SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2015

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Konstantin Olchanski <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Konstantin Olchanski <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:30:51 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:29:41PM +0300, Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
> 
> ... (e.g. 100 TB endurance of normal SSD vs 20 PB endurance of enterprise SSD)
>

These are numbers from vendors. Data on actual performance as seen by end users
is much harder to come by.

For HDDs, we have periodic reports from backblaze (i.e. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/)
For SSDs, we have http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

Not much else, in recent years.

Both reports do not inspire much confidence in vendor-advertised failure rates or endurance numbers.

And direct studies of failure rates between "enterprise" and "consumer" storage
do not seem to exist (reports of "my WD green drive died, but my WD black drive
is still ok" need not apply).

The vendors themselves of course do have this data in the form of warranty return rates,
but they are not telling.

-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

ATOM RSS1 RSS2