Backblaze: Is the Earth Flat?

Exactly one year ago today I published an article titled Selecting a Disk Drive: How Not to Do Research. This article took Backblaze to task for a lack of intellectual rigor in their disk drive studies. Their latest study raised my ire enough to write today’s blog  – even though I said I was retired […]

執筆者
Henry Newman
Henry Newman
Published: Jan 27, 2015
Updated: Feb 17, 2021
2 minute read
Enterprise Storage Forum のコンテンツおよび製品のおすすめは、編集上の独立性を保っています。パートナーへのリンクをクリックすると、当社が報酬を得る場合があります。 詳細を見る

Exactly one year ago today I published an article titled Selecting a Disk Drive: How Not to Do Research. This article took Backblaze to task for a lack of intellectual rigor in their disk drive studies. Their latest study raised my ire enough to write today’s blog  – even though I said I was retired from writing. Let me take you through a few points I made in last year’s article.

Here’s my first point from a year ago:

“Let’s talk about the release data first. The oldest drive in the list is the Seagate Barracuda 1.5 TB drive from 2006. A drive that is almost 8 years old! Since it is well known in study after study that disk drives last about 5 years and no other drive is that old, I find it pretty disingenuous to leave out that information. Add to this that the Seagate 1.5 TB has a well-known problem that Seagate publicly admitted to, and it is no surprise that these old drives are failing.”

Well these drives are still being used and still being reported on by Backblaze. One has to wonder why, if the drives are so bad, they are still being used and reported on year after year.

And another main point from a year ago:

“One of the definitions of consumer drives as compared to enterprise drives is that hard error rate is 1 bit in 10E14 bits for consumer drives and 1 bit in 10E15 bits for enterprise drives. The following table shows how many bits are moved before the storage vendors say there will be an error on the drive. So move about 11.3 TiB of data on a consumer drive and expect a failure.”

backblaze, hard drives

With a known lower hard error rate, why would Backblaze use consumer drives for an enterprise application? Maybe they do not think their users’ backup data is that important and believe that all that is needed is consumer drives. Nothing has changed from last year; there is no comparison of consumer and enterprise drives. There seems to be a belief, with no supporting evidence, that enterprise drives are more expensive with no benefit.

The Backblaze approach seems to be that they don’t want real research to get in the way of their opinions. Maybe they should join the Flat Earth Society while they’re at it.

Advertisement

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

Henry Newman

Henry Newman is a ServerWatch contributor.

Enterprise Storage Forum Logo

Enterprise Storage Forum offers practical information on data storage and protection from several different perspectives: hardware, software, on-premises services and cloud services. It also includes storage security and deep looks into various storage technologies, including object storage and modern parallel file systems. ESF is an ideal website for enterprise storage admins, CTOs and storage architects to reference in order to stay informed about the latest products, services and trends in the storage industry.

TechnologyAdvice が所有・運営しています。 © 2026 TechnologyAdvice. 無断転載を禁じます

広告主に関する開示:このサイトに掲載されている製品の一部は、TechnologyAdvice が報酬を受け取っている企業のものです。この報酬は、製品がこのサイトのどこにどのように表示されるか(表示される順序など)に影響する場合があります。TechnologyAdvice は、市場で入手可能なすべての企業やすべての種類の製品を掲載しているわけではありません。