If you look at the data, Seagate is also some of their oldest drives, and some of their most used. Likewise, they have almost no WD drives, yet that’s what you recommend below.
I’m not saying you should or should not buy Seagate drives, I’m just saying that’s not what you should be taking away from that data. What it seems to say is that Seagate drives are more likely to fail early, and if they don’t, they’ll likely last a while, even in a use case like Backblaze. Some capacities should be also avoided.
That said, I don’t think this data is applicable to an average home user. If you’re running a NAS 24/7, maybe, but if you’re looking for a single desktop drive (esp if it’s solid state), it’s useless to you because you won’t be buying those models (though failure rates by capacity apply since they likely use the same platters).
AFR is a percentage, 1 drive from a pool of 10 means 10%, 5 drives from 100 means 5%; so with regards to your point that they don’t have much WD drives, if they don’t have much WD, then each fail is even more detrimental on the chart, therefore making the data even more impactful. The data also showed the average across all manufactures and you can see clearly Seagate being consistently above the average quarter over quarter. The failure rate is annualized, so age of drive is also factored into the consideration.
When there’s a clear trend of higher failure rate represented as a percentage, I’m not going to volunteer my data, NAS or otherwise, as tribute to brand loyalty from a manufacture that’s gone downhill from the decades past.
If you look at the data, Seagate is also some of their oldest drives, and some of their most used. Likewise, they have almost no WD drives, yet that’s what you recommend below.
I’m not saying you should or should not buy Seagate drives, I’m just saying that’s not what you should be taking away from that data. What it seems to say is that Seagate drives are more likely to fail early, and if they don’t, they’ll likely last a while, even in a use case like Backblaze. Some capacities should be also avoided.
That said, I don’t think this data is applicable to an average home user. If you’re running a NAS 24/7, maybe, but if you’re looking for a single desktop drive (esp if it’s solid state), it’s useless to you because you won’t be buying those models (though failure rates by capacity apply since they likely use the same platters).
AFR is a percentage, 1 drive from a pool of 10 means 10%, 5 drives from 100 means 5%; so with regards to your point that they don’t have much WD drives, if they don’t have much WD, then each fail is even more detrimental on the chart, therefore making the data even more impactful. The data also showed the average across all manufactures and you can see clearly Seagate being consistently above the average quarter over quarter. The failure rate is annualized, so age of drive is also factored into the consideration.
When there’s a clear trend of higher failure rate represented as a percentage, I’m not going to volunteer my data, NAS or otherwise, as tribute to brand loyalty from a manufacture that’s gone downhill from the decades past.