Backblaze Releases Hard Drive Stats for Q1 2019

[EarthDog]

Yeah I guess. But for servers, they should be some industrial shit, just like SCSI/SAS drives.

I know too many people who think that you can just use consumer drives in servers, well, you can, but.... They exist for a reason. Server hardware, I mean.

Of course they are enterprise SSDs...

You can easily use consumer grade hardware in servers. There isn't a terrible amount of difference in a lot of the hardware. Obviously enough for it to be 'worth it' to the enterprise, but, yeah, they in data centers and a large part of them.

 

[Ubersonic]

What does that even mean?

What he means is that Backblaze's stats are useless because nobody except Backblaze uses (or should I say mis-uses) consumer grade HDDs in that way, yet every time they release their useless stats there are always big arguments over body the validity of them and what drives are best.

 

[cyneater]

Lets make garage quality servers throw desktop drives in them.

Write a report and claim we are experts.

 

[Assimilator]

Write a report and claim we are experts.

Please show me where they claimed this?

 

[Frick]

Heey hold on a minute, I have a Seagate drive on my PS2 and it works..


These stats just mean that I wouldn'd be buying these or recommending to my friends.

I have two WD drives in my computer, both are fine, which means that 100% of WD drives are fine. Zero percent failure rate for at least five years. So i recommend they buy WD.

YOU ALL SHOULD BUY WD.

 

[John Naylor]

Title of backblaze report should be ... pick one

"Here is a bunch of reliability information based upon user installing HDs in direct conflict with manufacturer's recommendations"

"Reliability information as to what happens if you are dumb enough install consumer HDs in a Sever environment"

"Server farm installs consumer drives whereby the very features that protect consumer drives cause premature failure in server environment"

Latest real data (August 2017) available from be hardware:

HDs (See note a) below)
HGST 0,82%
Seagate 0,93%
Toshiba 1,06%
Western 1,26%

SSDs
Samsung 0,17%
Intel 0,19%
Crucial 0,31%
Sandisk 0,31%
Corsair 0,36% (contre 1,67%)
Kingston 0,44%

GFX Cards
Zotac 1,13%
EVGA 1,19%
Gigabyte 1,19%
MSI 1,29%
ASUS 1,30%
Palit/Gainward 1,49%
Inno3D 1,56%
Sapphire 2,90%

Memory
Kingston 0,30%
Crucial 0,35%
G.Skill 0,63%
Corsair 0,77%

MoBos (See note b) below)
Gigabyte 1,48%
ASRock 1,55%
ASUS 1,59%
MSI 1,63%

There are several things to keep in mind here .... and while I used two specific examples with HDs and MoBos, it pretty much applies across the board.

a) These represent snapshot in time over 6 months. So for example where HGST finished 1st for the respective 6 month period, For the previous 6 month reporting period,

HGST was 1,13% for a combined 0.975%
Seagate was 0,72% for a combined 0.825%

For SSDs ... Corsair did great for the current period in SSD with 0,36%but last period wa 1,67%

b) I generally don't look at the brand data cause most of the time, it's statistically insignificant. Look for the specific models ... If I see more than 2% say on MoBos, i will avoid those

5,71% ASUS Z170I-PRO Gaming
5,59% ASUS X99 Strix Gaming
4,70% MSI B150M PRO-VDH D3
4,17% ASUS B150I PRO GAMING/WIFI/AURA
3,81% ASRock FM2A58M-VG3+
3,45% MSI X99A Gaming 7
3,17% ASUS X99-A II
2,23% MSI Z170A Gaming M3
2,19% ASUS Z170-A
2,08% GIGABYTE GA-Z170XP-SLI

Unfortunately it's a French site and they stopped publishing the data ... I don't speak enough french to do on and ask why