Failed laborious disk drives ran for a mean of 25,233 hours earlier than their demise, which interprets to a lifespan of two years and 10 months.
That’s in accordance with Safe Information Restoration, which has a selected perspective on the matter. It focuses on salvaging information from failed laborious drives, so just about each laborious drive that it sees isn’t working correctly, which supplies it the chance to identify some patterns in laborious drive longevity. (Safe Information Restoration’s evaluation is completely different from the quarterly hard-drive report from cloud storage vendor Backblaze, which focuses on the few laborious drives that fail out of the tons of of hundreds that it makes use of.)
Safe Information Restoration gathered operational data from hundreds of broken or faulty gadgets to investigate their failure charges and lifespans. Its evaluation seems solely at conventional mechanical laborious drives with spinning platters. It didn’t embody SSDs within the analysis. It additionally excluded drives that failed because of uncommon circumstances, similar to electrical surges, malware, pure disasters, or unintended mishandling.
Timothy Burlee blogged about Safe Information Restoration’s analysis and evaluation. The agency calculated every drive’s power-on hours quantity based mostly on “when the consumer first began the gadget to its arrival at our services.” It additionally computed the present pending sector rely for failed gadgets. The present pending sector rely is the variety of broken or unusable sectors a tough drive developed over the course of typical use.
The common failed gadget developed 1,548 unhealthy sectors, Safe Information Restoration discovered. To place that quantity into perspective, a 1TB drive can have just below two billion complete sectors. So, whereas the quantity seems minuscule, Burlee notes that the speed of unhealthy sector growth can enhance and the danger of information corruption multiplies.
Safe Information Restoration examined 2,007 drives, ranging in capability from 40 GB to 10 TB, from six completely different distributors, and located a really sizable hole between the shortest-lived and longest-lived drives. Drives from Hitachi had been the shortest-lived, averaging a failure price of 18,632 hours, or simply below 26 months. Additionally they had the very best unhealthy sector rely at 3,348 per failed gadget.
Toshiba drives had the longest common lifespan of 34,799 hours, or 48 months, and a nasty sector rely of 1,884. Maxtor drives had the second-longest lifespans at 29,771 hours, or 41 months, and the very best sturdiness with simply 228 unhealthy sectors.
Nevertheless, there are some caveats to contemplate. Maxtor, which was acquired by Seagate in 2006, hasn’t been round for 17 years, and it solely accounted for 1% of the drives in Safe Information Restoration’s evaluation.
Total, of the drives Safe Information Restoration examined for its evaluation, 47% had been made by Western Digital, 28% by Seagate, 10% by Hitachi (which Western Digital owns), 8% from Toshiba, and 6% from Samsung.
Newer laborious drives fail extra usually
In inspecting the drives, Safe Information Restoration discovered that they only don’t make them like they used to.
“We discovered that the 5 most sturdy and resilient laborious drives from every producer had been made earlier than 2015. Then again, many of the least sturdy and resilient laborious drives from every producer had been made after 2015,” Burlee wrote.
Safe Information Restoration attributed this to cramming extra platters and know-how into the identical 3.5-inch house, with increased densities per platter and read-write heads changing into extra complicated.
Basically, older drives appear extra sturdy and resilient than newer drives, and discs that use the older Standard Magnetic Recording (CMR) type of recording information seem extra sturdy and resilient than people who use a more recent recording method referred to as Shingled Magnetic Recording (SMR).
Safe Information Restoration didn’t make any suggestions on model or drive capability. As an alternative, Burlee advocated for what he calls the 3-2-1 Rule: Preserve three copies of necessary information on two gadgets, with a kind of copies saved offsite.
Copyright © 2023 IDG Communications, Inc.
