Personal computing discussed

Moderators: morphine, Steel

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:52 am

It's very complicated firmware, to say the least.
Desktop: Z170A | 6700K @ 4.4 | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB NVME + 2 TB SATA + LSI (128x8) RAID 0
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 52822
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:13 am

Waco wrote:
It's very complicated firmware, to say the least.

After seeing what is involved in designing a file system around host-managed SMR drives, I can certainly understand why. Efficiently mapping arbitrary I/O patterns onto a device with the performance characteristics of SMR-based magnetic media is not a simple problem.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
srg86
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:57 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:50 am

jihadjoe wrote:
Data hoarders anonymous!

I have 24TB of storage in my primary desktop: 1TB SSD, 2x8TB HDDs, 1x4TB HDD, 1x3TB HDD. I'm changing over the 4TB and 3TB drives to 8TB soon, and that's before getting into the NAS I'm building. Just waiting for deals on 12TB HGST Ultrastars so I can pick up like 5 or 6 of them.

Backblaze's data has been invaluable. More often than not it's only one or two specific models that tank a brand's reliability, and it's immensely useful just knowing which specific models to avoid. Before I started reading their reports I've wrongly bought into WD Greens and Seagate's DM001. But all of my HGST drives have been 100% problem-free, and it's their track record of proven reliability via Backblaze's reports that convinced me to insist on getting HGSTs for this new NAS even if their drives are more expensive than WD or Seagate.


Sounds like HGST's seem to be the best reliability wise (at least based on Backblaze). Since HGST was sold off, how do you spot an HGST drive? Are all Toshiba's HGST? What about WD? Are all Toshiba 3.5" drives based on HGST designs?
Intel Core i7 4790K, Z97, 16GB RAM, 128GB m4 SSD, 480GB M500 SSD, 500GB WD Vel, Intel HD4600, Corsair HX650, Fedora x64.
Thinkpad T460p, Intel Core i5 6440HQ, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Intel HD 530 IGP, Fedora x64, Win 10 x64.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:56 am

srg86 wrote:
Sounds like HGST's seem to be the best reliability wise (at least based on Backblaze). Since HGST was sold off, how do you spot an HGST drive? Are all Toshiba's HGST? What about WD? Are all Toshiba 3.5" drives based on HGST designs?

Yeah, good luck. Even if they are one company's design, WDC is making them all now I think? My personal plan is to grab one of the He series for my main PC (NAS drives are fine for now). Those, I think, were all HGST designs at least initially.

edit: from r/datahoarder

"The HGST will have US7SAL080 and the WD will have US7SAJ800 on them. The WD RED is 5400RPM and the WD RED PRO is 7200rpm. Both use the same Helium Tech from HGST. The last three numbers change based on capacity."
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
srg86
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:57 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:53 pm

DancinJack wrote:
srg86 wrote:
Sounds like HGST's seem to be the best reliability wise (at least based on Backblaze). Since HGST was sold off, how do you spot an HGST drive? Are all Toshiba's HGST? What about WD? Are all Toshiba 3.5" drives based on HGST designs?

Yeah, good luck. Even if they are one company's design, WDC is making them all now I think? My personal plan is to grab one of the He series for my main PC (NAS drives are fine for now). Those, I think, were all HGST designs at least initially.

edit: from r/datahoarder

"The HGST will have US7SAL080 and the WD will have US7SAJ800 on them. The WD RED is 5400RPM and the WD RED PRO is 7200rpm. Both use the same Helium Tech from HGST. The last three numbers change based on capacity."


So does that mean then, as you mentioned further up, for an HGST drive, if in doubt, go Toshiba?
Intel Core i7 4790K, Z97, 16GB RAM, 128GB m4 SSD, 480GB M500 SSD, 500GB WD Vel, Intel HD4600, Corsair HX650, Fedora x64.
Thinkpad T460p, Intel Core i5 6440HQ, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Intel HD 530 IGP, Fedora x64, Win 10 x64.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:03 pm

srg86 wrote:
So does that mean then, as you mentioned further up, for an HGST drive, if in doubt, go Toshiba?

That's my personal preference, but I'm just one person.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 18614
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:41 pm

just brew it! wrote:
1. Make sure it isn't SMR. (Currently, this apparently means avoiding Seagate...)...
Waco wrote:
the firmware had many many revisions
just brew it! wrote:
I'd say that's a pretty good indication that it was half-baked on initial release.

What are the recommended baking settings for hemlock?

Seagate’s lousy drive-managed shingles destroyed my data. Of course I have backups of important files, but it’s still a pain in the butt and a waste of my time.
Last edited by JustAnEngineer on Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
i7-9700K, NH-D15, Z390M Pro4, 32 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70+U2410, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:48 pm

I know Seagate drives are cheaper a lot of the time, especially the consumer stuff, but I honest to goodness don't know why some many people buy them that are seemingly educated about much of the issues they've had in the past.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:47 pm

DancinJack wrote:
I know Seagate drives are cheaper a lot of the time, especially the consumer stuff, but I honest to goodness don't know why some many people buy them that are seemingly educated about much of the issues they've had in the past.

I buy an awful lot of them for home (and work) and haven't lost any data.

The stats show they're essentially the same reliability as competitors, minus the shingled lines that are hit-and-miss. I also have over 10k of those guys in production, so I know their faults well.
Desktop: Z170A | 6700K @ 4.4 | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB NVME + 2 TB SATA + LSI (128x8) RAID 0
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
Captain Ned
Gold subscriber
Global Moderator
Posts: 27717
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:54 pm

Given your location (and elevation), it'd be interesting to measure power draw and temps from a drive in your stable both at LANL and sea level. That, of course, presumes that a drive leaving your stable isn't instantly shredded.
Humans sleep soundly in their beds because rough cats stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:23 pm

They're shredded. Power draw for sealed drives is identical. Heat output is also the same, they just require 30% more CFM for the same drive temperature thanks to thinner air.

We have trouble with shoddy enclosures and power supplies not rated to run in thinner air all the time.
Desktop: Z170A | 6700K @ 4.4 | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB NVME + 2 TB SATA + LSI (128x8) RAID 0
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 52822
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:58 am

Waco wrote:
The stats show they're essentially the same reliability as competitors, minus the shingled lines that are hit-and-miss. I also have over 10k of those guys in production, so I know their faults well.

My own experience seems to be broadly consistent with this, assuming we're talking about relatively recent drives (they seem to have had a rough patch in the early part of this decade).
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:07 am

just brew it! wrote:
Waco wrote:
The stats show they're essentially the same reliability as competitors, minus the shingled lines that are hit-and-miss. I also have over 10k of those guys in production, so I know their faults well.

My own experience seems to be broadly consistent with this, assuming we're talking about relatively recent drives (they seem to have had a rough patch in the early part of this decade).

I don't realllllllly think this is true. Certain Seagate models have been the highest failing drives on those Backblaze studies for a while now. Anecdotal evidence can be important, and honest to goodness I imagine most Seagate drives are just fine for most people that purchase them, but they do have higher failure rates than most other models.

And FWIW, JAE was speaking, and I replying directly to, the shingled models.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 52822
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:13 am

DancinJack wrote:
just brew it! wrote:
Waco wrote:
The stats show they're essentially the same reliability as competitors, minus the shingled lines that are hit-and-miss. I also have over 10k of those guys in production, so I know their faults well.

My own experience seems to be broadly consistent with this, assuming we're talking about relatively recent drives (they seem to have had a rough patch in the early part of this decade).

I don't realllllllly think this is true. Certain Seagate models have been the highest failing drives on those Backblaze studies for a while now. Anecdotal evidence can be important, and honest to goodness I imagine most Seagate drives are just fine for most people that purchase them, but they do have higher failure rates than most other models.

IIRC the ones with the really high failure rates were generally older drives, from back when Seagate definitely had some serious issues. We're talking class-action-lawsuit-inducing level of issues.

DancinJack wrote:
And FWIW, JAE was speaking, and I replying directly to, the shingled models.

You will not get any argument from me on this point. I have been burned by their drive-managed SMR crap too. Avoid like the plague!
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:16 am

just brew it! wrote:
IIRC the ones with the really high failure rates were generally older drives, from back when Seagate definitely had some serious issues. We're talking class-action-lawsuit-inducing level of issues.

Yeah, the old days were very bad in some cases.

This particular drive, which had the highest failure rate of all drives Backblaze employs in 2018, isn't old though. And yeah, it's not a crazy failure rate, but it's still the highest rate of the stuff they use.

https://www.seagate.com/www-content/dat ... -en_US.pdf

I don't know. For me personally the choice is easy. I'll just stick to HGST and Toshiba until their drives let me down. I understand that some feel the same way about Seagate. To each their own.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
Topinio
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1736
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 am
Location: London

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:11 pm

DancinJack wrote:
I don't know. For me personally the choice is easy. I'll just stick to HGST and Toshiba until their drives let me down. I understand that some feel the same way about Seagate. To each their own.

Even though HGST has ceased to be? Even though WD produces an awful lot of crud? I thought I'd stick with HGST, but they've gone to silicon heaven now.

Anyhow ... what do you gerbils think about drives still being engineered with UBER's of only '< 1 in 1014 bits read' when there are up to 1.2E13 bits on a consumer NAS drive? Am I the only one who has an issue with this?
Desktop: E3-1270 v5, X11SAT-F, 32GB, RX Vega 56, 500GB Crucial P1, 250GB Crucial MX500, 4TB 7E8, Xonar DGX, XL2730Z + G2420HDB
HTPC: i5-2500K, DH67GD, 6GB, RX 580, 250GB MX500, 1.5TB Barracuda, Xonar DX
Laptop: MacBook6,1
 
meerkt
Graphmaster Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 am

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:41 pm

It's indeed puzzling. Large drive sizes are already at 1E14. At least some models have 1E15 for error rate.

Though I don't understand how it works. Just need to read the whole drive a few times? But if it's a permanent error, shouldn't that be per-bits-written rather than read? (I think there was an old discussion on topic here.)

Anyone checked the read/write counts on their HDDs? It's available in models from the last few years. I don't know how accurate that info is, but a not too old drive I have here claims 19TB read, so supposedly errors expected, which doesn't make much sense.
Last edited by meerkt on Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 52822
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:47 pm

Topinio wrote:
Anyhow ... what do you gerbils think about drives still being engineered with UBER's of only '< 1 in 1014 bits read' when there are up to 1.2E13 bits on a consumer NAS drive? Am I the only one who has an issue with this?

FWIW a 10 TB NAS drive actually has 8.0E13 bits on it, not 1.2E13...

And yes, it's disappointing. However, let's put it in perspective:

1. It's pessimistic; i.e. barring outright failures, it is a worst case. In practice you will typically see better than that. My 15 TB RAID-6 array (raw capacity 21 TB) does a full scrub once a month, and (not counting the Seagate SMR clusterf*ck I hit last summer and a single WD drive which failed outright within a couple of days of being put in service), there have been no read errors in multiple months of running. So the error rate is demonstrably much better than one bad read in 1014 bits since my RAID array has read that much data several times over by now just from the monthly scrubs.

2. If you're trusting important data to a single device with no redundancy or backups, you're doing it wrong anyway. If you're NOT doing that, then even a 1 in 1014 error rate isn't the end of the world.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Topinio
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1736
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 am
Location: London

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:05 pm

just brew it! wrote:
Topinio wrote:
Anyhow ... what do you gerbils think about drives still being engineered with UBER's of only '< 1 in 1014 bits read' when there are up to 1.2E13 bits on a consumer NAS drive? Am I the only one who has an issue with this?

FWIW a 10 TB NAS drive actually has 8.0E13 bits on it, not 1.2E13...

Sh**, I totally f'd that up and am mortified. How did I thinko an it when that was my whole point? Please slap me. :oops: :oops: :oops:

I was thinking a 12 TB drive, which would be 9.6E13, or ~ 1E14 bits.

... Can I claim that it's because it's 2300 here now and I've been up since 0600?

just brew it! wrote:
And yes, it's disappointing. However, let's put it in perspective:

1. It's pessimistic; i.e. barring outright failures, it is a worst case. In practice you will typically see better than that. My 15 TB RAID-6 array (raw capacity 21 TB) does a full scrub once a month, and (not counting the Seagate SMR clusterf*ck I hit last summer and a single WD drive which failed outright within a couple of days of being put in service), there have been no read errors in multiple months of running. So the error rate is demonstrably much better than one bad read in 1014 bits since my RAID array has read that much data several times over by now just from the monthly scrubs.

2. If you're trusting important data to a single device with no redundancy or backups, you're doing it wrong anyway. If you're NOT doing that, then even a 1 in 1014 error rate isn't the end of the world.

Yes, good point, but most people do trust a drive not to error on read, and it's shoddy penny-pinching engineering IMO, there are plenty of drives spec'd with an UBER of '<1 in 1015 bits read' and there have been for absolutely ages.

At the top of the capacity range right now:
  1. Standard cheap hard drives are being made to be able to correctly read without error only at least 1E14 b (= 1.25E13 B = 12.5 TB ~= 1 drive read worth of data;
  2. Decent but more expensive hard drives are being made to be able to correctly read without error at least 1E15 b (= 1.25E14 B = 125 TB ~= 10 drive reads worth of data).

These being minima and in base 10 means:
  1. Standard cheap hard drives are being engineered such that they are definitely typically unable to correctly read ~= 10 drive reads worth of data (any that could would say UBER<1E15);
  2. Decent but more expensive hard drives are being made such that they can read over ~= 10 drive reads worth of data, not up to ~= 100 drive reads worth of data, but could be getting towards that.

I feel like if people (even geeks) appreciated this and paid out more, the quality wouldn't be so lacking. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist about things?
Desktop: E3-1270 v5, X11SAT-F, 32GB, RX Vega 56, 500GB Crucial P1, 250GB Crucial MX500, 4TB 7E8, Xonar DGX, XL2730Z + G2420HDB
HTPC: i5-2500K, DH67GD, 6GB, RX 580, 250GB MX500, 1.5TB Barracuda, Xonar DX
Laptop: MacBook6,1
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:33 pm

Eh. Fix it with software. The drive to push down cost by the cloud vendors is going to keep pushing reliability downward whether we like it or not (for spinning and rolling rust).

It's why ZFS exists as it does today.
Desktop: Z170A | 6700K @ 4.4 | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB NVME + 2 TB SATA + LSI (128x8) RAID 0
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
Captain Ned
Gold subscriber
Global Moderator
Posts: 27717
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:41 pm

Waco wrote:
Eh. Fix it with software. The drive to push down cost by the cloud vendors is going to keep pushing reliability downward whether we like it or not (for spinning and rolling rust).

It's why ZFS exists as it does today.

So, on top of all of the other regulatory issues I have with my regulated entities outsourcing to the cloud, I now need them to write file system standards into the (generally non-negotiable) contracts? Can you get Azure or AWS to store your data on a ZFS box/cluster/cloud?
Humans sleep soundly in their beds because rough cats stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
 
MOSFET
Gold subscriber
Gerbil XP
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:42 am

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:46 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
Can you get Azure or AWS to store your data on a ZFS box/cluster/cloud?


Great question and I'm very interested in the answer, whatever it may be.
Be careful on inserting this (or any G34 chip) into the socket. Once you pull that restraining lever, it is either a good install or a piece of silicon jewelry.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:15 pm

MOSFET wrote:
Captain Ned wrote:
Can you get Azure or AWS to store your data on a ZFS box/cluster/cloud?


Great question and I'm very interested in the answer, whatever it may be.

You can. (at least I know for a fact you can on AWS)
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
Redocbew
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:44 am

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:27 pm

Yeah, they call it their "GovCloud". I've never had to use it, but I imagine in terms of file systems it probably depends on what services you'll be using. If you've got an EC2 box setup, then you can pick whatever file system you like. If you're just dropping files on S3, then you'll have less control.
Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 52822
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Blackblaze's 2018 HDD stats

Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:28 am

Topinio wrote:
I feel like if people (even geeks) appreciated this and paid out more, the quality wouldn't be so lacking. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist about things?

I suspect that nearly all people who still buy mechanical HDDs these days fall into 1 of 3 categories:

1. Using it for external backup (i.e. write once, read hopefully never). May never notice if one of the files on their external drive isn't readable because odds are they'll never try to read it, given that primary storage media (SSDs and Cloud solutions) are pretty reliable these days.

2. Employed in the IT industry. Understand the limitations, and employ redundancy, scrubbing, etc. to mitigate the impact of read errors.

3. Data hoarder. Depending on mindset, may never notice unreadable files (like group 1), or may be employing some form of redundancy (like group 2).

I don't think there are enough people who fall outside of the above 3 groups to make it profitable for the makers of consumer HDDs to maintain the level of reliability that used to be the norm.

Waco wrote:
Eh. Fix it with software. The drive to push down cost by the cloud vendors is going to keep pushing reliability downward whether we like it or not (for spinning and rolling rust).

It's why ZFS exists as it does today.

QFT. I bet 90%+ of HDD sales volume these days are to Cloud and enterprise users; these are the customers who are driving the industry now. And these customers are all about cost/byte, since they've got redundancy to deal with the random drive failures. Worsening the AFR of individual drives by some amount is acceptable if the TCO (including the overhead of swapping in replacement drives) is still lower.

Consumer drives have become an afterthought.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests