This summary of the video was created by an AI. It might contain some inaccuracies.
00:00:00 – 00:14:16
The video provides an in-depth analysis of hard drive reliability using the Backblaze dataset, which includes data from approximately 345,000 drives from manufacturers like Seagate, Western Digital (WD), and Toshiba, covering models introduced between 2013 and 2021. The speaker evaluates the annual failure rates (AFR) of different models, noting that larger datasets yield more reliable statistics. Among the significant findings, Seagate’s Exos X16 emerges as particularly reliable with an AFR below 1% over four years, while the newer X18 model shows less consistent results. Toshiba models like the MG07 and MG08 demonstrate stable performance, initially maintaining a low AFR. The video also discusses the impact of Western Digital's acquisition of HGST, concluding that WD has successfully maintained HGST’s high standards, as seen in the UltraStar HC530 and HC550 models. The speaker emphasizes that while higher failure rates are generally still below 1.5%, cost-effectiveness and warranties are important considerations, with UltraStars being recommended if price differences are minimal.
00:00:00
In this part of the video, the speaker discusses an extensive analysis leveraging the Backblaze dataset, which includes data from approximately 345,000 hard drives spanning over a decade. The focus is on comparing the reliability of different drive models, types, and sizes, particularly those ranging from 4 to 18 terabytes from various manufacturers including Seagate, Western Digital, and Toshiba. The analysis covers over 880,000 disks from Western Digital and HGST, 131,000 from Seagate, and 55,000 from Toshiba, with data primarily ranging from models introduced between 2013 and 2021. The speaker aims to determine which brand offers the most reliable drives using empirical data, focusing on Enterprise as well as consumer-grade drives. Specific models under analysis include Seagate’s Exos and Western Digital’s Ultrastar series. Additionally, the importance of the hardware and firmware iterations within these models for reliability improvements is highlighted.
00:03:00
In this part of the video, the goal is to analyze if improvements have been achieved in annual failure rate (AFR) statistics by different vendors as they release new model iterations of hard drives. It is noted that small data sets can be less reliable, so models with over 10,000 units are prioritized, although some models with fewer than 100 units are included for completeness. The segment provides a deployment chronology of various drive models from vendors like Toshiba, Seagate, HGST, and WD, highlighting their service life and reliability over time. Key details include the large deployment of certain models like Seagate’s exos x16 and their favored status due to reliability, availability, and pricing. The section sets the stage for a detailed look at AFR data to determine the most reliable drives favored by Backblaze.
00:06:00
In this segment of the video, the speaker discusses the Annualized Failure Rates (AFR) and reliability of different hard drive models from Toshiba and Seagate. Toshiba’s MG07 model initially settles below a 1% failure rate and remains stable, while the MG08 displays similar behavior with a slight bump at 7 months. Seagate’s drives offer more varied data, starting in 2016 with the Airfield 78, which maintains a low AFR initially but increases slightly over six years. The X X10 model, despite its small sample size and jagged data, shows a gradual rise in AFR over five years. The X12 model shows a higher fail rate, stabilizing around 2% after two years. The X14 follows a similar trend but is twice as likely to fail as the X10. The X16 model, widely deployed, shows the best performance with a consistent AFR below 1% over four years. Finally, the X18 range, introduced in late 2020, displays less reliable results, though firm conclusions are difficult due to low unit counts.
00:09:00
In this segment of the video, various hard drive failure rates are discussed, notably the x18, which had a 1.5% annual failure rate from a small sample size, leading to inconclusive data. The speaker also reviews Western Digital’s (WD) acquisition of HGST and examines if the previously excellent disk quality continued under WD’s branding. Historical data shows that the earlier HGST drives, like the megascale DC4000, had failure rates under 1% after several years. The newer helium-filled HGST UltraStar models also performed well, with low annual failure rates. The latest UltraStar HC530 and HC550 models maintain impressively low failure rates, suggesting that WD has upheld HGST’s high-quality standards. The speaker ends by encouraging viewers to like and subscribe for more content on similar topics.
00:12:00
In this part of the video, the speaker discusses the reliability of different hard drive brands, noting that while Tasra and Seate show overall consistent performance with Tasra discs being particularly solid, Toshba has less data available making it harder to draw firm conclusions. Seate drives tend to decline in reliability over time, with the X16 model performing well but the X18 falling short due to limited sample size. No data is yet available for the X20 and X24 models. The speaker also mentions that despite higher failure rates being generally under 1.5% annually, cost considerations might favor cheaper drives given the ease of replacement and 5-year warranties. The speaker concludes by considering Ultra Stars as a reasonable option if price differences are minimal, despite past negative experiences with WD.