[zfs-discuss] The latest from Backblaze: 2016 Hard Drive Review

Gordan Bobic gordan.bobic at gmail.com
Thu May 19 12:10:14 EDT 2016


Yeah, it'd be great of better data were publicly available; but it isn't.

Having said that, their reliability figures very closely match what I have
discovered myself the hard way over the years. IBM->Hitachi->HGST have by
far the lowest failure rates, and Seagate have by far the highest failure
rates.

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Kash Pande via zfs-discuss <
zfs-discuss at list.zfsonlinux.org> wrote:

> I don't like how they never normalize their data. The % mean basically
> nothing.
>
> Some vendors have just 45 disks.
>
> Doctor's notes:
>
> Results to be taken with a grain of salt.
>
>
> Kash
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at list.zfsonlinux.org
> http://list.zfsonlinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.zfsonlinux.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20160519/7bea0b80/attachment.html>


More information about the zfs-discuss mailing list