![]() Incidentally, Backblaze says that they will also release a study sometime in the future on how HDD reliability degrades with age, which will probably be a very informative reading. While the shorter runtime is already accounted for in the number showing annualized mortality, this count still ignores an important point: namely, for HDDs, the failure rate increases with age, as the drives get worn out from continuous server operation (Backblaze did not use server models designed for 24/7 operation for this task).īy having mostly old HDDs in the stats, but relatively new SSDs can cloud the comparison a lot, as you will see. The failure count of SSDs in Backblaze so far is only 17 units, which looks like an awfully good number in comparison, but this is for 591,501 days of running. However, this is for 3,523,610 days of service. The mortality rate is high at first glance for HDDs, the 6.41% per year means a total of 619 discs were discarded during the time covered by the statistics. Annualized HDD and SSD failure rate over the lifetime of the system (Source: Backblaze) Even the youngest HDDs are at least 27 months old. Therefore, the average age of SSDs is only 14.2 months (the oldest are 33 months old), while HDDs are all from previous years and are 52.4 months or almost 4.5 years old on average (i.e. The company started deploying SSDs late, only sometime in 2018, when small capacity (240-256 GB) drives became very cheap. But there’s a methodological problem that can skew the SSD failure rate and make it look much rosier than it actually is. For SSDs used as boot disks, the statistics for failed devices so far is only a 1.05% failure rate per year.īackblaze has 1666 system SSDs and 1607 system HDDs in its data centers, so the ratio is virtually fifty-fifty. So, during one year, around 6.5% of installed drives fail. ![]() Backblaze, for example, has a statistic that says the overall failure rate of HDDs that the company runs in its servers as boot drives is 6.41% per year (annualized). ![]() But their new data now shows a picture much less promising, it looks like SSD fatality rates might not eventually be so different from HDDs.Īt first glance, it may seem that SSDs are a lot more reliable, as a previous report from Backblaze (and here’s our article about on it) stated. Backblaze also started reporting failure statistics for the SSDs it uses as system drives and the results at first seemed to be orders of magnitude better. ![]() In May, we had reported on a study by Backblaze, which publishes statistics on the failure rate of hard drives operated by its service. Latest statistics from Backblaze suggest SSD reliability may not be significantly better than hard drives at all ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |