> Q: Why don’t you use enterprise or NAS drives? > A: We’ve done a bit of analysis and in our environment there really is not much of a difference between enterprise and consumer hard drives. You can read our findings on our “Enterprise Drives: Fact or Fiction” blog post, but the TL:DR version is that their higher cost does not make up for their performance.
> So, Are Enterprise Drives Worth The Cost? From a pure reliability perspective, the data we have says the answer is clear: No. > Enterprise drives do have one advantage: longer warranties. That’s a benefit only if the higher price you pay for the longer warranty is less than what you expect to spend on replacing the drive.
> The drives in question were produced beginning in Q3 of 2011. It was during this period that the Thailand Drive Crisis began. As a reminder up to 50% of the world’s hard drive production was affected by the flooding in Thailand beginning in August 2011. The upheaval that occurred to the hard drive industry was well documented. The drive manufacturers generally did not discuss how specific drive models were impacted by the Thailand flooding, but perhaps the Seagate 3TB drives were impacted more than other models or other vendors. One thing is known, nearly every manufacturer reduced the warranty on their drives during the crisis with consumer drives like the Seagate model ST3000DM001 being reduced from 3 years to 1 year. > While this particular 3TB model had a painfully high rate of failure, subsequent Seagate models such as their 4TB drive, model: ST4000DM000, are performing well with an annualized 2014 failure rate of just 2.6% as of December 31, 2014.
セールストークだから仕方ないとはいえ (スコア:0)
これが Backblaze のリポートを交えて、HDDメーカーの中の人がまとめた見解とされると、補足も含めて非常に丁寧に報告を作成した Backblaze の人はがっかりするんじゃなかろうか。特にデータセンター向けのHDDの方が故障率が低いというのは Backblaze の別リポートで明確に「そのような傾向は見られない」と否定されてますよ…。現状は追加投資に見合った効果が得られないと明言されてる。
ひとまず参考になりそうな補足リンクを：
Hard Drive Stats - FAQ | Backblaze Blog
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-faq/ [backblaze.com]
> Q: Why don’t you use enterprise or NAS drives?
> A: We’ve done a bit of analysis and in our environment there really is not much of a difference between enterprise and consumer hard drives. You can read our findings on our “Enterprise Drives: Fact or Fiction” blog post, but the TL:DR version is that their higher cost does not make up for their performance.
Enterprise Drives: Fact or Fiction?
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/enterprise-drive-reliability/ [backblaze.com]
> So, Are Enterprise Drives Worth The Cost? From a pure reliability perspective, the data we have says the answer is clear: No.
> Enterprise drives do have one advantage: longer warranties. That’s a benefit only if the higher price you pay for the longer warranty is less than what you expect to spend on replacing the drive.
あと、なんでST3000DM001がここまで極端な故障率を見せているかの考察も興味深いので、お時間があればぜひ。
Dissecting 3TB Hard Drive Failure Rates
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/ [backblaze.com]
> The drives in question were produced beginning in Q3 of 2011. It was during this period that the Thailand Drive Crisis began. As a reminder up to 50% of the world’s hard drive production was affected by the flooding in Thailand beginning in August 2011. The upheaval that occurred to the hard drive industry was well documented. The drive manufacturers generally did not discuss how specific drive models were impacted by the Thailand flooding, but perhaps the Seagate 3TB drives were impacted more than other models or other vendors. One thing is known, nearly every manufacturer reduced the warranty on their drives during the crisis with consumer drives like the Seagate model ST3000DM001 being reduced from 3 years to 1 year.
> While this particular 3TB model had a painfully high rate of failure, subsequent Seagate models such as their 4TB drive, model: ST4000DM000, are performing well with an annualized 2014 failure rate of just 2.6% as of December 31, 2014.