Guru3D.com
  • HOME
  • NEWS
    • Channels
    • Archive
  • DOWNLOADS
    • New Downloads
    • Categories
    • Archive
  • GAME REVIEWS
  • ARTICLES
    • Rig of the Month
    • Join ROTM
    • PC Buyers Guide
    • Guru3D VGA Charts
    • Editorials
    • Dated content
  • HARDWARE REVIEWS
    • Videocards
    • Processors
    • Audio
    • Motherboards
    • Memory and Flash
    • SSD Storage
    • Chassis
    • Media Players
    • Power Supply
    • Laptop and Mobile
    • Smartphone
    • Networking
    • Keyboard Mouse
    • Cooling
    • Search articles
    • Knowledgebase
    • More Categories
  • FORUMS
  • NEWSLETTER
  • CONTACT

New Reviews
Backforce One Plus Gaming Chair review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 Noctua OC review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review

New Downloads
Corsair Utility Engine Download (iCUE) Download v4.24.193
Intel HD graphics Driver Download Version: 30.0.101.1994
GeForce 512.95 WHQL driver download
AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 22.5.2 driver download
AIDA64 Download Version 6.70
FurMark Download v1.30
Display Driver Uninstaller Download version 18.0.5.1
Download Samsung Magician v7.1.1.820
Intel ARC graphics Driver Download Version: 30.0.101.1732
HWiNFO Download v7.24


New Forum Topics
Nvidia Shadercache setting. AMD reaffirms that the 5.5+ GHz of the Ryzen 7000 in the presentations was achieved without overclocking RTX 3080 fans go crazy Lexar 2 GB/s SL660 BLAZE Portable SSD The AMD Ryzen All In One Thread /Overclocking/Memory Speeds & Timings/Tweaking/Cooling Part 2 NVIDIA Re-Enables LHR On Its Graphics Cards With New Driver Review: Backforce One Plus Gaming Chair Review: ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 Noctua OC [Question] Best drivers for an old GT1030 ? NVIDIA Windows 7 GeForce Security Update Driver 473.62




Guru3D.com » News » Backblaze lists SSD failure rates, they die faster than HDDs in lifetime

Backblaze lists SSD failure rates, they die faster than HDDs in lifetime

by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 10/04/2021 09:05 AM | source: backblaze | 20 comment(s)
Backblaze lists SSD failure rates, they die faster than HDDs in lifetime

Cloud storage Backblaze occasionally publishes data on its storage medium, providing fascinating facts about the hard disks used. SSDs have recently been added. Now the company reports that SSDs are failing at the same rate as HDDs especially in lifetime measurements.

Backblaze - In our first storage servers, we used hard drives as boot drives as they were inexpensive and served the purpose. This continued until mid-2018 when we were able to buy 200GB SSDs for about $50, which was our top-end price point for boot drives for each storage server. It was an experiment, but things worked out so well that beginning in mid-2018 we switched to only using SSDs in new storage servers and replaced failed HDD boot drives with SSDs as well. What we have are two groups of drives, SSDs and HDDs, which perform the same functions, have the same workload, and operate in the same environment over time. So naturally, we decided to compare the failure rates of the SSD and HDD boot drives. Below are the lifetime failure rates for each cohort as of Q2 2021.

 

 

It’s over, SSDs win. It’s time to turn your hard drives into bookends and doorstops and buy SSDs. Although, before you start playing dominoes with your hard drives, there are a couple of things to consider which go beyond the face value of the table above: average age and drive days.

  • The average age of the SSD drives is 14.2 months, and the average age of the HDD drives is 52.4 months.
  • The oldest SSD drives are about 33 months old and the youngest HDD drives are 27 months old.

Basically, the timelines for the average age of the SSDs and HDDs don’t overlap very much. The HDDs are, on average, more than three years older than the SSDs. This places each cohort at very different points in their lifecycle. If you subscribe to the idea that drives fail more often as they get older, you might want to delay your HDD shredding party for just a bit.

By the way, we’ll be publishing a post in a couple of weeks on how well drive failure rates fit the bathtub curve; SPOILER ALERT: old drives fail a lot. The other factor we listed was drive days, the number of days all the drives in each cohort have been in operation without failing. The wide disparity in drive days causes a big difference in the confidence intervals of the two cohorts as the number of observations (i.e. drive days) varies significantly. To create a more accurate comparison, we can attempt to control for the average age and drive days in our analysis. To do this, we can take the HDD cohort back in time in our records to see where the average age and drive days are similar to those of the SDDs from Q2 2021. That would allow us to compare each cohort at the same time in their life cycles. Turning back the clock on the HDDs, we find that using the HDD data from Q4 2016, we were able to create the following comparison.

 

 

Suddenly, the annualized failure rate (AFR) difference between SSDs and HDDs is not so massive. In fact, each drive type is within the other’s 95% confidence interval window. That window is fairly wide (plus or minus 0.5%) because of the relatively small number of drive days.
Where does that leave us? We have some evidence that when both types of drives are young (14 months on average in this case), the SSDs fail less often, but not by much. But you don’t buy a drive to last 14 months, you want it to last years. What do we know about that?

Failure Rates Over Time

We have data for HDD boot drives that go back to 2013 and for SSD boot drives going back to 2018. The chart below is the lifetime AFR for each drive type through Q2 2021.

 

 

As the graph shows, beginning in 2018, the HDD boot drive failure rate accelerated. This continued in 2019 and 2020 before leveling off in 2021 (so far). To state the obvious, as the age of the HDD boot drive fleet increased, so did the failure rate.

One point of interest is the similarity in the two curves through their first four data points. For the HDD cohort, year five (2018) was where the failure rate acceleration began. Is the same fate awaiting our SSDs as they age? While we can expect some increase in the AFR as the SSD age, will it be as dramatic as the HDD line?

Decision Time: SSD or HDD

Where does that leave us in choosing between buying a SSD or a HDD? Given what we know to date, using the failure rate as a factor in your decision is questionable. Once we controlled for age and drive days, the two drive types were similar and the difference was certainly not enough by itself to justify the extra cost of purchasing a SSD versus a HDD. At this point, you are better off deciding based on other factors: cost, speed required, electricity, form factor requirements, and so on. Over the next couple of years, as we get a better idea of SSD failure rates, we will be able to decide whether or not to add the AFR to the SSD versus HDD buying guide checklist. Until then, we look forward to continued debate.



Backblaze lists SSD failure rates, they die faster than HDDs in lifetime Backblaze lists SSD failure rates, they die faster than HDDs in lifetime Backblaze lists SSD failure rates, they die faster than HDDs in lifetime




« BenQ EW2880U 60Hz 4K UHD IPS model with USB-C · Backblaze lists SSD failure rates, they die faster than HDDs in lifetime · Microsoft will release Office 2021 Tuesday Next to Windows 11 - Prices it 150 and 250 Euros »

Related Stories

BackBlaze starts to report on SSD reliability, which they are bigtime. - 05/07/2021 10:58 AM
We all know (well most of us) that datacenter giant Backblaze our many HDD failure rate reports. Withing the results they however have never posted the reliability on SSDs. Times are changing fast an...

Backblaze Outs 2020 Hard Drive Stats for HDDs - Reliability Increased - 02/02/2021 10:10 AM
In 2020, Backblaze added 39,792 hard drives and as of December 31, 2020 we had 165,530 drives under management. Of that number, there were 3,000 boot drives and 162,530 data drives....

Backblaze Outs Q2 2020 Hard Drive Stats for 142,630 Spinning HDDs - 08/19/2020 02:33 PM
As of June 30, 2020, Backblaze had 142,630 spinning hard drives in our cloud storage ecosystem spread across four data centers. Of that number, there were 2,271 boot drives and 140,059 data drives....

Backblaze Shares Hard Drive Stats for Q1 2020 - 05/13/2020 02:58 PM
As of March 31, 2020, Backblaze had 132,339 spinning hard drives in their cloud storage ecosystem spread across four data centers. Of that number, there were 2,380 boot drives and 129,959 data drives....

QNAP Integrates Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage to NAS Servers - 04/27/2020 12:12 PM
QNAP  announced its collaboration with Backblaze for the integration of Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage into several QNAP solutions, including HybridMount, VJBOD Cloud, and Hybrid Backup Sync 3 (HBS 3). W...


4 pages 1 2 3 4


Sylwester Zarębski
Member



Posts: 23
Joined: 2020-03-23

#5951514 Posted on: 10/04/2021 09:24 AM
How "SSD die faster than HDD" when data shows otherwise?
Where does that leave us in choosing between buying a SSD or a HDD? Given what we know to date, using the failure rate as a factor in your decision is questionable. Once we controlled for age and drive days, the two drive types were similar and the difference was certainly not enough by itself to justify the extra cost of purchasing a SSD versus a HDD. At this point, you are better off deciding based on other factors: cost, speed required, electricity, form factor requirements, and so on.


barbacot
Senior Member



Posts: 611
Joined: 2007-09-24

#5951523 Posted on: 10/04/2021 10:38 AM
In twenty years the only drive that failed me was an IBM 120 GXP "Deathstar" - well know for the high failure rates and the reason why IBM exited consumer HDD market - other than this HDD's or SSD's never failed on me - the only reason for change was capacity upgrade or speed - I may be lucky but I put them to a lot of use both at home and work with simulations and code compiling...also no failures on my NAS with 4 HDD that I use for torrents, surveillance cam hub and file sharing between office and home.

The data is maybe true for storage warehouses but I think that for the consumer market this is irrelevant.

alanm
Senior Member



Posts: 11160
Joined: 2004-05-10

#5951528 Posted on: 10/04/2021 11:11 AM
Have tons of SSDs over the years and none failed yet. But they are not in storage servers as in backblaze conditions. Failed HDDs over the years involve Maxtor, Seagate and WD to a lesser extent. But these mostly were older smaller, less than terabyte capacity from back in the day.

Venix
Senior Member



Posts: 2410
Joined: 2016-08-01

#5951531 Posted on: 10/04/2021 11:43 AM
In twenty years the only drive that failed me was an IBM 120 GXP "Deathstar" - well know for the high failure rates and the reason why IBM exited consumer HDD market - other than this HDD's or SSD's never failed on me - the only reason for change was capacity upgrade or speed - I may be lucky but I put them to a lot of use both at home and work with simulations and code compiling...also no failures on my NAS with 4 HDD that I use for torrents, surveillance cam hub and file sharing between office and home.

The data is maybe true for storage warehouses but I think that for the consumer market this is irrelevant.

my brother had 3 wd blue 750 gb die pretty much instantly ... most likely a bad batch ... literally the drives went " Click click GRRRR click click ...dead ... " the only thing i can imagine is a bad batch our solution on our third return was to get the 750gb model from seagate instead ..that drive is working to this date ! (( i was servicing his pc at the time ))

rl66
Senior Member



Posts: 3374
Joined: 2007-05-31

#5951534 Posted on: 10/04/2021 12:04 PM
When come to massive volume there is the price to still consider (unit and the infrastructure as the SSD have lower volume than HDD).
So, it is better for SSD, but HDD still have a bright future...

4 pages 1 2 3 4


Post New Comment
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.


Guru3D.com © 2022