• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Hard Drive Failure Rates

RCoon

Gaming Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
11,370 (5.51/day)
Likes
9,507
Location
Gypsyland, UK
System Name HP Omen 17
Processor i7 7700HQ
Memory 16GB 2400Mhz DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1060
Storage Samsung SM961 256GB + HGST 1TB
Display(s) 1080p IPS G-SYNC 75Hz
Audio Device(s) Bang & Olufsen
Power Supply 230W
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD+
Software Win 10 Pro
#1
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
4,217 (1.18/day)
Likes
3,565
System Name Ironic
Processor Intel 2500k 4.4Ghz
Motherboard ASROCK|Z68 PROFESSIONAL Gen 3
Cooling Corsair H60
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaw X 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-X 4Gb
Storage Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 3 (6G/s)
Display(s) 22" Dell Wide/ 22" Acer wide/24" Asus
Case Antec Lanboy Air Black & Blue
Audio Device(s) SB Audigy 7.1
Power Supply Corsair Enthusiast TX750
Mouse Logitech G9x, custom frame
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK
Software Win 7 Ult 64 bit (with a side of XP64)
#2
I knew to stay away from Seagate, and prefer the WD Blacks, but I'll have to look a little more at the Hitachis. Thanks :)
 

rtwjunkie

PC Gaming Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
9,379 (2.74/day)
Likes
13,018
Location
Louisiana -Laissez les bons temps rouler!
Processor Core i7-3770k 3.5Ghz, O/C to 4.2Ghz fulltime @ 1.19v
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty Z68 Pro Gen3
Cooling All air: 2x140mm Fractal exhaust; 3x 140mm Cougar Intake; Enermax T40F CPU cooler
Memory 2x 8GB Mushkin Redline DDR-3 1866
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming 6G LE
Storage 1x 250GB MX200 SSD; 2x 2TB WD Black; 1x4TB WD Black;1x 2TB WD Green (eSATA)
Display(s) HP 25VX 25" IPS @ 1920 x 1080
Case Fractal Design Define R4 Black w/Titanium front -windowed
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Z
Power Supply Seasonic X-850
Mouse Logitech G500
Keyboard Logitech G610 Orion mechanical (Cherry Brown switches)
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (Start10 & Fences 3.0 installed)
#3
I've still got a couple WD 74Gb Raptors (one in my son's PC, and one in HTPC) that are still in use since Sept 2006. Both still have no SMART warnings, and still have no bad sectors. Simply amazing the longevity of those things!
 
Last edited:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,914 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,009
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#4
I have two of the 3 TB Seagates and neither has failed yet. I've kind of written Hitachi off lately but that was clearly a mistake. Bare in mind that Hitachi is the smallest HDD manufacturer out of the three so that may be skewing results.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
3,487 (1.68/day)
Likes
7,377
Location
St. Paul, MN
System Name LappyTop/ Bay2- Lowerbay/Opticon As of 6/21/17
Processor i5 1.7GHz/ i3 2120's/i5 2400
Motherboard ASUStek/ HP mini/Dell
Cooling Air/air/air
Memory 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600/ 2GB/ 4GB samsung
Video Card(s) intel HD4000/ HD2000's/ HD2000
Storage 256GB Crucial Mx100 SSD/ couple of spinners/500GB WD
Display(s) 1366x768/ one acer x223w between the rest
Case ALU, beauty!/ HP SFF/ Dell Mini
Audio Device(s) Sonic Master/ onboard's/ onboard
Power Supply ASUS brick, 17W i5/ 19.5 volt bricks/ Dell 265W
Mouse cheap GigaWire930, CMStorm Havoc and a Logitech M510 wireless
Keyboard eMachines serial and a Dynex usb
Software WIN8.1-64bit/ Mint 18 Sarah/Mint 18
Benchmark Scores 6.9 processes per second!/ cruncher's!!
#5
I have two Hitachi's, a 250GB in, This Old Comp, and a 750GB in my ASUS Laptop.

I the 250 has been stellar! The 750, in my laptop, so far, so good, It is the newer of the two and has been used for a shorter time.

When I, eventually, get my life back to squared away, I plan to get a Kingston SSD kit and use this 750 for a backup and data drive. Blah, Blah. :lovetpu:

Thanks @RCoon for the post.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
4,217 (1.18/day)
Likes
3,565
System Name Ironic
Processor Intel 2500k 4.4Ghz
Motherboard ASROCK|Z68 PROFESSIONAL Gen 3
Cooling Corsair H60
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaw X 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-X 4Gb
Storage Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 3 (6G/s)
Display(s) 22" Dell Wide/ 22" Acer wide/24" Asus
Case Antec Lanboy Air Black & Blue
Audio Device(s) SB Audigy 7.1
Power Supply Corsair Enthusiast TX750
Mouse Logitech G9x, custom frame
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK
Software Win 7 Ult 64 bit (with a side of XP64)
#6
I have two of the 3 TB Seagates and neither has failed yet. I've kind of written Hitachi off lately but that was clearly a mistake. Bare in mind that Hitachi is the smallest HDD manufacturer out of the three so that may be skewing results.
Actually, click thru to the orig report, you'll see that they had 13000 Seagate and hitachis in the mix, and around 3500 wd drives.
 

AsRock

TPU addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
15,313 (4.00/day)
Likes
4,722
Location
US
Processor 2500k \ 3770k
Motherboard ASRock Z68 \ Z77
Memory Samsung low profile 1600
Video Card(s) XFX 6770 \ XFX R9 290X
Storage Intel 80Gb (SATA2) WD 250Gb \ Team SSD+Samsung Evo 250Gb+500Gb+ 2xCorsair Force+WD250GbHDD
Display(s) Samsung 1080P \ Toshiba HDTV 1080P
Case HTPC400 \ Thermaltake Armor case ( original ), With Zalman fan controller ( wattage usage ).
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V475 \ Marantz SR5008 Tannoy Mercury MKII Paradigm 5SE + Tannoy Mercury F4
Power Supply PC&Power 750w \ Seasonic 750w MKII
Mouse MS intelimouse \ Logitech G700s + Steelseries Sensei wireless
Keyboard Logitech K120 \ ROCCAT MK Pro ( modded amber leds )
Benchmark Scores Meh benchmarks.
#7
Info not worthy, lack of details.

How ever i am a WD fan regardless what these kind of reports say.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,914 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,009
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#8
Actually, click thru to the orig report, you'll see that they had 13000 Seagate and hitachis in the mix, and around 3500 wd drives.
That's not representative of the market at all. :eek:
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
7,642 (2.71/day)
Likes
1,983
Location
Jakarta, Indonesia
System Name micropage7
Processor Intel G4400
Motherboard MSI B150M Bazooka D3
Cooling Stock ( Lapped )
Memory 16 Gb Team Xtreem DDR3
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX460
Storage Seagate 1 TB, 5oo Gb and SSD A-Data 128 Gb
Display(s) LG 19 inch LCD Wide Screen
Case HP dx6120 MT
Audio Device(s) Stock
Power Supply Be Quiet 600 Watt
Software Windows 7 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Classified
#9
just saw it from facebook.
so size matter?
and i dunno, bigger space can save many data but when suddenly it die, you lose it all
 

freaksavior

To infinity ... and beyond!
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
8,086 (2.01/day)
Likes
889
System Name Absolute Zero | M.A.S.S
Processor Intel i7 4770k | i7 920
Motherboard Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H | EVGA X58 FTW3 SLI
Cooling Phanteks ph-tc14pe | CM 212+ Push Pull
Memory Mushkin 16Gb at 2400Mhz | Corsair Vengence 6x8Gb=48Gb
Video Card(s) EVGA SC GTX 770 2Gb | Nvidia 7300GT
Storage Sandisk 256Gb Ultra Plus x 2 raid0 + 72.12 500Gb | Intel 320 80Gb 2x1.5Tb, 2x2Tb 2x.5Tb + 3 x6Tb
Display(s) Samsung 245BW + Asus PB278Q + Samsung 40" 650A | None
Case NZXT H630 |Rosewill 8bay 4u server chasiss
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar HDAV + GTX770 | Onboard
Power Supply Silverstone DA800 | Rocketfish 700w aka fsp
Software Windows 7 ultimate X64 | Debian 7 wheezy
#10
The 1.5Tb had bad firmware causing them to fail, after about a dozen RMA's I finally got some that worked.

just saw it from facebook.
so size matter?
and i dunno, bigger space can save many data but when suddenly it die, you lose it all
That's why when you use large file systems you need something to check the data often enough to prevent loss like ZFS. Standard raid levels were not designed for this type of capacity. Now if you're just running one then you can use a backup service or buy a second for backups.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
4,659 (1.32/day)
Likes
1,009
System Name Obelisc
Processor i7 3770k @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling H110
Memory 16GB(4x4) @ 2400 MHz 9-11-11-31
Video Card(s) GTX 780 Ti
Storage 850 EVO 1TB, 2x 5TB Toshiba
Case T81
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply EVGA 850 T2 80+ TITANIUM
Software Win10 64bit
#11
I've never had a HDD outright fail. Had them spit out errors but they all seemed to shape up after a reformat. I switched to Seagate because I got tired of the racket WDs make when seeking. Now I would never go back. Same speed, less noise, lower price.
 
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
176 (0.06/day)
Likes
25
Processor Core i7 @ 3.5GHz stock voltage
Motherboard MSI Eclipse
Cooling Noctua NH-12P SE
Memory 6 GB 1066MHz
Video Card(s) 2x GTX260 @ 701/1506
Storage Raptor 74 GB
Display(s) NEC MultiSync 2080UX+
Power Supply Corsair HX620
Software Win7
#12
I was big Seagate fanboi until I had to replace 7(seven) in 1 year- all different ages and sizes. One of the replacements came dead. 1 died a year later. Long turn around and poor refurbishing from Seagate's Tennessee plant. Costly returns- whether 1 or 4 HDDs. Not even factoring their poor manufacturing and quality issues.
Western Digital is the exact opposite- fast turnaround from California, very cheap shipping - $5 for something UPS charges $11, replacement drives come with nearly full warranty as opposed to refurbs from Seagate, which sometimes have no remaining warranty but 90 days. I made the decision 2 years ago to never buy Seagate ( Samsung too since they are owned by Seagate and warranty is handled exactly the same).
Another lesson learned - don't use WHS drive duplication. Ever.
Since all hard drives will fail sooner or later, it gets really hard to make sure your data is not corrupted before that. SMART is not doing much at all for data integrity, let alone warning. After that abomination Windows Home Server drive duplicaton slowly corrupted over 2TB of data, ZFS made me see the light. For me ZFS and WD Black is the winning solution. I laugh at Seagte's peeling magnetic layer now.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#13
If you adjust the numbers by only including the numbers you choose to include and purposely leaving others off, you can make it look as bad as you want for any manufacturer you want.

WD's Green 3TB "start accumulating errors as soon as they are put into production... they were left out of the totals completely...
Every company has a bad run from time to time. I don't prefer any company when it comes to hard drives, I buy what provides the best GB/$, and never rely on a single drive to house any important data. Make backups!
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
9,796 (2.23/day)
Likes
3,785
Location
Manchester, NH
System Name Working on it ;)
Processor I7-4790K
Motherboard MSI Z97
Cooling Be Quiet Pure Rock Air
Memory 16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 Sniper
Video Card(s) Intel IGP (Dedicated GPU TBD)
Storage WD 320 / 500KS / 500KS / 640KS / 640LS / 640LS / 640LS / 1TBFAEX and a NAS with 2x2Tb WD Black
Display(s) 24" DELL 2405FPW
Case Rosewill Challenger
Audio Device(s) Onboard + HD HDMI
Power Supply Corsair HX750 (love it)
Mouse Logitech G5
Software Win 7 Pro
#14
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
4,217 (1.18/day)
Likes
3,565
System Name Ironic
Processor Intel 2500k 4.4Ghz
Motherboard ASROCK|Z68 PROFESSIONAL Gen 3
Cooling Corsair H60
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaw X 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-X 4Gb
Storage Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 3 (6G/s)
Display(s) 22" Dell Wide/ 22" Acer wide/24" Asus
Case Antec Lanboy Air Black & Blue
Audio Device(s) SB Audigy 7.1
Power Supply Corsair Enthusiast TX750
Mouse Logitech G9x, custom frame
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK
Software Win 7 Ult 64 bit (with a side of XP64)
#15
If you adjust the numbers by only including the numbers you choose to include and purposely leaving others off, you can make it look as bad as you want for any manufacturer you want.



Every company has a bad run from time to time. I don't prefer any company when it comes to hard drives, I buy what provides the best GB/$, and never rely on a single drive to house any important data. Make backups!
Not to disagree with your conclusion by any stretch, but it appears that the only ones they left off, they COMPLETELY left off, due to being completely skewed. they also commented directly to that, saying that the greens were just not dealing well in that environment. Didn't say they were crappy drives or anything. As for a "bad run", if you go back thru their blog, they've obtained these drives from multiple sources, not one set. It's a pretty good read. The data I liked best was the quantity of drives overall. this was not a limited run of even a few hundred drives
Quote:
Brand Number of Drives Terabytes Average Age in Years
Seagate 12,765 39,576 1.4
Hitachi 12,956 36,078 2.0
Western Digital 2,838 2,581 2.5


Toshiba 58 174 0.7
Samsung 18 18 3.7
end quote

sorry, my table-fu is not strong :)

Looks to me like that's a really wide spread of drives, large collection, and the best Actual Use report I've ever seen on drives. Who else has put that many different brand drives thru that long of a run, and published the details? I have long preferred WD Blacks, have several 2Tb in the house right now, with 2 3Tb reds in my NAS. But this will make me consider the hitachi brand next time out...
 
Last edited:

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#16
Not to disagree with your conclusion by any stretch, but it appears that the only ones they left off, they COMPLETELY left off, due to being completely skewed. they also commented directly to that, saying that the greens were just not dealing well in that environment. Didn't say they were crappy drives or anything. As for a "bad run", if you go back thru their blog, they've obtained these drives from multiple sources, not one set. It's a pretty good read. The data I liked best was the quantity of drives overall. this was not a limited run of even a few hundred drives
Yes, but if you are releasing studies on hard drive reliability, if you want to seem reputable don't leave off an entire group of drives just because they all failed and you don't want to show that information.

Also, I'm not talking about a bad production run, I'm talking about a bad run in terms of a bad stretch of time where they are having issues. Every year we see reports like this, and every year the company with the problems seems to change. A month from now WD could run into issues and their reliability could start to go down.

Also, one of the 1.5TB Seagate models had an annual failure rate of 120%...yeah their numbers are reliable...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
4,217 (1.18/day)
Likes
3,565
System Name Ironic
Processor Intel 2500k 4.4Ghz
Motherboard ASROCK|Z68 PROFESSIONAL Gen 3
Cooling Corsair H60
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaw X 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-X 4Gb
Storage Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 3 (6G/s)
Display(s) 22" Dell Wide/ 22" Acer wide/24" Asus
Case Antec Lanboy Air Black & Blue
Audio Device(s) SB Audigy 7.1
Power Supply Corsair Enthusiast TX750
Mouse Logitech G9x, custom frame
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK
Software Win 7 Ult 64 bit (with a side of XP64)
#17
Also, one of the 1.5TB Seagate models had an annual failure rate of 120%...yeah their numbers are reliable...:rolleyes:
You really should read the whole article. The 120% failure means they replaced them more than once in a year, due to what they assume is a bad batch from refurbs. Again, it doesn't look like they're sugar coating anything except dropping off what appear to be some obvious anomalies, which is what any statistician worth .500000000001 a grain of salt is going to do :)


Quote:
We got them from Seagate as warranty replacements for the older drives, and these new drives are dropping like flies. Their average age shows 0.8 years, but since these are warranty replacements, we believe that they are refurbished drives that were returned by other customers and erased, so they already had some usage when we got them.
End Quote

And after nagging you to read the article, I missed this gem at the bottom
"A year and a half ago, Western Digital acquired the Hitachi disk drive business. Will Hitachi drives continue their excellent performance? Will Western Digital bring some of the Hitachi reliability into their consumer-grade drives?" ;)
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#18
You really should read the whole article. The 120% failure means they replaced them more than once in a year, due to what they assume is a bad batch from refurbs. Again, it doesn't look like they're sugar coating anything except dropping off what appear to be some obvious anomalies, which is what any statistician worth .500000000001 a grain of salt is going to do
I read the whole article, I just don't agree with their methods. I believe it makes their numbers in-accurate. Something can't fail more than once, if the replacement fails then that is still only a 100% failure rate. The replacement drive counts as a new drive in the study.

Furthermore, they talk more than once about the fact that they believe a lot of the drives they use are failing because they are using them in environments the drives weren't meant to be used in. These are high-vibration, high temperature, RAID environments. And not surprisingly, the desktop drives that aren't supposed to be used in these environments fail a lot. They are using Seagate desktop drives, which aren't supposed to be used in a RAID environment of more than 2 drives and they are failing. But the WD RED drives that are meant for this type of environment are showing to be more reliable. This isn't a surprise. However, they are presenting this data in a way to get people to believe these are how the drives perform in a desktop environment, or at least they knew that is how people would view the results.

In fact, if you look at similar studies, such as the one from Google, you see they specifically don't name brand names because they admit that they are using the drives outside of their intended purpose and it would be unfair to use the numbers to influence brand buying decisions of the standard consumer. This is because a drive might behave very poorly in a data center, but will run flawlessly in a desktop.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
954 (0.61/day)
Likes
385
Location
Cumberland Plateau
System Name EVGA-FX | Lenny (Lenovo Y480)
Processor AMD FX-8320 @ 4.5GHz 1.416v | i7 3610qm
Motherboard Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0
Cooling Phanteks PH-TC14PE
Memory 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600 | 8gb DDR3 @ 1600
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX780 Classified @ 1228MHz 1.615v | GT640m LE
Storage Crucial M500 480GB, WD Caviar Blue 500GB, WD Scorpio Blue 750GB | Samsung 250GB 840
Display(s) Qnix QX2710 1440p | 42" Vizio 3D LCD TV 1080p
Case CoolerMaster HAF XB Evo
Power Supply Seasonic G-650
Software Windows 6.3.9600
#19
I read the whole article, I just don't agree with their methods. I believe it makes their numbers in-accurate. Something can't fail more than once, if the replacement fails then that is still only a 100% failure rate. The replacement drive counts as a new drive in the study.
I agree.

Now if they wanted to go into Failures per purchased drive.....
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
4,217 (1.18/day)
Likes
3,565
System Name Ironic
Processor Intel 2500k 4.4Ghz
Motherboard ASROCK|Z68 PROFESSIONAL Gen 3
Cooling Corsair H60
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaw X 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-X 4Gb
Storage Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 3 (6G/s)
Display(s) 22" Dell Wide/ 22" Acer wide/24" Asus
Case Antec Lanboy Air Black & Blue
Audio Device(s) SB Audigy 7.1
Power Supply Corsair Enthusiast TX750
Mouse Logitech G9x, custom frame
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK
Software Win 7 Ult 64 bit (with a side of XP64)
#20
I read the whole article, I just don't agree with their methods. I believe it makes their numbers in-accurate. Something can't fail more than once, if the replacement fails then that is still only a 100% failure rate. The replacement drive counts as a new drive in the study.
............ but will run flawlessly in a desktop.
It seems that you just want to insist that they (Backblaze) produced the results of this study to influence people into buying or not buying a series of drives. This is a long running blog of a company dedicated to "our cloud storage", as referred in the opening paragraph. They had a drive shortage, as many did, they had to source many drives from many different companies to keep up with their demand, and they decided to keep track of the drives replaced, and, in their experience, the drives' real-world MTBF, in a Cloud Environment:
"In the Backblaze environment..."
"Some drives just don’t work in the Backblaze environment"

This is an Online Cloud Storage/Backup company. They have no apparent desire to influence people to purchase one series of drives over another, and in fact, several times stated the have a preference for the WD reds, which they don't portray as having many of at all:
"Our other favorite is the Western Digital 3TB Red (WD30EFRX)."
"We wish we had more of the Western Digital Red 3TB drives (WD30EFRX)"
They do speak highly of the Hitachi drives they have ("If the price were right, we would be buying nothing but Hitachi drives"), but again, people reading this blog are made aware UP FRONT (if for some reason they assumed instead of reading) that this is in a Cloud Storage environment, not a bank of desktop computers.

Simply put, this blog shows a wide variety of drives in a large databank cloud storage environment, larger than most of us could dream of at this point, but just on a larger scale than what many of us have in our house or place of business. As such, it is highly interesting to me that the WD Red, designed for the RAID environ, scored worse than the equivalent Hitachi Desktar.

Western Digital Red
(WD30EFRX)3.0TB __________346_______________0.5_______________3.2%
Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000
(HDS723030ALA640)3.0TB ___1027_____________2.1________________0.9%


As for " the replacement fails then that is still only a 100% failure rate.", that's just playing with numbers. As a computer tech in this forum, I had absolutely no problem understanding that that meant they had drives fail and be replaced in less than a year's time. If someone didn't understand that, they were reading the wrong blog, and meant to be reading about Paddington Bear, not Backblaze. (Plainly, how would you explain that they bought **for instance** 100 drives, and had 120 fail in one year, on average? I understood it...)

What's the issue here? It almost sounds like a fanboi rant from you, which I'm sure you aren't. The company provided some serious real-world data, description of the environment used, reasoning behind the layout and build structure, and their experience with several different drive types. They appear to have no hidden agenda, no company affiliation beyond their own, I don't see any harm done that anyone who cares to read these type articles could possibly experience. If Joe Public decides to read it, and then decides to buy a Hitachi over a Western Digital or Seagate, who is harmed? If it's a question of "Seagate's not that bad!!!", Tom's Hardware readers appear to disagree, and if any of us are going to take someone's word over another, what does it matter that there's another dissenting opinion?

To the educated reader, all the information explaining the parameters of the "test" are in plain text. To the uneducated, they're still wondering if their microwave is spying on them for the NSA.....
 
Last edited:

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#21
I think I've made myself very clear. This isn't a fanboy rant, I'm just stating my opinion.

Measuring drive failures at more than 100% makes the numbers inaccurate in my opinion(and it seems I'm not the only one). And in fact in statistical studies as well. In medial studies, if the patient is cured, then relapses and is cured again they don't call that a 200% success rate. If a patient dies, and is revived, and then dies again it isn't a 200% failure rate. To be really accurate, the new drives, even if they were replacements for failed drives, should be counted as a separate drive.

Also, releasing the brands of the drives only leads to people taking the study's information incorrectly, and why most companies that release numbers like this don't release the specific brands of the drives. The information is interesting for sure. However, to release the brand names only serves to try to influence people's buy decisions. And just as expected you have sites like TechReport and others picking these numbers up and presenting them as if they were desktop failure rates, and people here believing that. You can't use these numbers to predict desktop failure rates. These were drives put into conditions they weren't meant for, they would likely have very different failure rates in a desktop system.

And the Hitachi Deskstar drives are very well built drives with rock solid firmware. Hitachi actually approves them for RAID use. So it isn't surprising they are doing well and even outperforming the RED drives(which are just Green drives with TLER enabled). But that is the point too. Hitachi doesn't really have an enterprise class drive, their standard desktop drive fills that niche too. So they write their firmware to be RAID compatible. Seagate and WD on the other hand don't write the firmware for their desktop drives to be RAID compatible. But remember, there was a time when the Deskstars weren't that great, which is why they earned the nickname Hitachi Deathstars.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
4,217 (1.18/day)
Likes
3,565
System Name Ironic
Processor Intel 2500k 4.4Ghz
Motherboard ASROCK|Z68 PROFESSIONAL Gen 3
Cooling Corsair H60
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaw X 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-X 4Gb
Storage Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 3 (6G/s)
Display(s) 22" Dell Wide/ 22" Acer wide/24" Asus
Case Antec Lanboy Air Black & Blue
Audio Device(s) SB Audigy 7.1
Power Supply Corsair Enthusiast TX750
Mouse Logitech G9x, custom frame
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK
Software Win 7 Ult 64 bit (with a side of XP64)
#22
I think I've made myself very clear. This isn't a fanboy rant, I'm just stating my opinion.
....snip..... But remember, there was a time when the Deskstars weren't that great, which is why they earned the nickname Hitachi Deathstars.
Homer: "I agree with you in theory...."

So, patient recovery rates aside, how would you indicate that you purchased 100 drives, and over the course of a year, had 120 drive failures? I think they explained their numbers sufficiently for anyone to understand.

I don't think either one of us can speak to "only leads to people taking the study's information correctly....". I understood it. You understood it. Several people here understood it. We can't correct everyone :)


I absolutely remember the Deathstars, well old enough for that, and remembering the IBM tags on hard drives, and several other defunct names, *shudder* maxtor included. I also didn't know that about the greens and reds. I had read some about them back when I got my baby NAS over here, I think, but didn't see that info. Checking Freenas right now for more info, thanks :)
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#23
Homer: "I agree with you in theory...." So, patient recovery rates aside, how would you indicate that you purchased 100 drives, and over the course of a year, had 120 drive failures? I think they explained their numbers sufficiently for anyone to understand.
It is simple, if the 100 drives they purchased died, then it is a 100% failure rate. If the drives are replaced, then that is a new drive in the study. So if they had 120 drives fail, then the had 120 drives. You can't have 120 drive fail if you didn't have 120 drives.

I don't think either one of us can speak to "only leads to people taking the study's information correctly....". I understood it. You understood it. Several people here understood it. We can't correct everyone
The fact that we've already seen techreport mis-reporting the information, and people here talking about the information like it applies to desktop applications. Yes, if you read the whole study you get all the information, but most people won't, most people won't even read the entire TechReport article. Most people will look at the pretty graph and that is it.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
26 (0.01/day)
Likes
5
#24
Are there any explanations for the different failure rates?

Russia's StoreLab agreed about Hitachis being best but thought post 7200.11 model Seagates were fine.
 

RCoon

Gaming Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
11,370 (5.51/day)
Likes
9,507
Location
Gypsyland, UK
System Name HP Omen 17
Processor i7 7700HQ
Memory 16GB 2400Mhz DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1060
Storage Samsung SM961 256GB + HGST 1TB
Display(s) 1080p IPS G-SYNC 75Hz
Audio Device(s) Bang & Olufsen
Power Supply 230W
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD+
Software Win 10 Pro
#25
Yes, if you read the whole study you get all the information, but most people won't, most people won't even read the entire TechReport article. Most people will look at the pretty graph and that is it.
Then in that case they deserve to be horribly misinformed and advance absolutely nowhere in their technical adventures.
I find all the information useful, regardless of how confusing the case study was carried out. Somebody has finally given us a useful report to base our HDD failure complaints on, and specifically outlines certain drives that cannot hack it when it comes to heavy duty data storage use.
All in all, GG Hitachi.