sailer
Splendid
- Apr 9, 2006
- 4,970
- 2
- 22,810
The flaw in your logic is that google likely upgrades its storage systems every 3-5 years. Meaning they don't have a hard drive in their data center older than 5 years because they've all been destroyed to pave way for newer, bigger HDDs. Hence, there's no study data for HDD's older than 5 years because they don't exist! ;-)
I didn't mean to imply beyond 5 years, as that was only as far as the study described, but only to point out the survival rates at the 5 year mark. Still some of us have had hard drives that lasted much longer than 5 years and in some cases, have learned which companies make hard drives that fail quicky as well.
A major problem that I see is that the drives makes and types were not described. We don't know if the figures were the same over all companies, or if there was one or two companies that dragged the overall average down. That's a problem in statistics and averages. If one drive is DOA and another lives for ten years, then the average age is 5 years.
If the study had said that there was a high failure rate in Maxtor and Hitachi, for example, but a low failure rate with Seagate and Western Digital, then we consumers could adjust our buying accordingly. On the other hand, if the study had said it didn't matter what company made the hard drive as far as failure rates went, then that would have pointed to a general problem in the industry instead of a localized one.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram