Backblaze releases some more flawed HDD failure statistics for Q3

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I'm sorry but Seagate is unreliable. When neither Amazon nor Google cloud services use a single Seagate drive when they're cheap as dirt, there's clearly a reliability issue.

I myself don't trust Seagate or WD after this happened a while ago: http://www.redhill.net.au/d/119.php

[patrickjp93]

10 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I myself don't trust Seagate or WD after this happened a while ago: http://www.redhill.net.au/d/119.php

Oh please that was a decade ago. Give them a fair chance and move on from your jaded world view.

[Dabombinable]

11 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Oh please that was a decade ago. Give them a fair chance and move on from your jaded world view.

Their drives have improved-but with shit like that having happened, I'm glad that there are a far wider choice of SSD manufacturers.

[patrickjp93]

32 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Their drives have improved-but with shit like that having happened, I'm glad that there are a far wider choice of SSD manufacturers.

There's won't be for very long. Seagate will buy Kingston soon, and Intel has been eyeing Adata.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, patrickjp93 said:

There's won't be for very long. Seagate will buy Kingston soon, and Intel has been eyeing Adata.

Your forgetting Samsung, Sandisk, Toshiba....

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Your forgetting Samsung, Sandisk, Toshiba....

WD owns Sandisk. The brands will merge before too long. Toshiba is mostly workstation and enterprise when it comes to SSDs. There goes the many competitors theory.

[Jovidah]

5 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Oh please that was a decade ago. Give them a fair chance and move on from your jaded world view.

As if you're giving Seagate a fair chance? 

Their reliability numbers are on the same level as WD when looking at the hardware.fr numbers.

 

Heck, if you want to cling to the Backblaze stuff, the latest report has an 11,31% AFR for one of the WD drives as well (although as I've said before that's a load of bullcrap).

[patrickjp93]

12 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

As if you're giving Seagate a fair chance? 

Their reliability numbers are on the same level as WD when looking at the hardware.fr numbers.

 

Heck, if you want to cling to the Backblaze stuff, the latest report has an 11,31% AFR for one of the WD drives as well (although as I've said before that's a load of bullcrap).

Hardware.fr is full of crap. Neither Amazon nor Google uses Seagate in ANY data center. That should tell you something.

[Jovidah]

4 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Your forgetting Samsung, Sandisk, Toshiba....

He's right on that one though. You will be seeing consolidation in that market in the next few years. There's simply too little differentiation between the products, and I doubt the brands who don't own their own NAND-fab will be able to compete with the ones who do. The wild growth will end, leading to some winners and some losers.

Not that it's necessarily very bad. Right now there are a lot of mediocre, uninteresting and/or completely pointless products in that market. All it adds is confusion.

[Jovidah]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

Hardware.fr is full of crap. Neither Amazon nor Google uses Seagate in ANY data center. That should tell you something.

And why exactly are they full of crap? Just because they're French doesn't mean they're full of shit. Although the data isn't without caveats (mostly because different categories of products are used differently), the data is far more reliable than the Backblaze stuff (as it is inherently randomized).

 

Now I don't know which disks Amazon and Google use and more importantly, why. Given your lack of explanation I think it's safe to assume you don't either. So stop throwing around baseless conclusions.

[Dabombinable]

29 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

And why exactly are they full of crap? Just because they're French doesn't mean they're full of shit. Although the data isn't without caveats (mostly because different categories of products are used differently), the data is far more reliable than the Backblaze stuff (as it is inherently randomized).

 

Now I don't know which disks Amazon and Google use and more importantly, why. Given your lack of explanation I think it's safe to assume you don't either. So stop throwing around baseless conclusions.

Its the normal thing for him-a while ago he said to spend a shitload on a US only textbook, or try to pirate it to see his "evidence".

[patrickjp93]

30 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

And why exactly are they full of crap? Just because they're French doesn't mean they're full of shit. Although the data isn't without caveats (mostly because different categories of products are used differently), the data is far more reliable than the Backblaze stuff (as it is inherently randomized).

 

Now I don't know which disks Amazon and Google use and more importantly, why. Given your lack of explanation I think it's safe to assume you don't either. So stop throwing around baseless conclusions.

 

I do know. A former professor of mine is a Google DBA, and 3 of my fellow graduates work in Amazon datacenters. It's common knowledge they use consumer-level drives because of cost and the fact enterprise drives really DON'T deliver much better reliability, sometimes none at all.

 

Hardware.fr has a chip on its shoulder because WD refused to replace disks hw.fr fried with a bad motherboard.

 

They're not baseless. Seagate also has vastly higher RMA requests than WD and Toshiba.

[Prysin]

4 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Hardware.fr is full of crap. Neither Amazon nor Google uses Seagate in ANY data center. That should tell you something.

Yeah.  It tells me that Toshiba/WD/HGST undercut them in the bidding process. 

[Bouzoo]

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

They're not baseless. Seagate also has vastly higher RMA requests than WD and Toshiba.

You should know by now that we need a source for that. 

[Dabombinable]

37 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

You should know by now that we need a source for that. 

HDD TBH have very little to differentiate between them now. They should actually be all uite close to each other (except Toshiba HDD, some of the cheaper models still have terrible failure rates in normal use) in reliability, with only the manufacturer of the control boards chips affecting reliability in a significant manner (and the use of Helium).

[Bouzoo]

2 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

HDD TBH have very little to differentiate between them now. They should actually be all uite close to each other (except Toshiba HDD, some of the cheaper models still have terrible failure rates in normal use) in reliability, with only the manufacturer of the control boards chips affecting reliability in a significant manner (and the use of Helium).

I'm not the one you should be telling that.

[Dabombinable]

13 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

I'm not the one you should be telling that.

 

I think he has me blocked....and I was hoping he'd respond to your uote.

[Prysin]

15 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

 

I think he has me blocked....and I was hoping he'd respond to your uote.

patrick dont block people. he just blatantly ignores them

[Jovidah]

8 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

 

I do know. A former professor of mine is a Google DBA, and 3 of my fellow graduates work in Amazon datacenters. It's common knowledge they use consumer-level drives because of cost and the fact enterprise drives really DON'T deliver much better reliability, sometimes none at all.

 

Hardware.fr has a chip on its shoulder because WD refused to replace disks hw.fr fried with a bad motherboard.

 

They're not baseless. Seagate also has vastly higher RMA requests than WD and Toshiba.

"The numbers don't agree with me so let's just attack their journalistic integrity". I don't think it's very likely hardware.fr is fudging the numbers just to shit on WD.

And interestingly those numbers actually represent RMA requests, and have Seagate on the same level as WD. Toshiba tends to be marginally behind both, but not by much.

 

I still don't see your supporting your statement that their datacenters aren't using Seagate because of reliability issues. "I know a guy so you should just take my word for it" isn't much of an argument.

[Dabombinable]

42 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

"The numbers don't agree with me so let's just attack their journalistic integrity". I don't think it's very likely hardware.fr is fudging the numbers just to shit on WD.

And interestingly those numbers actually represent RMA requests, and have Seagate on the same level as WD. Toshiba tends to be marginally behind both, but not by much.

 

I still don't see your supporting your statement that their datacenters aren't using Seagate because of reliability issues. "I know a guy so you should just take my word for it" isn't much of an argument.

Fun fact: I can easily shit on WD due to the amount of HDD I've had fail well within the MTBF, and I could do the same for Seagate as well (my failed HDD are close to a 50/50 split of WD and Seagate, with a few Maxtor and quantum HDD thrown in-some from after they merged and did straight re-brands). 

[patrickjp93]

2 hours ago, Jovidah said:

"The numbers don't agree with me so let's just attack their journalistic integrity". I don't think it's very likely hardware.fr is fudging the numbers just to shit on WD.

And interestingly those numbers actually represent RMA requests, and have Seagate on the same level as WD. Toshiba tends to be marginally behind both, but not by much.

 

I still don't see your supporting your statement that their datacenters aren't using Seagate because of reliability issues. "I know a guy so you should just take my word for it" isn't much of an argument.

It is likely!
No they don't. They hide 2/3 of Seagate's RMAs.

 

Keith Frikken, Miami Professor and Google DBA.

Madelline Lewis, Amazon Web Services System Architect

Kyle Rogers, Amazon Elastic Computing Manager

 

Sorry, but hardware.fr is full of sh*t and has a chip on its shoulder because WD wouldn't cover a massive hardware failure hardware.fr caused.

 

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Fun fact: I can easily shit on WD due to the amount of HDD I've had fail well within the MTBF, and I could do the same for Seagate as well (my failed HDD are close to a 50/50 split of WD and Seagate, with a few Maxtor and quantum HDD thrown in-some from after they merged and did straight re-brands). 

28 drives in my family from WD, not a single one failed. 12 of them went into a SCZI solution, 6 velociraptors in my Dad's internal RAID 0 from his benchmarking days, and another 10 split between my Mom's, Brother's, and personal rigs. 0 failures in 10 years, same use case for 16 drives.

[Jovidah]

It's like arguing with a conspiracy theorist... Oh sure hardware.fr is fudging the numbers, hiding all the Seagate RMAs and fudging the WD numbers. Riiiight.

 

By the way, 28 drives surviving without issue isn't such an extreme feat. Assuming a rather average 2% failure rate there's still a 57% chance of that happening. 

 

I still have some trouble believing that teachers in uni are making claims about the reliability of certain manufactureres and the internal decision making processes of their companies.  But by now I'm starting to understand why people are annoying by your tendency to claim a lot of things without backing them up...

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

28 drives in my family from WD, not a single one failed. 12 of them went into a SCZI solution, 6 velociraptors in my Dad's internal RAID 0 from his benchmarking days, and another 10 split between my Mom's, Brother's, and personal rigs. 0 failures in 10 years, same use case for 16 drives.

Bet you don't have an old AC280...which has no damaged sectors, hasn't suffered stiction, and still works like new.....and a sort-of-zombie (cosmetic damage caused by batteries leaking on a 286 and 486-the 386 used a lithium ion pack) 386 DX 40 motherboard that it was used with....

[samcool55]

250-ish toshiba drives and 0 died, looks like going with a toshiba drive for my main rig isn't as bad as i thought then