Backblaze blog: "What Hard Drive Should I Buy?"

[neilt0]

http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/

 

It's another good article from the Backblaze fellas which everyone should read, but if tl;dr :-

 

 

----

 

Their experience reflects mine. I've only seen a couple of my newer drives fail and they were both Seagate. If I could have sourced Hitachi drives, my NAS would probably be 100% Hitachi. I ended up getting a cheap SG DM, which it seems Backblaze are using a lot of, probably because they are so cheap, plus a couple of the SG NAS drives, with the thought that given they have 3 year warranties, I won't care as much if they die either during or after that time. As soon as WD came out with their 4TB NAS drive, I added one to the array to fill it up. It's just a shame you can't easily get Hitachis any more. Hopefully WD, having bought them out, will use their tech to increase their own reliability.

 

My NAS:

 

[StevenD]

And thats why I have bought nothing but Hitachi/HGST the last three years.

 

Only one WD left to replace:

 

[prostuff1]

When customers buy our servers I try to push them towards the Hitachi/HGST drives.  I have a 2-3 of the 4TB drives in my personal server and I have never had a problem with them.  They have been rock solid for me.

 

I am slowly replacing my smaller drives that are still running and trying to stick with Hitachi/HGST and WD Red (assuming the price premium is not overly much).  The Seagate NAS drives look interesting and I will probably do some research on those to see how they perform.

[Fireball3]

Does Hitachi also have green drives or do you use the 7200 rpm?

[dirtysanchez]

Wow, surprised by the backblaze statistics on the Seagate ST3000DM001 drives I have. I haven't had a single issue, so fingers crossed!

[prostuff1]

Does Hitachi also have green drives or do you use the 7200 rpm?

Hitachi has a "CoolSpin" drive that spins as something like 5300-5400 RPM.

 

My Hitachi Parity drive is a 7200RPM drive but the other are "CoolSpin" drives.

[neilt0]

Does Hitachi also have green drives or do you use the 7200 rpm?

In Europe, the Green Hitachi drive was only available in an enclosure. I got one of those at a low price and extracted the drive. The warranty for that drive (if they even honour it, as it's not in the enclosure now) is only 1.5 years, but I took the risk as the price was so low. You can still buy that drive (still in the enclosure) from eBuyer. The 7200rpm is another £32, but has a better warranty and the 7200rpm 4TB Hitachis do not draw too much power.

[jumperalex]

Well I'm glad 3 of 4 of my drives are hitachi 2TB.  Sadly, one is a Seagate 2TB

[StevenD]

<knock on wood>

 

I can say that I have never RMA'd a Hitachi drive.  Unfortunately, I know Seagate's El Paso address by heart!

[althoralthor]

Just checking newegg for Hitachi drives.  Seems like they are quite a bit more expensive?  Is that everyone else's experience as well?

 

If they are as solid as it appears that they are, that would certainly explain the premium price.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145874

[StevenD]

Just checking newegg for Hitachi drives.  Seems like they are quite a bit more expensive?  Is that everyone else's experience as well?

 

If they are as solid as it appears that they are, that would certainly explain the premium price.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145874

 

Fry's consistently puts the 7200RPM 4TB Hitachis on sale for $199.  There is also an external that uses the same drive that Ive paid as low as $140 for.

 

These are only $199 right now:  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145912

 

[NAS]

Over this side of the pond Hitachi are not as common and potentially hard to get a lot of the time. Currently for me they are over 12% more expensive than WD red. That I could maybe live with but not the unreliability of being able to buy them.

 

Also to my untrained eye a lot of the artcile shows that Seagate drives are a bit cheaper and consistently fail quite badly... and then in the conclusion backblaze are currently buy a Seagate 4TB drive.

 

Obviously they have done some cost calculation that is not immediately apparent... maybe they get an amazing discount on Seagate.

 

Another stonkin articel though

[Chris Pollard]

If you read the post they actually suggest that their usage model toasts some drives...  vibration, spindown/spinup problems etc.  Maybe not quite as clear cut as the graphs suggest.

 

I guess it comes down to price...  since they buy the cheapest 4tb drive available today.

[jumperalex]

Over this side of the pond Hitachi are not as common and potentially hard to get a lot of the time. Currently for me they are over 12% more expensive than WD red. That I could maybe live with but not the unreliability of being able to buy them.

 

Also to my untrained eye a lot of the artcile shows that Seagate drives are a bit cheaper and consistently fail quite badly... and then in the conclusion backblaze are currently buy a Seagate 4TB drive.

 

Obviously they have done some cost calculation that is not immediately apparent... maybe they get an amazing discount on Seagate.

 

Another stonkin articel though

 

Given that they work in bulk, fully expect to have failures, and have an institutional plan to deal with those failures, I'm guessing you are right they have done the cost benefit analysis and think the Seagates are still worth it.  For folks like us where failures are a little less tolerable (but still not totally) and we are only buying a few drive so the extra expense could be worth more for the reduced chances of a failure.

 

At least that is why I'd be more likely to buy an HGST versus another Seagate.

[garycase]

Agree they've almost certainly concluded the Seagate's are worth it from a cost-benefit perspective.

 

Note that the 4TB Seagates are still below a 4% failure rate -- that's 1 drive out of 25 per year.  Even if the Hitachi drives had a 0% failure rate (i.e. NO failures), the Seagates would only need to be 4% less expensive to cover the cost of replacing that drive.

 

While some of us are willing to pay more for lower likelihood of failure; if you're using a LOT of drives and know that you'll need to routinely replace drives, then the total long-term cost is likely more of a factor than the number of drives you'll need to replace -- at least as long as the rate is relatively low (e.g. below 5%).

 

Remember also that the drives in a typical UnRAID server get a LOT less utilization than BackBlaze drives do 

 

[c3]

Agree they've almost certainly concluded the Seagate's are worth it from a cost-benefit perspective.

 

Note that the 4TB Seagates are still below a 4% failure rate -- that's 1 drive out of 25 per year.  Even if the Hitachi drives had a 0% failure rate (i.e. NO failures), the Seagates would only need to be 4% less expensive to cover the cost of replacing that drive.

 

While some of us are willing to pay more for lower likelihood of failure; if you're using a LOT of drives and know that you'll need to routinely replace drives, then the total long-term cost is likely more of a factor than the number of drives you'll need to replace -- at least as long as the rate is relatively low (e.g. below 5%).

 

Remember also that the drives in a typical UnRAID server get a LOT less utilization than BackBlaze drives do 

 

Where is the data on the utilization? Backblaze fills up the drives and builds new pods. Statistically, those filled pods would get very little activity, basically index rebuilds and restores. And unlike unRAID, they use RAID. Which means a single restore will involve multiple drives, making that a higher utilization than unRAID.

 

PS: The Seagate drives with massive failure rates, 7200.11 (moose and brinks), are mitigated by proper firmware maintenance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagate_Barracuda#Barracuda_7200.11

 

[NAS]

...

 

Note that the 4TB Seagates are still below a 4% failure rate -- that's 1 drive out of 25 per year.  Even if the Hitachi drives had a 0% failure rate (i.e. NO failures), the Seagates would only need to be 4% less expensive to cover the cost of replacing that drive.

....

 

Obviosuly this excludes man hour costs etc but you are right. Put that way if they can get a 10% aggressive discount it would be more than easy to justify.

 

...

Remember also that the drives in a typical UnRAID server get a LOT less utilization than BackBlaze drives do 

...

 

I think this is a key point we should keep in mind when reviewing Backblaze data in light of unRAID. Not only is their usage pattern different their layout and RAID levels are different as well. The macro effect of this is that we have to be careful not to jump to hard on the results. For instance in unRAID where each servers typical user base is small and likely the disks are down most of the time and the RAID level does not require lots of disks spinning by its very nature you might find that the aggressive WD GREEN spin down has a much smaller effect. Throw in that typically they are 6-10% cheaper and quickly it becomes obvious GREENS may be not to bad a choice. Again there are other factors here like warranty but this is just an example where it is not as blatant as it seems

[garycase]

That was my point -- there are a lot of factors, and the decision isn't always as clear-cut as it may seem.    You need to decide what factors are most important to you; and then look at which drives come closest to meeting your most important criteria.    For example, if a drive has a 5% failure rate with a 2 year warranty, is that a better value than a drive with a 10% failure rate but a 3 year warranty?  [Hypothetical choices -- I'm not aware of any specific models that meet those criteria]

 

In general, drives that spin slower and thus run cooler will be more reliable than 7200rpm or faster units -- but if speed is your most important criteria do you care?

 

If data integrity is paramount, are you willing to pay for Enterprise-class drives - which have a bit-error rate that's an order of magnitude (i.e. TEN TIMES) better than consumer-class drives ?

 

etc., etc., etc.

 

It's by no means a simple "this drive is the best" decision.

 

[wsume99]

Keep in mind that the 4TB Seagate drives in the Backblaze report have an average age of less than half a year. Same goes for some of the WD Red drives they have.

[BobPhoenix]

Wow, surprised by the backblaze statistics on the Seagate ST3000DM001 drives I have. I haven't had a single issue, so fingers crossed!

Just had a ST3000DM001 die last week another has some pending sectors.  Both were put through 3 preclear cycles before being used on a Windows VM. 

[garycase]

Just got a DOA WD Red unit yesterday -- that's 3 DOA's out of about 25 of these drives I've bought.  While I hate it when that happens, my experience with the Reds has been VERY good ... I've got about 15 of them running 24/7 and have never had any failures or glitches and all have zero reallocated sectors.    When I get them, I run the WD Diagnostics -- quick, then extended, then write zeroes to the whole drive, then repeat the quick & extended tests -- and then do a pre-clear.  If there are ANY glitches (i.e. any reallocated sectors or a failure of any of the WD Diags) I return the drive.    As I noted, I've had to return 3 drives as a result of that process -- but every drive that's made it through that test has run completely error-free since being put in service -- well over a year for the 3TB units.

 

I've had equally good luck with the Seagate NAS units ... of about a dozen I've only had to return one.

 

I hate that ANY of these units show up DOA, but that's just a fact-of-life with disk drives.  The manufacturers clearly find it less expensive to deal with the RMAs than to thoroughly test every unit.

 

 

[BobPhoenix]

And in my case the bad 4TB Reds I got may not have been manufacturer's fault as even the RMA'd drives were not packed well by newegg.  The label on the dieing RMA'd 4TB Red drive I got from newegg was scuffed up.  Implying to me that the other drive hit it hard enough during shipping to gouge out a chuck of the label.  I went ahead and tested it but after 3 cycles it had 1000+ relocated sectors and 300+ pending.  So am RMA'ing the RMA later this week.  So far if I order a single drive from newegg they use a single drive box with their bubble wrap drive sleave and it seems to come through OK.  But they use too large a box when shipping multiple drives with inadequate protection for the size box it gets packed in.  I.E the drives are bouncing around the box and into each other causing damage.

 

Looks like I will have to start reviewing everything I order from new egg and docking points with comments about the bad shipping.  Normally I don't review anything but this is getting bad!

[dirtysanchez]

Wow, surprised by the backblaze statistics on the Seagate ST3000DM001 drives I have. I haven't had a single issue, so fingers crossed!

Just had a ST3000DM001 die last week another has some pending sectors.  Both were put through 3 preclear cycles before being used on a Windows VM.

 

I have 2x ST3000DM001 and 2x ST2000DM001. Both have a bit over 10,000 hours on them (about 14 months) and they are all in perfect condition. Not a single reallocated sector, nor pending reallocation. Hopefully they stay that way. 

[garycase]

So far if I order a single drive from newegg they use a single drive box with their bubble wrap drive sleave and it seems to come through OK.

 

I've had the same experience recently -- they seem to have made a significant improvement in their packaging with those little sleeves.

 

 

But they use too large a box when shipping multiple drives with inadequate protection for the size box it gets packed in.  I.E the drives are bouncing around the box and into each other causing damage.

 

Absolutely.  I think I have the record for the "most bounced around" set of drives with a shipment I received last summer.  I've posted this before ... but just for grins, here's the picture ...

 

[garycase]

... one other note r.e. Newegg's drive shipments:  I've found that the packaging (and handling) seems to be MUCH better if you pay for an expedited shipping method.    But probably the best way to ensure they're packed reasonably is to buy one drive at a time ... then they come in a small box just the right size for their little bubble-wrap drive box.