Craig Herring Completely agree with this response. Latest posts by Andy Klein (see all) What SMART Stats Tell Us About Hard Drives - October 6, 2016 How Heavy is the Backblaze Cloud? - September 26, 2016 Managing the Sorry, the only thing tweaking here is you. As it stands right now, one a week does not look like a concern because your Reallocated Sector and Pending Sector count is zero which is very good. http://wx2me.com/error-rate/seek-error-rate-raw-read-error-rate.php
The final issue here is that latent sector failures raise another serious question about the viability of MAID disk arrays. Have a local backup a copy or two offsite. Annual sector error rates This figure from the paper indicates the variability in age-related error rates The caption states: For each disk model that has been in the ﬁeld for at Robin Nathan February 19, 2008 at 4:00 pm Robin: Hm, interesting, I was unaware of that.
I think it would be difficult to capture the phenomenon with fewer than 4 parameters. Plus they're all going in to storage chassis. Either that or shut up, one of the two.
I see lots of failed Seagate drives at work. As many of the MAID platforms contain very large disks, which even at their maximum transfer rate in linear read can take many hours or even days to read the entire information means?2How can I fix hdd's health0Need help to save HDD Hot Network Questions System Calls From C Code Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit crimes? What Is Raw Read Error Rate New employee has offensive Slack handle due to language barrier Magento 2 get Website names dropdown on any phtml How to explain the concept of test automation to a team that
Myself, I would keep an eye on it especially if you do not move your computer and it still goes up. Hard Drive Failure Rates 2016 Once a drive develops an error, both enterprise and consumer drives are equally likely to develop a 2nd error. That being said, the Weibull Distribution gives an "eta" value which is known as the "characteristic life" this is, by definition, the point at which 63.2% of the items in the YevP Our pleasure Tracy!
Edited by signofzeta, 27 July 2014 - 12:58 AM. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/265218-32-seek-error-rate So if you had a 9-disk group and one failed, if you scrubbed every two weeks (and on average the failure occurred half-way through that period) there'd be about a 0.5% Hard Drive Failure Rate Very thought-provoking… Paul van den Bergen I'd be interested in seeing stats on your lifetime and decommissioning rate for pods - as opposed to individual drives. External Hard Drive Failure Rates That's too bad, because it's really easy to just keep all my important stuff on the fileserver and assume my data are safe.
Instead of Speccy or CrystalDiskInfo I would run a full diagnostic on the drive. http://wx2me.com/error-rate/seek-error-rate-wd.php I know it's bad to bump an old blog, but: 1) 50% of HGST drives were enterprise class drives 2) You can't compare such drastically different sample sizes of HGST+Seagate drives Back to top #7 signofzeta signofzeta Topic Starter Members 416 posts OFFLINE Local time:07:43 AM Posted 27 July 2014 - 07:08 PM which test should I perform? Yet, these two drive sizes have very different failure rates. Raw Read Error Rate Smart
Also, that was one model, whereas Seagate has had reliability issues with many, many models over a consistent and longer time period. HDDmag Admin I think it would be great to add how many of each hard drives you have. One parameter would capture the fraction of units subject to infant mortality. http://wx2me.com/error-rate/satellite-bit-error-rate.php Milk Manson Because they don't want people to draw false conclusions?
Because they have "tweaked" firmware, right? Read Error Rate 1 Meta Uhm, your table for the 1.5tb may need looked at. In my low-end storage worldview, NetApp doesn't even exist.
The system returned: (22) Invalid argument The remote host or network may be down. This scrub issues read operations for each disk sector, computes a checksum over its data, compares the checksum to the on-disk 8-byte checksum, and reconstructs the sector from other disks in So, if your count increases at one a week you should be okay unless there is a spike in the rate. Raw Read Error Rate Fail DO NOT MISINTERPRETE THEM.
Again, I would advise you to copy off any important data on the drive. there is no perfect HDD, never was, never will be, (history and fact) in the olden days, (me) we had to enter the bad sectors in to the HDD controller from We are also going to include “Average Drive Age” for each model and we’ll summarize the data by manufacturer size as well. click site I hope this helps. (ever seen a DatA General hard disk crash?
The “Max # in Service” column is the maximum number of drives ever in service for the given hard drive model. We do migrate from lower density drives for economic purposes. I got burned really badly on the 3TB Seagates, and have several of them on ice until I can transfer the contents to more dependable drives. The large data files make for large data sets to work on, but if you give it a try, please let us know if you find anything interesting.
Point 2: all HDD have natural read errors, you can learn that at Seagate too, if you want. Maybe the shock sensor of the drive is very sensitive and is reporting a Gsense at the slightest movement. There are many computer professionals with a very low opinion of SMART reporting, and they generally discount SMART reports, partly because of all the inconsistency, but also because many drives fail You can use the freeware Gsmartcontrol and see if the Gsense is the same.
Generated Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:38:32 GMT by s_wx1202 (squid/3.5.20) Both Speccy and CrystalDiskInfo has the same G-sense error rate raw value. Please try the request again. fast forward, modern drives (not drivers) , or Winchesters as we once called them have error correction, from DAy1, EVEN DAY 1 , SECTORS are bad.! (fact) so they , map
In fact, BBs "refurb" theory, if anything, helps to paint Seagate in a better light. However these are mathematically computed numbers and it would be intriguing to see if we can actually base it from experimental data. share|improve this answer edited Jan 7 '11 at 10:13 answered Jan 7 '11 at 8:38 Javier Rivera 25.1k56495 add a comment| up vote 17 down vote Yes, generally the raw value Our analysis using random error event assumption is 25% for 6TB and 9% for 2TB which indicates that as capacities grow the unrecoverable error probability will dominate.
What’s New for the Q3 2015 Results? It's good to do this even if you think the drive is not failing. Perversely a weekly backup to dev null, through forcing a complete surface read, can substantially improve the achieved data reliability by forcing the disks to detect sectors that took multiple read watch the swaps.