Three Google engineers (Eduardo Pinheiro, Wolf-Dietrich Weber and Luiz Andre Barroso) put a report together that examined 100,000 commercial hard drives, ranging from 80GB to 400GB in capacity from a wide variety of manufacturers and models, used at Google to store cached web pages and services since 2001. The report concluded that the impact of heavy use and high temperatures on hard disk drive failure may be exaggerated: "Our data indicate a much weaker correlation between utilisation levels and failures than previous work has suggested. We expected to notice a very strong and consistent correlation between high utilisation and higher failure rates. However our results appear to paint a more complex picture. First, only very young and very old age groups appear to show the expected behaviour," the authors noted.
There is a widely held belief that heavily used hard disks are more likely to fail than those used intermittently. It has also been thought that hard drives preferred cool temperatures to hotter environments. The engineers found, however, that hard drives less than three years old and used a lot are less likely to fail than similarly aged hard drives that are used infrequently. The authors of the report speculated that drives which failed early on in their lifetime had been removed from the overall sample leaving only the older, more robust units. The report also noted that there was a clear trend showing "that lower temperatures are associated with higher failure rates. Only at very high temperatures is there a slight reversal of this trend." But hard drives which are at least three years old were more likely to suffer a failure when used in warmer environments.
News source: BBC News
There is a widely held belief that heavily used hard disks are more likely to fail than those used intermittently. It has also been thought that hard drives preferred cool temperatures to hotter environments. The engineers found, however, that hard drives less than three years old and used a lot are less likely to fail than similarly aged hard drives that are used infrequently. The authors of the report speculated that drives which failed early on in their lifetime had been removed from the overall sample leaving only the older, more robust units. The report also noted that there was a clear trend showing "that lower temperatures are associated with higher failure rates. Only at very high temperatures is there a slight reversal of this trend." But hard drives which are at least three years old were more likely to suffer a failure when used in warmer environments.
News source: BBC News
Though, I'd still like to know what company they purchased from. My guess is definitely not Maxtor.
Why guess when the details are clearly stated at the beginning of the article!
QUOTE:
----------
... examined 100,000 commercial hard drives, ranging from 80GB to 400GB in capacity from a wide variety of manufacturers and models
----------
Why guess when the details are clearly stated at the beginning of the article!
QUOTE:
----------
... examined 100,000 commercial hard drives, ranging from 80GB to 400GB in capacity from a wide variety of manufacturers and models
----------
Ah, missed the word "manufacturers".
Though, I would think that if a particular brand were failing more often than others, it would probably be a good assumption that it had to do with the manufacturer.
I bet Maxtor is the one that fails the most.
Their HDs are the biggest crap ever, I had nothing but trouble with them
Maxtor's "support" is abysmal, too
I bet Maxtor is the one that fails the most.
Their HDs are the biggest crap ever, I had nothing but trouble with them
Maxtor's "support" is abysmal, too
Maxtor = bad. That's a very common formula.
When we handed the server back I checked the drive's SMART status - it indicated a runtime of about 42000 hours, with just 12 power cycles during that time.
Only Google have the time (and money) to do this with 100k drives tbh!
I for one would like to know more about the mentioned temps and HDD make and model. I thought big companies always stuck to HP, Dell, IBM, or so. I wonder what commercial HDD they tested and where they're from (where at google).
thats like 99,997 more than i've ever owned.
http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.