Backblaze: SSDs might be as unreliable as disk drives
59 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:Look when i have a wd green from 2011 that even survived running torrents and being in a raid vs 3 hdd from 2017 which died with something like 30k hours on it used in its intended use-case. Thats way more than just bad luck.
(I even have a 200 GB WD somewhere that still works with <10 bad sectors.... [and even those are old AF, the drive was one or two years old i think])
/EDITOh and did i mention for not much more i could get wd dc-hc drives instead of crappy ironwolfs? Yeah seagate can go bust for all i care.....
Seagate has lower RMA rates than Western digital.
It was 0.93% vs 1.26% in 2017 (no more up to date data).
Failure rate of the 4TB WD Red - 2.95%
Failure rate of 4TB IronWolf - 2.81%
Source: https://www.hardware.fr/articles/962-6/disques-durs.html
It's RMA rates from a very large French retailer.
I don't doubt your experience, but the fact of the matter is that your experience is just a very tiny sample and as a result of bad luck, it is very skewed compared to the real world generalized numbers.
Edit:
For those interested, here are the RMA statistics for HDDs and SSDs according to the French retailer, which I think is way more representative of what consumers doing consumer things can expect.
HDDs:
- 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%
- Kingston 0,44%
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now