Which hard drive?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • tkaiser wrote:

      ryecoaaron wrote:

      I never thought there would be such a disagreement with good published statistics.
      Statistics are interesting once sample size matches. If your sample size is way lower the numbers others collected are simply irrelevant.
      All I have to say is false. Sample size is only relevant when generating the statistics. As long as the sample size is large enough (which it is), the statistics are relevant. You are referring to luck.
      omv 4.1.8.2 arrakis | 64 bit | 4.15 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 4.1.8
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github.com/OpenMediaVault-Plugin-Developers

      Please read this before posting a question.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • ryecoaaron wrote:

      I never thought there would be such a disagreement with good published statistics. I will just STFU since my suggestion sucks and everyone has better ideas...
      I agree with you.

      Data is data and while it's not absolute, BackBlaze's data set is massive. It's quite possibly the largest study of hard drives in the world. Of the drive models specified, their failure data is an indicator of what might be expected. Sure, one could buy an exact model where BackBlaze's failure rate was at or close 0.0% (the WD or Toshiba models for example) and it might fail quickly in a desktop. That's the nature of statistics and probability, "nothing is absolute". However, their data is a strong indicator of the probability of failure, at least where the models in their data set are concerned.

      Further, there are reasons why BackBlaze is compiling this data and it's certainly not for the computing community. This data is being compiled, analyzed and actively applied to save money, period. Toward that end, in reducing tech labor hours, down time, etc., it's an active effort toward buying drives that last longer, even marginally, and influence OEM drive prices. It's a matter of trade offs related to cost. Otherwise, compiling such a massive data set would be an expensive and foolish waste of time. (If that was the case, being so poorly managed, BackBlaze would be out of business.)

      While It's possible to poke holes in the collection techniques behind any data set, given the content of this thread, it also appears that there's a great deal of variation in individual interpretation of results. :)
      _________________________________

      In balancing out the picture, a quote from Mark Twain comes to mind:
      "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

      Here's an example of what he was talking about. -> Example
      (Even if its representation seems distorted, the underlying raw data is accurate.)
      Good backup takes the "drama" out of computing
      ____________________________________
      OMV 3.0.99 Erasmus
      ThinkServer TS140, 12GB ECC / 32GB USB3.0
      4TB SG+4TB TS ZFS mirror/ 3TB TS

      OMV 3.0.99 Erasmus - Rsync'ed Backup
      R-PI 2 $29 / 16GB SD Card $8 / Real Time Clock $1.86
      4TB WD My Passport $119
    • flmaxey wrote:

      one could buy an exact model where BackBlaze's failure rate was at or close 0.0% (the WD or Toshiba models for example) and it might fail quickly.
      Exactly. Since the single disk you bought is not affected by Backblaze's statistics. It can fail right now or it can fail in 10 years. The only certainty involved is that it will fail for sure. It's only a matter of time when this will happen and a matter of strategy how to deal with this (100% disk capacity wasted for RAID-1 being the worst choice of course)

      ryecoaaron wrote:

      You are referring to luck.
      This whole thread is about betting on luck and 'a good feeling since $something done wrt redundancy' ;)
    • Marry_Pi wrote:

      what is the max capacity of RAID can be built up on a smal ARM development board? Like RPi or Odroid, e.g... I, personally, have recentelytried 1TB, but I wonderwhere are the limits...
      While this question doesn't really fit in this thread and I've seen some smarter marketing attempts already (Eltech can do better!) the answer is easy: when playing RAID with toys like Raspberries or ODROIDs the maximum RAID capacity is only limited by your own imagination: the maximum amount of data you're willing to loose in a single moment :)