Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Data Storage Stats Hardware

Hard Drive Reliability Study Flawed? 237

Posted by samzenpus
from the on-the-other-hand dept.
storagedude writes "A recent study of hard drive reliability by Backblaze was deeply flawed, according to Henry Newman, a longtime HPC storage consultant. Writing in Enterprise Storage Forum, Newman notes that the tested Seagate drives that had a high failure rate were either very old or had known issues. The study also failed to address manufacturer's specifications, drive burn-in and data reliability, among other issues. 'The oldest drive in the list is the Seagate Barracuda 1.5 TB drive from 2006. A drive that is almost 8 years old! Since it is well known in study after study that disk drives last about 5 years and no other drive is that old, I find it pretty disingenuous to leave out that information. Add to this that the Seagate 1.5 TB has a well-known problem that Seagate publicly admitted to, it is no surprise that these old drives are failing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hard Drive Reliability Study Flawed?

Comments Filter:
  • by pefisher (774697) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @09:33PM (#46106281)
    I agree with you that a lot of drives seem to have very long lifetimes. I used to read that it was important to keep hard drives cool, so I have always built machines in which each drive has a dedicated (low speed) fan blowing across it. These drives don't ever seem to fail. (I guess after a statement like that, I should probably do a backup.)
  • by The Grim Reefer (1162755) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @09:37PM (#46106315)

    Or a bad batch?

    No, of course not. This is /. It must be that a major hard drive manufacturer that was around 20+ years prior, and is still around 14 years later made nothing but bricks and packaged them as hard drives. That's how they survived when so many of their competitors went bankrupt. Bricks are so much cheaper to produce, so the profit margin is considerably higher. ;-)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @11:12PM (#46106835)

    I have an 80gb ide deskstar that runs as primary storage for my DNS, key, and SSH jump box for my home network.

    Theolder a drive gets, you need to put it into higher positions of authority and privilege due to its years of experience. It inverts the failure rate (which is mainly from burnout and boredom of routine).

"You're a creature of the night, Michael. Wait'll Mom hears about this." -- from the movie "The Lost Boys"