AlienBabelTech Forums
The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - Printable Version

+- AlienBabelTech Forums (http://alienbabeltech.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Technology (http://alienbabeltech.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: General Hardware (http://alienbabeltech.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report (/showthread.php?tid=1060)



The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-02-2016

http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/storage/seagate_hit_with_class_action_lawsuit_for_high_failure_rates/1
Thanks a lot, assholes.
Quote:The class action lawsuit goes on to cite data from Backblaze as evidence against Seagate, with Backblaze having on several occasions reported that Seagate is among the worst manufacturer on the market who have failure rates that are often much higher than that of other manufacturers.



RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-02-2016

To be fair, the lawsuit merely cites Backblaze as additional evidence. But they still shouldn't have cited it, since it's a bogus report, with Seagate's failure rate massively skewed upwards by using 2007 drives that were known to be especially unreliable.

Edit: For anyone who needs a reminder:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/selecting-a-disk-drive-how-not-to-do-research-1.html


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-02-2016

Yes it is, because the use of unreasonably old drives skewed Seagate's failure rate.
Hit_head
Also, according to the Tweaktown article, the Seagate drives were predominantly in older chassis that had inferior vibration dampening. Vibration does affect HDD life, and even HDD performance.


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-02-2016

Then as Tweaktown mentions in the comments, there's the issue that Backblaze doesn't even bother securing the drives with fasteners.


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-02-2016

The Backblaze drives are plugged into a PCB connector and left to vibrate as much as they want. Meanwhile, the civilized world at a minimum uses fasteners. Even better are the anti-vibration mounts that the rails/trays often come with.


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-02-2016

Backblaze's drives don't have the advantage of lying on their longer side. Instead, they're being stood up on their narrowest side. BTW, according to the Tweaktown article, Backblaze themselves admit to using RMAed and refurbished drives in their report.


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - BoFox - 02-03-2016

Well, I don't know enough to judge anything myself, but the whole vibration "issue" does not make sense to me at all.  All hard drives vibrate when spinning, especially from the inside.  No matter what the mounting, the Seagate drives were known to have weaker vibration-proof safeguards along with the internal vibration that was stronger than those of other brands, right?

In other words, vibration tends to be caused by the internal mechanism so much more so than from anything external.


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-03-2016

Yes it should. Anti-vibration measures exist for a reason. They prevent the HDD from vibrating against hard surfaces, and thus reduce the vibrations.


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - BoFox - 02-03-2016

Hmm, didn't know it was more than just to reduce the noise, especially since many hard drives are designed to withstand impacts of some kind, measured in G's.


RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-03-2016

Of course. After all, crashing into something over and over again on a tiny scale is bound to be more detrimental than having a rubber standoff absorbing the impact. Heck, there's even a couple of drive bay adapters that suspend HDDs using rubber ropes to completely separate the HDDs from the tray around them.

Edit: Here are some handy links:
http://www.lockergnome.com/uncategorized/2010/05/12/hard-drive-performance-dropped-significantly-by-noise/
http://www.frozencpu.com/cat/l3/g33/c113/s209/list/p1/Ultra_Quiet-HDD_Silencers-NoiseMagic_NoVibes_III-Page1.html
https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/use-hard-drive-anti-vibration-grommets-or-not.27830/

Edit 2: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index3.html
Quote:Vibration is every hard drive's enemy, and creates an exponential amount of wear on components. Vibration even has performance implications. A typical desktop HDD experiences a relatively vibration-free existence in a stable environment, and is designed accordingly. One of the major differences in enterprise HDD design is vibration resistance technology. This allows the drive to function well and stand up to the wear and tear of the server chassis and rack.

More HDDs installed in an enclosure raises the amount of vibration. Backblaze packs 45 HDDs per enclosure for maximum storage density. While the drives are initially exposed to vibration from their neighbors inside the server, once placed into the rack, they are exposed to even more vibration from other servers. This creates the 'perfect storm' of vibration, and the use of consumer drives results in horrendous failure rates, as evidenced by the data from Backblaze.



RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - SteelCrysis - 02-03-2016

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/seagate-hdd-failure-lawsuit-3tb,31118.html
Paul Alcorn, who wrote the Tweaktown article that debunked Backblaze, delivers the smackdown. Of course, the Backblaze fanboys/employees are attacking him in the comments.
Quote:The Backblaze HDD reliability "study" consisted of a little-known cloud storage company's internal observations of the failure rates of HDDs in its own unique environment. The Backblaze study has been both widely embraced for its open sharing of field failure rates that is typically hidden by vendors and customers alike, and also criticized because of the nature of the environment.

In short, by its own admission, Backblaze employed consumer-class drives in a high-volume enterprise-class environment that far exceeded the warranty conditions of the HDDs. Backblaze installed consumer drives into a number of revisions of its own internally developed chassis, many of which utilized a rubber band to "reduce the vibration" of a vertically mounted HDD.

The first revision of the pods, pictured above, had no fasteners for securing the drive into the chassis. As shown, a heavy HDD is mounted vertically on top of a thin multiplexer PCB. The SATA connectors are bearing the full weight of the drive, and factoring the vibration of a normal HDD into the non-supported equation creates the almost perfect recipe for device failure.

Backblaze has confirmed it still has all revisions of its chassis installed in its datacenters and that it replaced failed drives into the same chassis the original drive failed in. This could create a scenario where replacement drives are repeatedly installed into defective chassis, thus magnifying the failure ratio.

Backblaze developed several revisions of the custom chassis due to its admitted vibration problems with the early models, and the company shared the designs with the public. However, Backblaze did not indicate which type of enclosures each drive failed within, leaving speculation that the chassis may be the real root of the problem (among others).

The Backblaze environment employed more drives per chassis and featured much heavier workloads (both of which accelerate failure rates tremendously) than the vendors designed the client-class HDDs for. This ultimately helped Backblaze save money on their infrastructure. The Seagate 3 TB models failed at a higher rate than other drives during the Backblaze deployment, but in fairness, the Seagate drives were the only models that did not feature RV (Rotational Vibration) sensors that counteract excessive vibration in heavy usage models -- specifically because Seagate did not design the drives for that use case.

While the ongoing Backblaze disclosures propelled it into the public eye, the damage from the information dealt Seagate an almost immeasurable blow in the eyes of many consumers -- this, in spite of the fact that Backblaze issued numerous disclaimers about the applicability of the findings outside of its own unique (and questionable) use case. In fact, the company still has 17,000 Seagate drives in service.

The Backblaze client HDD operation was borne of necessity; it began during the Thailand floods when HDDs were excessively high priced. It is interesting to note that Backblaze has since migrated to drives that are actually designed for NAS and enterprise usage scenarios. Seagate cited information from third-party outfit Warranty Week, which examined SEC data and concluded that Seagate's drives are among the most reliable in the industry, with a 1.2 percent warranty claim as a percentage of its sales volume.

The conditions of the Backblaze failure data, even by the company's own admission, are far beyond the warranty claims of said hardware, which begs the immediate question of whether that data will pass the sniff test in court. I am no lawyer, but it should be relatively easy for Seagate to parry in this case; the results are essentially worthless to measure any practical consumer client application within the warranty guidelines.



RE: The Fallout Of Backblaze's Bogus HDD Reliability Report - BoFox - 02-03-2016

(02-03-2016, 11:36 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Of course. After all, crashing into something over and over again on a tiny scale is bound to be more detrimental than having a rubber standoff absorbing the impact. Heck, there's even a couple of drive bay adapters that suspend HDDs using rubber ropes to completely separate the HDDs from the tray around them.

Edit: Here are some handy links:
http://www.lockergnome.com/uncategorized/2010/05/12/hard-drive-performance-dropped-significantly-by-noise/
http://www.frozencpu.com/cat/l3/g33/c113/s209/list/p1/Ultra_Quiet-HDD_Silencers-NoiseMagic_NoVibes_III-Page1.html
https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/use-hard-drive-anti-vibration-grommets-or-not.27830/

Edit 2: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index3.html
Quote:Vibration is every hard drive's enemy, and creates an exponential amount of wear on components. Vibration even has performance implications. A typical desktop HDD experiences a relatively vibration-free existence in a stable environment, and is designed accordingly. One of the major differences in enterprise HDD design is vibration resistance technology. This allows the drive to function well and stand up to the wear and tear of the server chassis and rack.

More HDDs installed in an enclosure raises the amount of vibration. Backblaze packs 45 HDDs per enclosure for maximum storage density. While the drives are initially exposed to vibration from their neighbors inside the server, once placed into the rack, they are exposed to even more vibration from other servers. This creates the 'perfect storm' of vibration, and the use of consumer drives results in horrendous failure rates, as evidenced by the data from Backblaze.

Got it, thanks for the explanation.  Good thing that one of my cases (Antec Lanboy Air) has rubber suspenders:

[Image: antec_lanboy_air_022.jpg]