In the original system the were in, reported errors did drop, however, when moved to a completely different system, they were dropping like flies.
Interestintly, in my case, the drives I mention were swapped from some 2019 build dates with ET02 to some 2020 builds with ET03 FW. I think it masked some of that information. In my case, ST12…037 was also in the I can tell you from the info I received, the FW did nothing but to change how failures were reported.
#Backblaze has their first drive stats series#
In this context, it’s a well known issue that this series of drives has a defect at the source.Īnd it’s not just the specific unit shown.
If you roll your own, then more power to you. For our readers, this is probably worth noting if you have this drive model installed and something to keep an eye on for the No large scale provider will give you a mix of hardware like that unless they happened to be mixed when supplied. It is also the case where we will likely replace these drives with different drives as we did with the failure a few weeks ago, just to help with diversity. Since no organization, not even Seagate, has a complete picture of failure percentages (many drives are scrapped without data going back to the OEM like ours were) it is very hard to get an accurate view of reliability.Īt this point, these are probably not drives we would pay a premium for or look to find more of given the data that is out there. One has to wonder about that spec given these anecdotal experiences. These seem to not be in as bad of a position as the 14TB Dell-Seagate ST14000NM0138 drives at Backblaze, but these 12TB Exos X12’s seem to have a lot of stories that indicate AFR that greatly exceeds the 0.35% on its spec sheet. At the same time, it is notable that we had several users anecdotally remember the drives as ones with higher failure rates, we saw a strange failure, and Backblaze has these drives as high-failure rate devices. Backblaze’s data does not suggest an AFR of 30-50% or anywhere near that. STH readers were citing mass failures, where half of the storage arrays would fail and be replaced by a different disk. Something was apparent if you read some of the comments on our piece from a few weeks ago. Even Backblaze saw the data and worked with Seagate to phase out this model in 2020. At the same time, it seems notable that these stories keep coming up. We also have more of these drives running perfectly fine so we are in no way saying these drives have some sort of mass failure. Of course, there is a lot more going on here, and these drives were in a much smaller array than what Backblaze uses. We actually did not even think of this when we first saw Backblaze’s data, but we had a reader point out that the model was the same as what we just covered in our recent anecdotal piece. The Seagate ST12000NM0007 is not always the least reliable drive in every slice of the data, but it is certainly near the top for most of these. When you look at the drive stats for the Seagate Exos X12 ST12000NM0007 you can see a pattern: Seagate Exos X12 In Backblaze 2021 Stats Comparison We took the charts from Backblaze’s 2021 stats. That drive happens to be in Backblaze’s data as a standout, and not for a good reason. Specifically, we said Farewell Seagate Exos X12 12TB Enterprise Hard Drives that failed next to one another. When they did, we had a number of folks reach out because of a recent feature on STH. This week, Backblaze released its quarterly hard drive reliability stats.
0 kommentar(er)
