4 ms·
Yes actually! One of the first things that the community came back with after Version 1 was that the hard drives vibrated a bit hard for most use-cases. They re
by atYevP 13y ago
Yes actually! One of the first things that the community came back with after Version 1 was that the hard drives vibrated a bit hard for most use-cases. They recommended we use "hard drive vibration dampening sleeves" (rubber bands) to make the drive fit a bit more snug. It worked like a charm! We don't really get much better pricing, though sometimes we get a small discount because we buy some pods/parts in bulk, though not in extreme quantities.
- e12e 13y agoI really love these technical blog posts (and the designs, of course). Did you ever calculate something like mean-failure rate for pods? Such data might be helpful when evaluating if the architecture is viable for a certain use-case. I'm thinking both disk-loss (which you've blogged about before), but also aggregate failure rates (psu, controller cards etc)? I'm thinking that for small-medium deployments, (with archiving in mind) three pods would be a reasonable minimum, possibly starting them out sparse (single radi6 to each pod, say)? I'm aware there aren't any silver bullets :-)
- atYevP 13y agoNot the failure rate of pods themselves, but we do keep track of the failed drives within them. We did publish some blog posts about those stats, you can find them on blog.backblaze.com! The pods as a whole are pretty stable, them moving parts within them...not so much! Which is one of the reasons we went to direct wired connections!