I had originally though it was a repost of the many older articles from Backblaze until seeing a reference to Dec 31 2014. While not terribly ambiguous now, the ambiguity will only grow as the year marches on.
If someone from Backblaze happens to see this: you don't need to put it in your URL, but please date your post near the top or bottom of the text.
The evergreen no date thing is fine with me - provided the content itself is actually evergreen. That's the bit people seem to forget. Not dating content doesn't magically make it last forever. If the information is unlikely to expire then I don't need a date. If there is a chance that the information will go out of date, especially if the dated information will not be useful to the reader, then it should be dated.
If anybody thinks, readers will skip their article, if the date is too easy to find, why don't you sign the article with the authors name and then let the author decide, if a date has to be added. Like "joe - Nov. 1, 2014" or just "joe".
This article certainly needs a date.
An article without a date is about as trustworthy as a scribble on a bathroom stall.
Hit Refresh. Lo and behold - there is the date.
Now that's an agile organization. Thanks very much - I really appreciate the date on these posts as well.
I appreciate, in the end you have to do what gets you the most views, however, from my perspective missing out the date means you prefer to waste my time as I have to scan the article until I get a feel for how old it is.
I would read anything written within 6 months and would consider up to 12 months if the information was high quality. It's not like we're overburdened with quality, independent, information.
If your going to be business minded, why not have the date on for the first few months and remove it when the first flush of green has gone. ;-)
It's not a euphemism. It's a standard term in web content for articles that are not time-sensitive. An article on how Quicksort works is an evergreen article. One on predictions for tomorrow's stock market moves is not.
That said, yes, TLS 1.0, RC4, and SHA1 are all starting to smell, and it's probably time to toss them down the drain.
@Yev, writing about specific technology is time-bound and doesn't exactly have the half life of DNA.
Having said that, I appreciate all that Backblaze writes about hardware. It's interesting and easy to read. This takes time and thought, you (at Backblaze) must be doing something right.
If you don't date your articles, they're of casual interest only, because I can't be sure they're current enough to use them as the basis for decisions.
- Show last update date on all posts;
- The evergreen posts you just update every 3-6 months to keep them updated and still green;
- The not evergreen posts can be considered not useful therefore let them be old.
And I was right. Seagate bad. Hitachi best. WD almost as reliable as Hitachi.
I can recall one or two bad WD models over recent years, the one at the top of my memory is the 500GByte WD5000AAKS. There was a flaw in the WD10EACS that made it park too frequently, but at least it had a parking ramp.
Hitachi has been a good vendor since the "deathstar" glass platter fiasco blew over. Now: Deskstar 7K's forever!
On the other hand, Seagate seems to ship flaw after flaw. Lately they tend to have spindle bearings that die if the drive gets bumped. If that doesn't happen, surely a head will go bad.
But I'm really disappointed at what's happened to Seagate. I've gone from total confidence in recommending their products to actively recommending against the brand in just a couple of years, and our experiences roughly match Backblaze's. (Though on a much much smaller scale.)
However if you take the lid off a WD drive, the head arm pivot goes out of alignment, since it is secured in place by one of the lid screws. So, if you have to swap internal parts for data recovery, you should own or make a jig to hold the top of the pivot and make fine adjustments, or you will never be successful. Depending on your skills, this may present more difficulty than reworking a board for a swap.
Luckily I have never had to try a DIY data recovery.
Oh god, how did I forget about that? Yeah, the guys on hddguru had things to say about that a few years back. A few folks made some really good side money making a tool specifically for realigning the heads on those WD drives.
I used to do the very occasional DIY data recovery for people that had the need but not the money for a professional recovery. My last one was well over 5 years ago, WD and the others made it impossible for people like me to do it anymore. (We still can do recoveries on failing drives under very limited circumstances using a custom server/software we patched together.)
You really have to pay for expensive yearly training and piles of equipment to do data recoveries now.
Edit: article itself is here if you're curious about the context of that picture:
When the drives started reaching 1TB capacity... There were models where they started throwing Seagate branded drives into Maxtor external cases... And that was when it all went to shit. The infamous 7200.11 series.
Dealing with the 7200.11 drives was like the capacitor plague. They seemed to work well long enough to get other people to buy loads... then the firmware problems... then the sudden head crash problems... then the sudden won't power up anymore after a reboot problems...
All the same kind of shit that people saw with Maxtor post 2GB that caused people to stop using those drives en masse. Those old 2GB Maxtor drives were reliable as fuck, though.
I'd normally end something like this with a bit about how history repeats itself and I fear for the next drive company that will get bought out by Seagate, but when you look at it... We're down to two with a small smattering of subsidiaries that no one can really be sure are rebrands or proper made drives.
Case in point. Hitachi is owned by WD and Samsung HD is owned by Seagate now. Toshiba owns some WD assets and bought out Fujitsu's HD division. Beyond that, not much left.
I don't know that specific model but frequent parking is not a bug, it's a (highly annoying) feature of (most?) 2.5" and green 3.5"WD drives for some years.
With that said this is going to sound a little nitpicky but why isn't the publication date anywhere on this article? I've noticed a growing number of blogs not putting the publish date anywhere on the blog page which makes it really hard to know if what they say is still valid. In this case you can infer from the dates of the drives they tested that it was published in 2015 but a number of blogs don't have those clues in the blog to let you know when it was posted. Normally you can look at the URL to see the date but BB uses slugs off /blog/ so you can't get the date from there either.
I had no failures so far but with a 50% failure rate it's bound to happen soon
I'm not sure if I trust what you guys did, calling the old Hitachi Drives as HGST. Technically, the 3.5" drives from Hitachi got sold to Toshiba.
For example, the Toshiba DT01ACA300 is allegedly the same design as the Hitachi 7k3000.
In the following link, note that the "HDS723030BLE640" is the model number to the 7k3000 with ridiculously low failure rates in the Backblaze study.
I don't know if HGST drives are related to the old Hitachi models at all.
Again, I hate to criticize such awesome research that you've given away for free in your blog. But I'd definitely would like some research and clarification on the Hitachi -> Toshiba or Hitachi -> HGST situation.
> I don't know if HGST drives are related to the old Hitachi models at all.
> Some of the HGST drives listed were manufactured under their previous brand, Hitachi. We’ve been asked to use the HGST name and we have honored that request.
Intriguing - that suggests some sort of advertising deal? Which calls in to question the impartiality of the report.
Who asked them? In what context? Why accede to a third parties interference in the report?
Are Backblaze getting reduced price HGST drives now?
The Hitachi 5K3000 and Hitachi 7K3000 are amongst the most reliable hard drives in the report. Those drives are 3 years or more old and yet have some of the lowest failure rates in the study.
Unfortunately, Hitachi doesn't exist anymore. Hitachi as a company was split and sold in pieces. It is either HGST (owned by WD) or Toshiba.
I want to buy the 7k3000 today. Which hard drive manufacturer is making the modern equivalent? Is it the Toshiba DT01ACA300, or is it the "HGST Deskstar" ??
Despite sharing the same branding, I don't think HGST Deskstar is in fact from the same factory as the Hitachi Deskstars. When you look at the HGST Deskstars, they have WD Technology in them ("Coolspin" RPM).
The Toshiba DT01ACA300 has very similar performance characteristics to the old Hitachi 7k3000 drive.
So its a confusing situation. Which is why I'd like clarification. I bet that the Toshiba DT01ACA300 is actually the super-reliable hard drive that I want, but I admit that I'm a bit ignorant on this front.
If it's important to track this information, I think it's relevant to mention it specifically, and I'd expect an honest review to discuss important changes like this (if they're aware of them), regardless of the brand names mentioned. If HGST requested that the review not mention a change in factory or technology, or refused to answer questions about it, then yes, I'd suspect malice somewhere.
Hitachi (owned by Toshiba) and HGST (owned by WD) are two different companies. You can't say a drive was manufactured by Hitachi/Toshiba when it was actually a HGST drive.
As I understand: WD bought HGST (Hitachi Global Storage Technologies), then sold on the manufacturing of 3.5" drives to Toshiba to comply with EU and FTC requirements (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5635/western-digital-to-sell-h...). WD retained the 2.5" side of the HGST manufacture.
I doubt anyone wants to buy a WD HGST branded drive on the strength of the past manufacture in what are now Toshiba owned factories. WD would want the past drives, sold as Hitachi, to be called HGST as it boosts that brand - but to some extent that would be misinformation.
So back to this:
>Some of the HGST drives listed were manufactured under their previous brand, Hitachi. //
Those Hitachi brand drives were it seems made in facilities that Toshiba own now. HGST is now a WD brand (though they were not quite one company as of Dec 2014) - unless the "Hitachi" drives were made in WD facilities the calling them HGST gives quite the wrong impression.
It's quite convoluted and I don't really follow HDD manufacture news that much; please correct me if I'm wrong.
Which is why I'm sure the HGST label on the graphs is an honest mistake. The hard drive world was severely shaken up as Hitachi got bought out by WD, and then FTC / EU split that company up on monopoly grounds.
There's no need to use a conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, it seems like the super-reliable "Hitachi 7k3000" of old is in fact a Toshiba drive today.
The Serial Number / Model Number information on the other hand should work if enough details are provided.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the lifetime of laptop HDD (500GB range). Wonder what's the time frame around which I should swap it out (& what brand)
Anyone have a recommendation for how to replace all the drives with more reliable models without wrecking the RAID? Downtime is okay, but I don't have spare space for the contents to make a giant backup. It's currently set up as a "Synology Hybrid RAID" that looks an awful lot like a RAID 5.
An online capacity expansion (replacing one at a time) will mean a very long time in a degraded state, possible multiple disk failures, increased chances of data loss (power goes off, etc)
If you have a spare PC lying around, check out the XPenology forums  for the software (specifically, NanoBoot or XPEnoboot) required to create your own Synology clone.
You'll be able to create a new SHR volume with new disks. As suggested in another post, do a file level copy to the new volume. You should then be able to replace all the disks in your actual Synology NAS with your new disks at once, and perform a migration  so everything works with your Synology hardware.
(This is possibly a better solution than replacing the disks one by one, since there's the risk of another disk failing while the RAID is being rebuilt.)
It would also be a good idea to check the NAS vendors forums.
I'd happily pay a small fee for access to an up-to-date snapshot when I'm in the market for harddrives.
I'm really looking forward to this... could it be a similar problem to the one that caused the huge amount of 7200.11 failures a few years ago?
I have six ST3000DM001's and seven ST31500341AS's, all with about 2 years on the clock (~20,000 power-on hours). With 40% and 25% AFR's respectively, the odds of all thirteen surviving are:
1 / ((0.6 12) * (0.75 14)) = 1 in 25,782.
I doubt I'm that lucky.
If so, at the time (~2008) I had an HTPC with 10 1TB-1.5TB drives with 6 of 10 affected by the firmware issues. I was able to successfully flash all my drives at the time with no data loss.
Three of them are dead. I stopped using the others.
It looks like Blackblaze managed to build a system with good fault tolerance, such that they can control the $-price/failure-rate ratio as they need.
- HGST, good
- WD, expensive (in bulk)
- Seagate, we buy them despite failures
But back in the ole' days, every one of us have lost very personal data due to hardware failure at some point. And it's interesting how the opinion about brands are being formed.
For example, my first drive that died was Seagate. Surprise surprise my opinion about said company is very low now. But in most part, it's very bias opinion, especially given the fact I have never owned another Seagate for the reason of crash. I love WD and never had one failed, currently about 20 full of data. But I met bunch of folks who hate WD and had them crush and they lost important data. And they love Seagate.
It's interesting how opinions about hard drives are being formed throughout our lives.
RC4 and 3DES, top of the line secure Cloud storage service indeed.
I browse with old insecure ciphers disabled, and I seem to remember having no problem reading backblaze blog before, either they downgraded their security (Occulus rifts website used to downgrade to rc4 whenever you wanted to pay them any money, but that was before FB buyout), or I disabled rc4 later than I thought.
Rather than annual rates, I'd really prefer to see failure rate after six months, one year, two years, etc. This would make it easier to answer questions like "was drive X always bad? Or just when new? Or just when old?"
Name/Model Size Number of Drives Average Age in years Annual Failure Rate 95% Confidence Interval
HGST Deskstar 7K2000
(HDS722020ALA330) 2.0 TB 4,641 3.9 1.1% 0.8% – 1.4%
HGST Deskstar 5K3000
(HDS5C3030ALA630) 3.0 TB 4,595 2.6 0.6% 0.4% – 0.9%
I bet they are the most reliable because of single platter.
I can't even be bothered to push warranty for replacement, terrible.
Sticking with WD from now on.
Timing is everything, I guess.
Please order a carton of them and let us know ASAP how they work for you!
Punchline: This review or analysis could be biased.
Or are you saying that the difference in worldwide sales for each drive model somehow renders Backblaze's failure rates invalid? The size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining.
Now/next time I'll seriously consider SSDs.