[arch-general] Reliability test for hard drives and SSD

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 03 Mar 2018 11:16:30 +0000, Guus Snijders via arch-general
wrote:
>Op za 3 mrt. 2018 08:56 schreef Ralf Mardorf <silver.bullet at zoho.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2018 10:20:51 +0300, Andrey Ponomarenko wrote:  
>> >The primary aim of the project is to find drives with longest "power
>> >on hours" and minimal number of errors.  
>>
>> Pardon, but this is idiotic, since the HDDs and SSDs with the longest
>> power on hours and minimal number of errors are already discontinued,
>> if you want to buy a new drive. Your statistic at best is useful to
>> find out what HDDs and SSDs fail much to early, but than consider to
>> care about the usage.  
>
>
>Actually, it could be very useful to have a real insight in these
>figures.
>
>Similar reports by backblaze (a storage company) have been very
>helpful in deciding which HDD's to buy (or skip!) at $work.
>Also, this potentially gives *real* insight in SSD reliability; most
>other sources are "promises" by the manufacturer, some testers and
>perhaps random people who happened to run into a problem.
>
>Even if most models will indeed have been discontinued by now.

Actually the strategy of companies such as Google obviously is to use
consumer drives instead of enterprise drives, different models,
from different vendors and much likely different batches, too, since
statistics aren't helpful at all. Statistics even say anything useful
about drive vendors, as far as I know, no vendor is better than another,
just specific _discontinued_ product lines of different vendors
were(/still are :) better than other.