[HN Gopher] Hard Drive Stats for 2019
___________________________________________________________________
Hard Drive Stats for 2019
Author : sashk
Score : 256 points
Date : 2020-02-11 15:36 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.backblaze.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.backblaze.com)
| generalpass wrote:
| I have wondered about system downtime or time operating in a
| degraded state.
|
| My understanding is other than mirrored, RAID configurations may
| take a long time to rebuild on the larger drives and this is a
| contributing factor to why the highest sales volume of drives has
| been 'stuck' at 4TB (thus the lower $/GB price).
| linsomniac wrote:
| They don't use traditional RAID setups there. My understanding
| is they use a proprietary data encoding and distribution, which
| is more accepting of individual drive failures and reduces
| rebuild times. I believe I've heard they use something more
| like erasure coding rather than RAID-5.
| ddorian43 wrote:
| https://www.backblaze.com/blog/reed-solomon/
|
| There are many open source libraries.
| S3raph wrote:
| I'm a very happy customer, but please do something about your
| mobile app (android) it's really horrible.
| leokennis wrote:
| I agree the mobile app (on iOS in my case) is at best an
| afterthought, and most likely not even a high ranking
| afterthought.
|
| However, out of curiosity...what would you imagine a better
| Backblaze mobile app would do?
| S3raph wrote:
| For sure it is/should not be high priority, but releasing
| such an app in 2020 for sure does not reflect the great
| skills of the backblaze team. At least show me some basic
| stats, account settings and invoices. You can only download
| files from your buckets and that's it.. really?
| magnat wrote:
| Does anyone remember what is their definition of "drive failure"?
| Is it SMART "failure imminent" report, single uncorrectable read
| error or complete data loss for a whole disk? I recall reading
| about it in one of their previous report, but can't find it
| again.
|
| EDIT: nevermind, found it.
|
| "Backblaze counts a drive as failed when it is removed from a
| Storage Pod and replaced because it has 1) totally stopped
| working, or 2) because it has shown evidence of failing soon.
|
| A drive is considered to have stopped working when the drive
| appears physically dead (e.g. won't power up), doesn't respond to
| console commands or the RAID system tells us that the drive can't
| be read or written."
|
| https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-smart-stats/
| newscracker wrote:
| Slightly off topic: is anyone using B2 (which seems cheaper if
| you have more than one computer for a certain amount of data) for
| personal data backups with strong client side encryption across
| multiple platforms (Linux, Mac, Windows)? If so, how do you
| handle it?
| hashhar wrote:
| Yes. I use restic same as the sibling comment.
|
| Have >8TB of data from multiple machines with a lot of
| deduplication (source is somewhere around 10 to 12TB).
| w33ble wrote:
| I do this, though not from Windows, just Mac and Linux. I use
| restic, which has B2 support smd handles all the encryption. it
| also does diffing for backups. There's a Windows build, so I
| assume it would work for you there as well.
|
| You can view and download builds at
| https://github.com/restic/restic/releases/
|
| I don't automate this though, I just use it for occasional
| backups. Not sure what the automation story around restic is.
| orhanhh wrote:
| I use Arq on two macs and it works very well with B2.
| S3raph wrote:
| I sync all my device files to a local Freenas server which runs
| duplicacy in a jail and sync's it every night to backblaze B2.
| I looked at duplicity, restic, attic, borg and in the end
| settled for duplicacy. Pay attention to the duplicacy license,
| for somebody it could be a problem.
| alberth wrote:
| Why do people use Amazon S3 when Backblaze B2 is 1/4 the cost of
| S3 and also includes a CDN for free. You also get way faster
| access speeds with Backblaze vs Amazon since they tier their IO
| speeds.
|
| https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html
| mceachen wrote:
| Unless you're a bootstrapped startup with just a couple people,
| paying the AWS bill is not something the engineer probably
| thinks about too much. Setting up a new billing account with
| another company is just enough friction to just use whatever
| AWS offers and call it a day.
|
| Also, most employees aren't really incentivized to reduce or
| minimize infrastructure expenses.
| koolba wrote:
| Paying for outbound bandwidth is a big one.
| rvnx wrote:
| In the same way, why people use Backblaze when they can use
| Wasabi and not pay the bandwidth ? https://wasabi.com/cloud-
| storage-pricing/
| tux3 wrote:
| I looked at Wasabi some time ago, but their pricing is a
| LOT less simple than their headline says it is.
|
| The major caveats are hidden away in their pricing FAQ:
| they charge a 1TB minimum if you use less, and there's a 90
| days minimum retention period, meaning if you update a file
| a few times you will pay for the full 90 days of every
| intermediate version. Additionally, they reserve the right
| to make you pay for egress if it looks like you transfer
| more than you have stored.
|
| So all in all, Wasabi might be the right fit for you if you
| store >1TB of files that are infrequently updated and get
| less than 1 download/month on average. If you fit that use
| case, I think their free egress pricing is awesome, but
| it's definitely not for everyone.
| Youden wrote:
| If I understand right, if you put CloudFlare in front of
| Backblaze, you get free bandwidth thanks to Bandwidth
| Alliance: https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-
| alliance/backblaze/
| jjeaff wrote:
| Wasabi does not allow you to use unlimited bandwidth. Your
| egress is supposed to stay close to your total ingress. So
| if you are uploading assets that will be access more than a
| few times in the first month, I think you will be out of
| spec for wasabi.
| quellhorst wrote:
| Wasabi charges a minimum of 3 months of storage on anything
| uploaded.
| mritun wrote:
| There are usually many reason:
|
| 1. Scale - S3 is big - really really big! You don't need to
| care if you store one KB or several petabytes.
|
| 2. Tiers: the default on S3 is several way replicated storage
| with 11 9s of durability with high availability. However you
| can select from cheaper options with the trade off you are
| happy with.
|
| 3. Cost: S3 has reduced prices several times, you can be
| reasonably sure your costs will go down over time on per unit
| basis.
| cheeze wrote:
| Last I checked, Backblaze still stores most data in 1 location,
| no?
|
| So, durability of data (which to be fair doesn't matter for
| most s3 use cases), and interop with literally everything else
| in AWS
|
| Intelligent data tiering
|
| Actual access control
|
| Pre signed URLs
| chocolatkey wrote:
| I've combined cloudflare workers with backblaze to implement
| etags, signed URLs, etc. Backblaze is part of CF's bandwidth
| alliance so your bandwidth fee is zero. This makes for a very
| low monthly cost
| SergeAx wrote:
| Can you elaborate further about this setup? Is there an
| article or a FAQ topic about it?
| smeyer wrote:
| I think a big reason is that people are using the rest of the
| amazon ecosystem. If your costs aren't primarily storage, you
| might be willing to pay a premium to use something that
| integrates nicely with other services you're using. Here's an
| article[0] that does some other comparisons between providers
| and mentions things like upload speed and security features.
|
| [0] https://www.cloudwards.net/azure-vs-amazon-s3-vs-google-
| vs-b...
| kissgyorgy wrote:
| Because of vendor lock in. When you move a lot of data between
| S3 and EC2 it costs nothing (or very cheap). When you move data
| outside of AWS, there is extra cost, so it might not even be
| cheaper overall.
| partiallypro wrote:
| If you're with another cloud provider, you still have to pay
| egress fees to Backblaze. That cancels out the cost savings.
| 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote:
| IAM access control, ease of use, reliability, speed.
| leokennis wrote:
| I use B2 as "cold storage" of large-ish files. It's incredible
| how low the monthly bills are.
| mythz wrote:
| Where's the info about the free CDN?
| nielsole wrote:
| Check Cloudflare bandwidth alliance
| mythz wrote:
| This bandwidth alliance?
| https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/
|
| Cloudfare is a featured integration that only mentions that
| transfer fees are free not that CDN hosting is free:
| https://www.backblaze.com/b2/solutions/content-
| delivery.html
|
| Cloudfare does have a free CDN tier "For individuals with a
| personal website and anyone who wants to explore
| Cloudflare." but it's not the same as B2 including a CDN
| for free, even Azure is apart of the bandwidth alliance.
| big_chungus wrote:
| Right, but it means you can basically (ab?)use Cloudflare
| to get free egress from B2 storage. Cloudflare won't get
| too mad until you start hitting terabytes per month; even
| the free tier doesn't have restrictions.
|
| You can also turn on an extremely aggressive caching
| policy with a page rule that will keep everything under a
| given subdomain for a month. This makes the "free CDN"
| part easy, though again, people who do this run the risk
| of getting their accounts terminated.
| partiallypro wrote:
| You just get a discount on data egress, it's not free.
| penagwin wrote:
| It depends on the partner. For Backblaze specifically it
| is indeed free.
| overcast wrote:
| Here's one reason I would need something like S3. Sure, I hack
| all that together into something barely functional myself, but
| it's not worth it. Pretty handy.
| https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/serverless-image-handler/
| bwilliams18 wrote:
| I too use the serverless image handler but it's not perfect.
| The documentation is really crappy and over the summer they
| transitioned the whole system from thumbor to sharp and
| didn't provide great backwards compatibility.
| meritt wrote:
| Because the rest of my infrastructure currently runs on AWS and
| aws egress charges are far more expensive than the b2 savings.
| rsync wrote:
| Genuinely curious ... do you not assign any value to having a
| backup outside of Amazon ?
|
| AWS can certainly provide geographical diversity, but on the
| organizational abstraction layer, all eggs are in one basket,
| yes ?
|
| Is having organizational redundancy something you assign
| _zero_ value to, or something whose value conflicts with the
| egress costs so as to make it a difficult decision ?
|
| Again, genuinely very interested ...
| konschubert wrote:
| Not OP, but of all the things that could kill the startup I
| work at, AWS shutting down is about on spot 63864664 on the
| list.
| kevstev wrote:
| We attempted to be cloud agnostic (using terraform instead
| of CloudFormation for example) and then later multi-cloud.
| The amount of complexity and cost around it was just too
| much.
|
| If AWS goes down, more or less a good portion of the
| internet goes dark. It's an acceptable risk at this point
| unless you are truly massive and entirely self contained-
| if you are using any 3rd party services, IE for auth,
| payment, whatever- they may be using AWS as well and you
| are still exposed.
| gnulinux wrote:
| I mean we have like 2 millions of line of python code
| written for lambda, S3, SQS, SNS, Kinesis, Redshift etc
| using boto3. So if AWS dies, it's not like data backup will
| save my startup. We're dead.
| meritt wrote:
| We backup data that's not on S3 outside of AWS (code,
| operational databases), but most of our S3 data is
| effectively stuck due to the insane export prices. It's not
| the end of the world if we were to lose everything in S3
| anyway.
|
| To anyone reading this: Don't store lots of small files on
| S3. It's a terrible idea.
| bithavoc wrote:
| B2 does not implement the S3 API. Also the B2 API is much
| slower than S3.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| I use Backblaze's massive infrastructure to store pictures of my
| keyboard.
| atYevP wrote:
| Is it a cool keyboard?
| rosstex wrote:
| Semi-bummed my school partnered with another backup company,
| cause I'd love to support BackBlaze.
| [deleted]
| atYevP wrote:
| Yev here -> Thanks! Out of curiosity, does your school provide
| backup to all the students?
| rosstex wrote:
| To all grad students and faculty:
|
| https://csguide.cs.princeton.edu/hardware/backup
| ksec wrote:
| 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.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| My math says they're already over 1000 PB/1 EB:
|
| 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.
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| It's pretty much been this way for a few years, with only a few
| model lines of Seagate being the outlier. As always, thanks to
| the BackBlaze team for publishing these numbers.
| robertoandred wrote:
| I love Backblaze, but their log package in my Library folder has
| grown to something like 10 gigs. Wish there was a way around
| that.
| dleslie wrote:
| Signed up for this a week ago. 45 days remaining to upload.
|
| Hurray for Canadian internet.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I have ~10mbps upload here in the US, and my backup was looking
| to take about a month for about 3ish TB of data. One thing that
| helped is that with default settings of only 1 backup thread,
| the Windows client was unable to saturate my upload bandwidth.
| Upping it to 4-6 threads allowed it to keep enough data moving
| to actually saturate my upload bandwidth and brought my backup
| down to like a week.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| This may not apply to you, but atleast 2 of the UnderDogs in
| the Canadian ISP world (MNSi, & TekSavvy) have been rolling out
| Gigabit fiber.
|
| I've got a 1Gb fiber pipe for 1/10th the cost that Cogeco was
| charging.
| mherrmann wrote:
| Does anyone here have experiences with BackBlaze's B2 service for
| hosting files? I'm considering switching to it from S3 because it
| is much cheaper. (I need to transfer 2-3TB / month, usually in
| 2-3 bursts of worldwide distribution).
| the_svd_doctor wrote:
| I use it for personal backups with rclone. Works great.
| atYevP wrote:
| Yev from Backblaze here -> We're definitely more affordable and
| our integrations
| (https://www.backblaze.com/b2/integrations.html) make it easy
| to get your data to us. We even have partnerships with
| companies who can help transfer data from S3 into Backblaze B2!
| Moeancurly wrote:
| Is there any consensus among Backblaze employees (or even
| just your personal opinion if applicable) for what
| brand/series of drives to use for home NAS devices?
|
| I ask because the online favorite appears to be WD Reds,
| which you have phased out since 2018.
| atYevP wrote:
| Yev here - it's interesting, we don't really chat about
| that often - what I would do is get the least expensive
| drive that has the most capacity and make sure the NAS is
| backed up somewhere in case of failure or theft. Personally
| I think the Toshiba drives are pretty good, but Seagates
| are affordable and do a good job. Plus there's always HGST
| which are rock-solid, but tend to run a bit more expensive.
| syedkarim wrote:
| How is Backblaze able to be _so_ much cheaper than the other,
| larger competitors? I assume Amazon /Google/Microsoft has
| squeezed every last cent from suppliers and also has highly
| cost-optimized staffing costs.
| atYevP wrote:
| Yev here -> great question! We are a bootstrapped company
| and we focus on inexpensive storage
| (https://www.backblaze.com/blog/vault-cloud-storage-
| architect...). Because we've built a robust system that
| doesn't use a ton of expensive components we can provide
| hot cloud storage (B2 Cloud Storage) and computer backup at
| an affordable rate while still making decent margins. To
| learn more about our business and decision making, we have
| a pretty cool series of entrepreneurship blog posts that
| might be interesting to some:
| https://www.backblaze.com/blog/category/entrepreneurship/
| ChrisSD wrote:
| Reading about b2 pricing it says, you get "10GB of free
| storage, unlimited free uploads, and 1GB of downloads
| each day". Doesn't that amount to essentially free
| backups for (reasonable) personal use? Or am I missing
| something?
| jl6 wrote:
| I think even casual users tend to have more than 10GB of
| data these days.
| ChrisSD wrote:
| I don't. Although I can easily fill up a terabyte drive,
| little of that is my own personal files that I need to
| keep if the drive blows up. Most of my stuff is source
| code, documents/notes and some photos (with photos being
| the only thing that takes up significant space). Almost
| everything else I can re-download or rebuild from the
| original source as and when I need it.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| In total, sure, but at least for myself the really
| important stuff would fit in 10MB and I think I could fit
| all of the medium importance stuff in 1GB. The remaining
| terabytes are nice-to-have but I wouldn't be too upset if
| I lost it.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| You aren't missing anything. I use B2 along with Restic
| to backup my Linux machines since their standard backup
| solution doesn't support Linux. It costs me around
| $1/month to backup my primary desktop and two laptops.
|
| They had a blog post about doing this a while back, so
| they are definitely aware of the use case:
| https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backing-linux-
| backblaze-b2-du...
|
| I still use their standard backup service for my family's
| Windows machines since its more "batteries included".
| johnl1479 wrote:
| I'm over the 10GB free limit. It costs me about $1.50 a
| month to backup "irreplacable" data from my NAS.
| [deleted]
| mherrmann wrote:
| Thank you Yev. I'm wondering about the bandwidth, especially
| internationally. Do you have any numbers on that? Say split
| by Europe/US/Other.
| atYevP wrote:
| We do have a datacenter in the EU (Amsterdam) - and if you
| set up your account there you'll be able to transfer data
| to it. That's a popular destination for folks living
| closely to it, but even before that one went "live" we had
| lots of people using the our West Coast Data Centers
| without much issue. If you have a ton of data you can take
| a look at the Fireball (https://www.backblaze.com/b2/soluti
| ons/datatransfer/fireball...) which allows you to rapidly
| ingest data to us.
| Pahr3yah wrote:
| What are you using as TCP congestion controller? BBR
| should provide better utilization on long pipes (e.g.
| transoceanic transfers if stuff isn't geo-replicated).
| Totally anecdotal, but it helped me FTPing data from the
| US to europe.
| atYevP wrote:
| Yev here -> This question's beyond me, lemme see if I can
| get a dev on the line :D
|
| *Edit - sounds like BBR is used in some of the
| environment!
| mherrmann wrote:
| (I need to quickly ship a 50mb file to 50,000 clients
| worldwide.)
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| Hey Michael, I host RAW photos I want to share inside B2
| (48mb each), and then put CloudFlare in front of it using
| their tutorial [1]. It gets edge caching, and achieves
| 200-500mbps. Its great, and I have absolutely no
| complaints.
|
| 1: https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/217666928-Using...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Is your outbound data free because of the bandwidth
| alliance deal Cloudflare has with Backblaze?
| mherrmann wrote:
| Thank you; and how much data are you transferring each
| month?
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| @mherrmann - Only about 10-20GB, so not the TB levels you
| are dealing with, but backblaze isn't actually doing the
| transfer, it is CloudFlare.
|
| @toomuchtodo - Yes, and on top of that, both B2 and
| CloudFlare are completely free since I'm under the 10gb
| storage limit (for now), and i'm a personal user of
| CloudFlare(for now).
| tjonsson wrote:
| I used them for both backup (B2 storage with restic on linux
| servers) and also for serving static content for my homepage,
| together with Cloudflare (
| https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-and-cloudflare-part...
| ) Works like a charm
| sillyquiet wrote:
| No really related remarks about this handy study, but anybody
| else still in real awe about how spoiled we are with regards to
| the sizes and speeds of HDs nowadays? I mean the smallest
| capacity drive on their chart is 4 _Tera_ bytes.
| zaat wrote:
| Not feeling spoiled at all, not at all. Especially not with 2
| to 3 percent of failure rate. The failure rate I experienced in
| my workstation makes me worry about not having raid 1 or 10.
| HDs for 9 TB in raid 10 are not that cheap.
|
| But the bigger issue is that the warranty terms for HDs
| nowadays is down to 2 or 3 years, so this investment is short
| living. It also tell you something about the manufacturers
| reliability estimation of their products.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Can't say I agree with that sentiment. The fact that I can
| quite reasonably have a 30TB usable RAID5 NAS array makes me
| feel pretty spoiled. Then again, I'm old enough that my first
| HDD was 10MB.
| chousuke wrote:
| I'd be wary of making a RAID5 array with drives that big;
| you could easily lose another drive from the I/O caused by
| a rebuild; though if you have backups (you should) then
| it's probably an acceptable risk for non-critical data.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I'd agree with that. Even 2-disk redundancy these days is
| a bit dangerous when you're talking about 14TB drives and
| 100+TB arrays. As is often stated: RAID is not backup.
| zaat wrote:
| Mine was 10MB as well, with a dedicated controller. Quantum
| if I'm not mistaken. And it lasted much much longer than
| the averages I get from 4TB disks. I believe I managed to
| take files out of it in 2000, about 13 years after it was
| installed.
|
| Edit: nope, probably was a ST506 or 412.
| newscracker wrote:
| Since HDDs have, for the most part, been relegated to being
| external drives on laptops, I'm still looking forward to SSDs
| becoming way cheaper and reaching current HDD prices per GB.
| Internal storage on laptops has reduced or stayed the same
| while our datasets have grown exponentially over the years
| (with photos and videos). Since SSDs also perform much better
| when there's always a good amount of free space (for wear
| leveling and maintenance), it's all the more painful to live
| with lower capacity SSDs on laptops.
| klodolph wrote:
| Sizes, yes, speeds, no. 600 MB/s of data transferred, and only
| for linear accesses.
| ronnier wrote:
| I have two ST12000VN0007 (VN) Seagate drives. The report shows
| the ST12000NM0007 (NM) has a 3.32% failure rate. I wonder how
| closely related the VN and NM models are.
| war1025 wrote:
| If you look, that drive model is also the most highly used by
| far. I think it's just a matter of the larger sample size / use
| time.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Surely it doesn't matter when you have 10,000s of drives?
| Aren't you already at a large enough sample size? If it
| isn't, what is the point of them publishing this every year?
| I don't know the math of the matter though.
| war1025 wrote:
| Yea I don't know. I'm not big on statistics either. I just
| noticed that the drives that did the worst were the ones
| that had the most usage overall.
| labawi wrote:
| That would probably be price ~ failure rate correlation.
| generalpass wrote:
| > Surely it doesn't matter when you have 10,000s of drives?
| Aren't you already at a large enough sample size? If it
| isn't, what is the point of them publishing this every
| year? I don't know the math of the matter though.
|
| I think drive age matters? I'm not clear if they cycle
| drives out at a certain age or just run them until they
| fail.
|
| Also, if a drive is low enough in cost, then the additional
| cost of replacing an incremental 1% may be lower than the
| cost of acquisition of a more reliable drive.
| Kubuxu wrote:
| Looks like the Segate 0007 are 1y old on average, where the
| 0008 are 44 days old on average.
|
| The 12TB HGST are 220 days old on average. The Segate 12TB
| failure rates seem high, quite unfortunate as I own 6 of
| them.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| Does anyone have any opinions and experience using backblaze as a
| personal only cloud storage and offsite backup for smaller
| amounts of data (under 30 TB)
| newscracker wrote:
| > for smaller amounts of data (under 30 TB)
|
| Did you mean to say 30 GB or 30 TB? Calling 30 TB as "smaller
| amount" seems weird to me in 2020, especially for personal
| data. Perhaps it would be the norm in a couple of decades. :)
|
| FWIW, I have way under 1 TB of personal data to backup to
| different locations, and I consider that to be relatively
| large.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| I did mean 30 TB, I have approximately 12 TB of data
| currently between all of my storage for video, audio, books,
| and games. However, I have been avoiding doing a lot of
| conversions to digital media from my physical collections
| because I'm just unsure of running a full blown archival
| server at home. I would estimate if I converted my entire
| video library to 4k it would put me somewhere over 10
| additional TB. My comic books/manga and graphic novels,
| upgraded to archival resolution would probably run over 10 TB
| as well. Then there is the soon to be required ripping of
| PS2/PS3/WIIU roms when those hardware units become less
| reliable for actual playing. So I think that 30 TB of storage
| would do for the time being for me, but I think I will
| eventually need more than that.
|
| TL;DR I am a digital horder, so I've convinced myself I do in
| fact need 30+ TB of storage.
| clSTophEjUdRanu wrote:
| +1 I have the same question and would like to read replies.
| tshannon wrote:
| Yeah I use B2 with rclone (https://rclone.org/) and it works
| great.
| [deleted]
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| I use Backblaze's B2 service for both backup (via restic) and
| archival storage (via git-annex). I only maintain a distinction
| between the two in case I ever want to move to another service,
| and also because git-annex and restic have different strengths
| that make them more or less suitable for unchanging archives
| and often changing backups respectively. Between the two I have
| about 1 TB stored with them.
|
| I have yet needed to do a full restore, but I do partial
| restores from time to time to double-check my backup procedures
| and every time it's done what I wanted. My monthly costs are
| usually a bit under $5.
|
| Note I essentially never use B2's API directly, and only use it
| as a backend through wrappers others have written, so I have no
| real experience with how good its API is. One of the few times
| I did try the API, I remember at one point I think I was
| getting Java exceptions back in the error messages, which was
| mildly concerning from a hygiene perspective and made for
| rather terrible error messages, but no sensitive data was being
| emitted. I also think that's been fixed.
|
| The bottom line is that B2 has worked fine for me and at a good
| price point.
| Siecje wrote:
| I have about 10 TB of video files. I use BackBlaze for Windows
| but I would like the files to be available on other computers and
| my phone in my local network.
|
| What can I use to do this and still keep offsite backups?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I think their more premium plans offer sharing
| gesman wrote:
| So what does these mean:
|
| smart_177_raw
|
| smart_177_normalized
|
| smart_233_raw
|
| smart_235_normalized
|
| ???
| thenewwazoo wrote:
| They're S.M.A.R.T. attributes:
| http://www.cropel.com/library/smart-attribute-list.aspx
| gesman wrote:
| Thank you!
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| I live for these reports. Always insightful and professional.
| Thank-you SO MUCH for publishing this data.
| atYevP wrote:
| Yev here -> You're welcome! The conversation's always fun :D
| donmcronald wrote:
| I barely had time to skim it, but I'm not sure I like how the
| ST12000NM0008 shows up in the table. I find it really hard to
| reason about what the real failure rate could end up being on
| those drives. For example, you've got about 45 days average
| on each drive, so the failure rate is multiplied by roughly 8
| to extrapolate the annualized failure rate. Doesn't that over
| state the estimated rate of failure since drives will tend to
| fail more often at the start of their life?
|
| I only guesstimated out of the table and didn't have time to
| look at the actual data, so it's possible I misread
| something.
| [deleted]
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Interesting how the numbers carry over year-to-year in
|
| https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Bl...
|
| Some models are dwindling. Some are being tested. Others (like
| the Seagate and HGST 12 TB) are increasing. Only thing that's
| really perplexing is why they keep buying more and more of the
| high-failure-rate Seagate 12 TB drives. It must be more than 3%
| cheaper to buy (and service!) a Seagate with a 3% chance of
| failure than to buy an equivalent HGST with a 0.4% chance of
| failure. I guess when you have 120,000 drives, easy hot-swap
| enclosures, and software to handle it all that makes good sense!
| But as an individual consumer, even with a Backblaze backup, it's
| definitely worth my time to spend a bit more on a drive that's
| far more reliable than to save a few dollars on a Seagate.
| alanfranz wrote:
| At least in Europe, HGST is much more expensive than Seagate.
| Almost double the price, usually.
| leokennis wrote:
| Very anecdotal evidence, but 3 of the 3 Seagate drives I ever
| used (all external 2,5" USB 3 HDD's, in Seagate's own
| enclosures) failed within 2 years, under very modest
| workloads (just used to store video files for my tv to play).
|
| Meanwhile all WD's have been rock solid.
| eps wrote:
| FWIW, the consensus on /r/datahoarder seems to be that
| Seagates should be the absolute last choice for long-term
| storage.
| sixothree wrote:
| > Only thing that's really perplexing is why they keep buying
| more and more of the high-failure-rate Seagate 12 TB drives.
|
| I am guessing they RMA the drives and get replacements.
| hinkley wrote:
| If I make a hard drive, and sales are crappy, in part because
| BackBlaze told the world how shitty they are, I'm going to have
| to drop the prices to move product.
|
| I suppose there's a movie plot in there where BackBlaze negs
| their favorite drive so they can buy them cheaper.
| jmnicolas wrote:
| Any particular reason they don't use Western Digital drives ?
| volkl48 wrote:
| I will point out that HGST is owned by Western Digital and all
| their products are being rebranded to WD.
| exabrial wrote:
| I still can't believe BackBlaze gives this data away for free.
| Seems like something they should be selling to other cloud
| providers
| Mirioron wrote:
| Maybe they consider this report to be an ad for their services?
| The name recognition this report gives them is probably quite
| valuable.
| icelancer wrote:
| It also pressures HDD companies to make better products and
| appear higher on these lists, which is good for Backblaze.
| donatj wrote:
| I have made all my hard drive purchasing decisions based almost
| entirely on these reports for the last couple years and have not
| been disappointed with the results.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-02-11 23:00 UTC)