Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Two words: IBM Deathstar.



What does that have to do with commentary on needing to have larger cross-batch samples?


When bringing up OCZ' notorious high return rate, and using that to indicate a high failure rate for SSD's, bringing up the IBM DeathStar is a very relevant counterpoint.

Larger cross-batch samples is absolutely a good idea, but the dig at SSD's applies just as much to regular harddrives.

[For those who don't know, DeathStar was a nickname given to the IBM DeskStar line of harddrives after one of the models had a problem that gave them high odds of catastrophic head crashes - so bad in fact that they'd strip most of the magnetic material off the glass platters when they crashed[1] -; out of 10 IBM DeskStar drives we had at the time, all 10 failed within a week or two of each other, under a year after we bought them. The problem was is often considered to be one of the main reasons why IBM unloaded their hard drive business to Hitachi]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGST_Deskstar#mediaviewer/File:...


  The problem was is often considered to be one of the main 
  reasons why IBM unloaded their hard drive business to 
  Hitachi
Who, in a compete reversal of fortunes, now produce some of the most reliable drives [1].

[1] https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update...


You're missing the fact that (IIRC) prior to that DeskStar were considered some of the best drives on the market.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: