 3y ago
I'd note a couple things: 1. 2 failures across 1.5M hours is something around a 1.2% AFR, which is good, but not significantly below Backblaze's average. Definitely better than the stats on their worst drives. 2. Assuming some premium for higher-reliability drives, and some required storage growth over time, the most efficient drives to buy are those that fail at exactly the rate that lets you replace them at with higher-capacity drives as needed for storage growth. I'm personally at the point where I'm decommissioning 2TB drives with 100k hours; I'd be better off having saved some money and having the drives fail now.