"Report: Most HDDs Die After Almost 3 Years, Newer Models Are Less Reliable"
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/report-most-hdds-die-after-almost-3-years-newer-models-are-less-reliable

"The study found that drives made before 2015 were more reliable than
newer drives."

Most drives installed in PCs now are M.2 drives or SSD drives which are
less than $200 for 2 TB. The only spinning drives that I buy now are
for office LAN backup in the size range of 10 TB to 14 TB.

Lynn

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Report: Most HDDs Die After Almost 3 Years, Newer Models Are Less Reliable"
>
> https://www.extremetech.com/computing/report-most-hdds-die-after-almost-3-years-newer-models-are-less-reliable
>
> "The study found that drives made before 2015 were more reliable than
> newer drives."

This puts a new perspective on HDD vs SSD reliability comparisons
such as this one posted about in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
recently:
https://blocksandfiles.com/2023/03/10/backblaze-ssd-vs-hdd/

While my assumption has been that SSD reliability has been catching
up to HDDs since the early 2010s, this new article suggests that
HDD reliability has been decreasing. So maybe drive options are
less reliable now overall than they were in 2015?

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Report: Most HDDs Die After Almost 3 Years, Newer Models Are Less Reliable"
> >
> > https://www.extremetech.com/computing/report-most-hdds-die-after-almost-3-years-newer-models-are-less-reliable
> >
> > "The study found that drives made before 2015 were more reliable than
> > newer drives."

> This puts a new perspective on HDD vs SSD reliability comparisons
> such as this one posted about in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> recently:
> https://blocksandfiles.com/2023/03/10/backblaze-ssd-vs-hdd/

> While my assumption has been that SSD reliability has been catching
> up to HDDs since the early 2010s, this new article suggests that
> HDD reliability has been decreasing. So maybe drive options are
> less reliable now overall than they were in 2015?

I wished huge sized SSDs were cheap or even cheaper than huge sized HDDs. I'd totally buy huged sized SSDs for good prices.
--
"He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation." --Colossians 1:22. Tech. issues & Apple's update slammy day again. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "Report: Most HDDs Die After Almost 3 Years, Newer Models Are Less Reliable"
>> >
>> > https://www.extremetech.com/computing/report-most-hdds-die-after-almost-3-years-newer-models-are-less-reliable
>> >
>> > "The study found that drives made before 2015 were more reliable than
>> > newer drives."
>
>> This puts a new perspective on HDD vs SSD reliability comparisons
>> such as this one posted about in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
>> recently:
>> https://blocksandfiles.com/2023/03/10/backblaze-ssd-vs-hdd/
>
>> While my assumption has been that SSD reliability has been catching
>> up to HDDs since the early 2010s, this new article suggests that
>> HDD reliability has been decreasing. So maybe drive options are
>> less reliable now overall than they were in 2015?
>
> I wished huge sized SSDs were cheap or even cheaper than huge sized
> HDDs. I'd totally buy huged sized SSDs for good prices.

Drives have long been more than big enough for me. I have no use for
TBs of storage. But for the data I do store, I'd like to minimise
disruptions, if not minor data loss, due to hardware failure. If
manufacturers are sacrificing past reliability standards in favour
of capacity now*, then it seems my market is even less well catered
for than I thought.

Yes RAID is an option, but not so convenient for applications like
laptops. Plus it obviously doubles the hardware cost where a single
drive would otherwise be used if drive reliability was better
trusted.

* At least for HDDs. As was the point of my last post, it's unclear
to me whether SSDs are improving significantly in reliability or
not.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > "Report: Most HDDs Die After Almost 3 Years, Newer Models Are Less Reliable"
> >> >
> >> > https://www.extremetech.com/computing/report-most-hdds-die-after-almost-3-years-newer-models-are-less-reliable
> >> >
> >> > "The study found that drives made before 2015 were more reliable than
> >> > newer drives."
> >
> >> This puts a new perspective on HDD vs SSD reliability comparisons
> >> such as this one posted about in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> >> recently:
> >> https://blocksandfiles.com/2023/03/10/backblaze-ssd-vs-hdd/
> >
> >> While my assumption has been that SSD reliability has been catching
> >> up to HDDs since the early 2010s, this new article suggests that
> >> HDD reliability has been decreasing. So maybe drive options are
> >> less reliable now overall than they were in 2015?
> >
> > I wished huge sized SSDs were cheap or even cheaper than huge sized
> > HDDs. I'd totally buy huged sized SSDs for good prices.

> Drives have long been more than big enough for me. I have no use for
> TBs of storage. But for the data I do store, I'd like to minimise
> disruptions, if not minor data loss, due to hardware failure. If
> manufacturers are sacrificing past reliability standards in favour
> of capacity now*, then it seems my market is even less well catered
> for than I thought.

For me, I have many videos and huge virtual and back up images. :/

> Yes RAID is an option, but not so convenient for applications like
> laptops. Plus it obviously doubles the hardware cost where a single
> drive would otherwise be used if drive reliability was better
> trusted.

> * At least for HDDs. As was the point of my last post, it's unclear
> to me whether SSDs are improving significantly in reliability or
> not.

Well, speed too for SSDs. :)
--
"He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation." --Colossians 1:22. Tech. issues & Apple's update slammy day again. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> * At least for HDDs. As was the point of my last post, it's unclear
>> to me whether SSDs are improving significantly in reliability or
>> not.
>
> Well, speed too for SSDs. :)

I don't need more speed either. The interesting part about SSDs to
me was that lack of moving parts could make them much more
reliable. But initially the opposite was true, and now even if
there is a marginal reliability advantage to SSDs, it seems it
might, at least in part, just be because HDDs have become less
reliable.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 3/27/2023 9:20 PM, Ant wrote:
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Report: Most HDDs Die After Almost 3 Years, Newer Models Are Less Reliable"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.extremetech.com/computing/report-most-hdds-die-after-almost-3-years-newer-models-are-less-reliable
>>>>>
>>>>> "The study found that drives made before 2015 were more reliable than
>>>>> newer drives."
>>>
>>>> This puts a new perspective on HDD vs SSD reliability comparisons
>>>> such as this one posted about in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
>>>> recently:
>>>> https://blocksandfiles.com/2023/03/10/backblaze-ssd-vs-hdd/
>>>
>>>> While my assumption has been that SSD reliability has been catching
>>>> up to HDDs since the early 2010s, this new article suggests that
>>>> HDD reliability has been decreasing. So maybe drive options are
>>>> less reliable now overall than they were in 2015?
>>>
>>> I wished huge sized SSDs were cheap or even cheaper than huge sized
>>> HDDs. I'd totally buy huged sized SSDs for good prices.
>
>> Drives have long been more than big enough for me. I have no use for
>> TBs of storage. But for the data I do store, I'd like to minimise
>> disruptions, if not minor data loss, due to hardware failure. If
>> manufacturers are sacrificing past reliability standards in favour
>> of capacity now*, then it seems my market is even less well catered
>> for than I thought.
>
> For me, I have many videos and huge virtual and back up images. :/
>
>
>> Yes RAID is an option, but not so convenient for applications like
>> laptops. Plus it obviously doubles the hardware cost where a single
>> drive would otherwise be used if drive reliability was better
>> trusted.
>
>> * At least for HDDs. As was the point of my last post, it's unclear
>> to me whether SSDs are improving significantly in reliability or
>> not.
>
> Well, speed too for SSDs. :)

The consumer SSDs seem to stop at 8TB, and are QLC.

But if you want big, this is the first semi-practical drive
I've seen which is bigger. Your PC is unlikely to have the
connector for it. There have been 100TB drives announced,
but no price, and no review units seen. At least this
one actually exists. Why, that costs as much as an Apple Computer :-)

Micron 9400 30 TB Solid State Drive - Internal - U.3 $3852 (TLC 3-bit) 16W active

https://www.newegg.com/micron-30-72-tb-9400/p/N82E16820363150

And that writes at 7000MB/sec. I guess that's why it uses 16W of power.
That's one thing about some of the bigger drives, is they were
never intended to go fast, and you basically could not wear them out
via the SATA port (you could write the big ones continuously for five years).
At 7000MB/sec, it might be easier to leave a mark on this one.

Paul

On 3/27/2023 11:49 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> * At least for HDDs. As was the point of my last post, it's unclear
>>> to me whether SSDs are improving significantly in reliability or
>>> not.
>>
>> Well, speed too for SSDs. :)
>
> I don't need more speed either. The interesting part about SSDs to
> me was that lack of moving parts could make them much more
> reliable. But initially the opposite was true, and now even if
> there is a marginal reliability advantage to SSDs, it seems it
> might, at least in part, just be because HDDs have become less
> reliable.
>

One interesting datapoint, is the exotic offerings like these,
seem to be pretty well non-existent at retail. This means, not
even the sleaziest vendor, is willing to partake of the
expensive ones.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/18743/western-digital-launches-22-tb-consumer-hdds-in-updated-my-book-portfolio

Individual drives exist, but the review sections are filled
with crap at Newegg. The 20TB drive has reviews for 4TB drives
salted into it, and none of the reviews seem to be for the
item itself. Amazon regularly does this sort of thing (pollute
the review section with crapola).

Rather than the HDDs being unreliable, the signal is now missing.
We cannot tell what is going on with them, good or bad.

I have around 30 hard drives, collected over the years, and
at the end of last year, I had my very *first* infant mortality
(WD Black 1TB, motor would not spin). Took it back to the
store for a refund. This has no statistical significance
particularly. Other 1TB drives of the same model, have
been working fine, and one was operating fine getting
lots of service hours every day (as my boot drive).
And my 6TB drive collection, has been fine too, and
absolutely no symptoms of note. All well behaved. No
excessive parking behavior.

I buy drives locally, just so I can take them back to the
store if there is a problem, no questions asked. But
my computer store is now run by a "genius" who feels that
not stocking product, is how you keep a brick and mortar store
in business. I expect to *at least* find hard drives at the store.
That's the "teaser" that gets me into the store, for those
all-important impulse buys. I cannot tell from staff interaction,
what they think about how the store is run. There are fewer
staff than there used to be, but they cannot reduce staff too much,
or there would be shoplifting. They are well-stocked on motherboards
and CPUs. The computer store is a chain, and even their online
"warehouse" on the west coast, has no product in it. They're not
banking on web sales to save them either. A very strange business
model. Like a slow motion bankruptcy.

Paul