Yes, and because of that the numbers on the average time to failure are completely meaningless. The drives the don't ever fail skew the numbers completely. If a

Yes, and because of that the numbers on the average time to failure are completely meaningless. The drives the don't ever fail skew the numbers completely. If a fantastically reliable drive were to have 5/5000 drives fail, but they all failed in the first month and then the rest carried on forever, then that would show here as having a lower "reliability" than a dire drive where 4000/5000 drives fail after a year. I'd like to see instead something like mean time until 2% of the drives fail. That'd actually be comparable between drives. And yes, it would also mean that some drive types haven't reached 2% failure yet, so they'd be shown as ">X months". This is what a Kaplan-Meier survival curve was meant for [0]. Please use it. Also, it'd be great to see the confidence intervals on the annualised failure rates. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimator