Backblaze Published Hard Drive Stats for Q1 2019
As of March 31, 2019, Backblaze had 106,238 spinning hard drives in our cloud storage ecosystem spread across three data centers. Of that number, there were 1,913 boot drives and 104,325 data drives.
This review looks at the Q1 2019 and lifetime hard drive failure rates of the data drive models currently in operation in our data centers and provides a handful of insights and observations along the way.
Hard Drive Failure Stats for Q1 2019
At the end of Q1 2019, Backblaze was using 104,325 hard drives to store data. For our evaluation we remove from consideration those drives that were used for testing purposes and those drive models for which we did not have at least 45 drives (see why below). This leaves us with 104,130 hard drives. The table below covers what happened in Q1 2019.
Notes and Observations
If a drive model has a failure rate of 0%, it means there were no drive failures of that model during Q1 2019. The two drives listed with zero failures in Q1 were the 4 TB and 5 TB Toshiba models. Neither has a large enough number of drive days to be statistically significant, but in the case of the 5 TB model, you have to go back to Q2 2016 to find the last drive failure we had of that model.
There were 195 drives (104,325 minus 104,130) that were not included in the list above because they were used as testing drives or we did not have at least 45 of a given drive model. We use 45 drives of the same model as the minimum number when we report quarterly, yearly, and lifetime drive statistics. The use of 45 drives is historical in nature as that was the number of drives in our original Storage Pods. Beginning next quarter that threshold will change; we'll get to that shortly.
The Annualized Failure Rate (AFR) for Q1 is 1.56%. That's as high as the quarterly rate has been since Q4 2017 and its part of an overall upward trend we've seen in the quarterly failure rates over the last few quarters. Let's take a closer look.
Quarterly Trends
We noted in previous reports that using the quarterly reports is useful in spotting trends about a particular drive or even a manufacturer. Still, you need to have enough data (drive count and drive days) in each observed period (quarter) to make any analysis valid. To that end the chart below uses quarterly data from Seagate and HGST drives while leaving out Toshiba and WDC drives as we don't have enough drives from those manufacturers over the course of the last three years.
Over the last three years, the trend for both Seagate and HGST annualized failure rates had improved, i.e. gone down. While Seagate has reduced their failure rate over 50% during that time, the upward trend over the last three quarters requires some consideration. We'll take a look at this and let you know if we find anything interesting in a future post.
Changing the Qualification Threshold
As reported over the last several quarters, we've been migrating from lower density drives, 2, 3, and 4 TB drives, to larger 10, 12, and 14 TB hard drives. At the same time, we have been replacing our stand-alone 45-drive Storage Pods with 60-drive Storage Pods arranged into the Backblaze Vault configuration of 20 Storage Pods per vault. In Q1, the last stand-alone 45-drive Storage Pod was retired. Therefore, using 45 drives as the threshold for qualification to our quarterly report seems antiquated. This is a good time to switch to using Drive Days as the qualification criteria. In reviewing our data, we have decided to use 5,000 Drive Days as the threshold going forward. The exception, any current drives we are reporting, such as the Toshiba 5 TB model with about 4,000 hours each quarter, will continue to be included in our Hard Drive Stats reports.
Fewer Drives = More Data
Those of you who follow our quarterly reports might have observed that the total number of hard drives in service decreased in Q1 by 648 drives compared to Q4 2018, yet we added nearly 60 petabytes of storage. You can see what changed in the chart below.
Lifetime Hard Drive Stats
The table below shows the lifetime failure rates for the hard drive models we had in service as of March 31, 2019. This is over the period beginning in April 2013 and ending March 31, 2019.
2018 HDD Failure rates report from Backblaze - 01/24/2019 08:58 AM
Backblaze has published its annual hard drive statistics in which the company shares numbers on failure rates of the nearly 105,000 the company has in its data centers. The company publishes the annua...
Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for Q3 2018 - 10/18/2018 08:48 AM
As of September 30, 2018 Backblaze had 99,636 spinning hard drives. Of that number, there were 1,866 boot drives and 97,770 data drives. This review looks at the quarterly and lifetime statistics for ...
BACKBLAZE Releases HDD Stats for Q2 2018 - 07/25/2018 04:49 PM
As of June 30, 2018 they had 100,254 spinning hard drives in Backblaze’s data centers. Of that number, there were 1,989 boot drives and 98,265 data drives. This review looks at the quarterly...
Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for Q1 2018 Have Been published - 4TB HGST HDDs Very Reliable - 05/03/2018 07:37 AM
It is always fun to check this list out, as of March 31, 2018 they had 100,110 spinning hard drives. Of that number, there were 1,922 boot drives and 98,188 data drives. This review looks at the quar...
Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2017 - HGST HDDs Very Reliable - 02/02/2018 10:13 AM
Backblaze has recorded and saved daily hard drive statistics from the drives in their data centers and released the statistics for the year 2017. At the end of 2017 they had 93,240 spinning hard driv...
Senior Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 2009-11-30
>to be honest their data is not much helpful, because most all their drive is enterprise-drive... not consumer drive
you wut?
backblaze is well known for using consumer drives rather than enterprise.
ok lets check their listed hdd on the report
MG07ACA14TA : https://toshiba.semicon-storage.com/jp/product/storage-products/enterprise-hdd/mg07acaxxx.html
HUH721212ALE600/HUH721212ALN604 =Ultrastar® DC HC520 : https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en-us/assets/public/western-digital/product/data-center-drives/ultrastar-dc-hc500-series/data-sheet-ultrastar-dc-hc520.pdf
The most HDD they using on (at 34,7k drive )
ST12000NM0007 = Exos X12 12TB Standard Model 512e SATA : https://www.seagate.com/enterprise-storage/exos-drives/exos-x-drives/exos-x12/
ST10000NM0086 = Exos X10 10TB, 512e SATA Standard : https://www.seagate.com/enterprise-storage/exos-drives/exos-x-drives/exos-x10/
check the rest if there any consumer drive other than 6TB wdc RED
so where u get prove they using consumer drive more than enterprise drive ?
Senior Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 2009-11-30
You know that the Seagate Drive are mix of Consumer/Enterprise grade drive
DM are Consumer, DX and NM are Enterprise
You don't see any WDC, HGST and Toshiba Consumer grade drive as it prove just how bad there are in real world test in fact WDC is all ready pulling it self of Backblaze
afaik backblaze never really using WDC
rather than durability issue, most likely they getting better price with seagate and hitachi
back to 2015 report : https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-for-q2-2015/
WDC failure rate 1.5% (=45drives) compared to 3.0% (=17,8k seagate drives)
so imo there nothing about real-world-test in context brand comparisson
Senior Member
Posts: 474
Joined: 2001-05-02
afaik backblaze never really using WDC
rather than durability issue, most likely they getting better price with seagate and hitachi
back to 2015 report : https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-for-q2-2015/
WDC failure rate 1.5% (=45drives) compared to 3.0% (=17,8k seagate drives)
so imo there nothing about real-world-test in context brand comparisson
3TB where bad by both Seagate and WDC
Senior Member
Posts: 9773
Joined: 2006-02-14
Most my data is on 4TB Seagate drives... monkaS.
Senior Member
Posts: 8156
Joined: 2008-07-31
How are you defining as consumer grade? Because doing a quick newegg search, 10TB seems to be the point at which I would say drives aren't consumer-grade:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100167523 4814 601192404 600376738 601322010&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36
None of those drives really seems particularly consumer-friendly, because they either:
* Use SAS instead of SATA
* Marketed/built for things like surveillance, NAS, or enterprise. One of the key features of enterprise hardware is 24/7 reliability.
* Are somewhat expensive for the average consumer to consider (especially once you get to 12TB)
These drives are kinda the equivalent of Xeons or Quadros - the average consumer has access to them and can use them as though they were generic consumer-grade products without noticing, but that doesn't mean they're consumer-grade.
I feel like that was already answered in the post your quoted.
I, you, anyone here does not define consumer grade.
The companies do.
Expensive does not define consumer grade either.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822172024&ignorebbr=1
That is a Barracuda, as stated above, in my previous post.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16822184763
14TB version too.
Sure, you could say "but that's a Barracuda Pro". Ok, fine, do we want to say pro consumer rated then? Create a whole new listing?
Barracuda and Barracuda Pro are the same, the only difference is seagate deciding to differentiate between their cheap, lower storage capacity drives and their more expensive, higher storage capacity drives.
This does not change that they are both still consumer grade.
https://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/hdd/barracuda/