Meanwhile I'd helped my father get a new drive, one of those fancy IBM Deskstars. When I built a system around the famous Abit BP-6 motherboard I put in two Maxtor drives - which I should not have done, one of them died within 2 years. They were followed by another WD, this one 1.2GB - it died. Then came the Western Digital IDE drives, two of those died and took ~250MB of data with them to data heaven. This Seagate never died on me, I probably have it around somewhere still. I replaced it with a 3½" Seagate connected to an Adaptec RLL controller - this being before IDE was a thing the controller decided the encoding scheme and RLL gave you 50% extra storage space. The first to fail was a Miniscribe 5¼" 20MB, it died after a week. It is the old bayesian probability thing: get rid of Seagate and you've gotten rid of almost all of the models with high failure rates.Įdit: sorry Samsung on the brain since they have another wave of SSD failures too /laughĮither you're lucky or you just have not had that many drives around. All these extremely complex theories to get around the very simple conclusion that Seagate has shitty parts or shitty QC and the failure rates are slightly higher as a result.Ī lot of the Seagate models are relatively OK, but almost all of the "outlier" drives with really high failure rates are Seagate. It's not a "random sampling bias" that uniformly affects everyone except Seagate in the exact same way almost every single survey, it's not some magical factor that makes Seagate drives uniquely unsuited to storage-array usage but magically resilient when used in a home PC, it's not first-gen backblaze pods being bad, it's just Seagate putting out shitty drives, period the end. The data has pretty consistently showed the same thing for 10+ years. Like you're not "steelmanning" climate change you're just a denier. There comes a point when it's not "steelmanning" it's just denial of reality in the face of consistent evidence.
Backblaze has their first drive stats Pc#
The only reasonable possibility would be that Seagate drives are simply constructed in an entirely different, less resilient fashion, which (a) is not factually supported in any way afaik, and (b) would still be very relevant for consumers to know! It's not like a home PC is vibration-free either after all. No other drives seem to have such problems with being used in this fashion: what is your theory for why Seagate drives are uniquely affected by being in the pods in some fashion that would not also affect WD drives or HGST drives or whoever else? Are WD drives not affected by vibration for some reason? For a while Seagate Deniers latched onto the first-gen pods as maybe being the answer but they're all long gone at this point, this failure-rate anomaly is continuing even in the newer pods. But this possibility does not exist for Seagate with much larger statistical samples.ĪFAIK there hasn't been much of a difference shown between consumer workloads and enterprise workloads for HDD lifespan either, it's just cope and theorycrafting from people who are emotionally attached to the idea of Seagate not being shit for some reason. Having high failure rates despite having lots of drives is actually worse - there is the chance the HGST failures are just random chance due to small numbers of drives.
0 kommentar(er)
