On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 09:12:36AM +0100, hw wrote: > Backblaze does all kinds of things. whatever. > > The gist, for disks playing similar roles (they don't use yet SSDs for bulk > > storage, because of the costs): 2/1518 failures for SSDs, 44/1669 for HDDs. > > > > I'll leave the maths as an exercise to the reader. > > Numbers never show you the real picture, especially not statistical ones. Your gut feeling might be more relevant for you. But it's not for me, so that's why I'll bow out of this thread :-) > You > even say it yourself that the different types of disks were used for different > purposes. That makes your numbers meaningless. Please, re-read what I wrote (you even quoted it above). It's nearly the opposite of what you say here. I said "similar roles". I won't read the blog entry for you aloud here. > Out of cruiosity, what do these numbers look like in something like survivours > per TB? Those numbers will probably show a very different picture, won't they. DidI say similar roles? The devices compared are doing the same job, So TB per unit time are, for all we know, comparable. > And when even Backblaze doesn't use SSDs for backup storage because they're > expensive, then why would you suggest or assume that anyone do or does that? There again. Please read what others write before paraphrasing them wrongly. I never said you should use SSDs for bulk data storage. They are too expensive for that. That's something you, backblaze and me all agreed from the start. Why on earth do you bring that up here, then? I just contested that their failure rate is higher than that of HDDs. This is something which was true in early days, but nowadays it seems to be just a prejudice. I'm out of this thread. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature