Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
Anonymous
Paradoxal HDD survivability results 2017-07-24 03:23:18 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Paradoxal HDD survivability results 2017-07-24 03:23:18 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: by_rating.png (300KB, 1191x4210px) Image search:
[Google]
300KB, 1191x4210px
You can see here the share of drives alive for by certain count of days. Every curve is the share of drives which have lived the certain date. The shaded areas are the 95% confidence intervals. For additional fun there is no labels, try to gues the manufacturers and brands yourselves.
The dataset is by Backblaze + additional data from other sources.
https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html
>>
File: brand.png (38KB, 1186x742px)
38KB, 1186x742px
On the first pic the drives are splitted by rating bins. We see that the more is the rating, less is the drive life.
On the second pic the drives are splitted by brand. Try to guess which are the most reliable brands!
>>
File: by_brand.png (293KB, 1186x7917px) Image search:
[Google]
293KB, 1186x7917px
If you wanna know the details about the models of each brand, here they are.
>>
File: vendor.png (39KB, 1186x742px) Image search:
[Google]
39KB, 1186x742px
And here are the survivabilities by the vendors.
>>
Who can explain, why people like bad drives which live less more?
>>
>>61539562
>Backblaze
So you mean the least worthwhile data you could have possibly attained, because you were too retarded to know better?
>>
>>61539841
If you can provide me with more worthwhile data I'll be glad. But can you really?
>>
>>61540112
no one cares about your shitty thread based on shitty data from a shitty object storage company
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4