Based on these reports and pricing, I've currently filled my NAS with only Toshiba drives. 1 4TB, 1 5TB and 2 14TB drives and all of them have been great. These enterprise drives are quite noisy, but my oldest already runs for over 4 years without any reallocated sectors or other issues. Apart from that, Toshiba provides free 5 year warranty on these drives.<p>And the best thing? These bad boys are only 250 euro's for 14TB or 300 euro's for 18TB of raw storage capacity.
The thing people care about is the AFR over time: like actuarial life tables. These updates always make it a bit hard to figure that one out: the tables show "average life" and AFR; it makes no sense to compare drives of different ages.<p>The "Age vs AFR" plot is getting there but it should be flipped and is hard to read; error bars would also help.<p>Also percentiles would be useful: people want to minimize the probability of failure.
The whole reason why the market still demands HGST. There is a whole segment / sector / section of industry that refuse to call it anything other than HGST. And they are willing to pay for it.
I had osmosed that the bathtub curve isn't real, but the new time-trail quadrant graph certainly looks like evidence for at least the infant-mortality section.
Lovely and wonderfully punny write up.<p>I wonder if they've done any proper Cox proportional hazards lifetime analysis across the different models? The stats for this sort of problem are well developed. Of course, the hazard is not going to be proportional, I suspect, bit I'd love to see that come out of the regression...
I wonder if they consider doing something like putting data more likely to be accessed on the more reliable drives so that that ones that wear out easier are used less.