Looking at those Data,
It seems they will soon reach 1000 PB / 1EB.
The top 5 Annualised hard drive failure rate are all from Seagate. All Drive from Hitachi and Toshiba has AFR lowered than 1%.
So basically dont buy Seagate.
It seems they will soon reach 1000 PB / 1EB.
The top 5 Annualised hard drive failure rate are all from Seagate. All Drive from Hitachi and Toshiba has AFR lowered than 1%.
So basically dont buy Seagate.
1,089,318 = 4 * 2852 + 4 * 12746 + 8 * 1000 + 12 * 1560 + 12 * 10859 + 4 * 19211 + 6 * 886 + 8 * 9809 + 8 * 14447 + 10 * 1200 + 12 * 37004 + 12 * 7215 + 4 * 99 + 14 * 3619
Don't think I made a typo there, but please check my work. Even counting as 1024 TB = 1 PB and 1024 PB = 1 EB, that leaves 1,048,576 TB = 1 EB and they're over that threshold.
The February 5, 2018 "500 Petabytes and Counting" blog post should soon be eclipsed by a 1 EB post - though it appears they're counting actual data stored, not capacity. Nonetheless, with some redundancy, extra capacity, and overhead, we'll likely see that number soon.
Or do, because they're cheaper than the competition and modern systems can handle failures.
Myself though, for SoHo use, I'm willing to pay more for less stress because I don't have the sheer volume of devices, and the time to replace is time spent doing something useful instead of shuffling HDDs and rebuilding RAID arrays. A 5% saving on a handful of drives is not worth it, but a 40% saving on thousands makes them competitive.
I dont want to save a few dollars for potentially 4x the chance of failure and hassle.
And even if we ignore the outlier to 2%+ from two models, Seagate is still on average 2-3x more likely to fail.