Who are we?
We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.
We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.
-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread
Saw this posted on !technology@lemmy.ml and thought ideal to crosspost here too
At the end of Q2 2023, Backblaze was monitoring 245,757 hard drives and SSDs in our data centers around the world. Of that number, 4,460 are boot drives, with 3,144 being SSDs and 1,316 being HDDs.
This graph looks at the annual failure rate for drives more than 5 years old. The higher capacity ones look a little bit concerning IMO. This is discussed within a short section later on in the blog post.
It's a shame that as large capacities are so expensive for many the stats just don't seem as relevant to me.
I used to be able to point to the table and say "these are the drives I own" and now it's "these are the drives I might own one day".
Yepp. Personally I'm using multiple 6TBs at the moment - my next jump would have been replacing those with 10/12 TB or larger, but these stats are making me reconsider.
Replacements would get expensive fast IMO, especially if they're failing just outside the warranty period like Backblaze's ones
Wow those Seagate 14 TB numbers look pretty terrible (even ignoring the model with a tiny sample size), I guess I'm lucky that Toshiba drives are the cheapest here so that what we have the most of