SSD/HDD failure rates

Discussion in 'Memory and Storage' started by Voo, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. Voo

    Voo Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    0
    As seen in Anands Intel 510 review, quite interesting numbers:

    - Maxtor 1,04% (contre 1,73%)
    - Western Digital 1,45% (contre 0,99%)
    - Seagate 2,13% (contre 2,58%)
    - Samsung 2,47% (contre 1,93%)
    - Hitachi 3,39% (contre 0,92%)

    - Intel 0,59% - Intel 0.59%
    - Corsair 2,17% - Corsair 2.17%
    - Crucial 2,25% - Crucial 2.25%
    - Kingston 2,39% - Kingston 2.39%
    - OCZ 2,93% - OCZ 2.93%

    Quite interesting, I think. Although the almost 10% for the 2tb blacks are really something. Although that's probably more influenced by 7.2krpm, which just shows that lots of fast spinning, high density platters aren't a good idea if you want reliable drives.

    original
    translated
     
    #1 Voo, Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011
  2. Diogenes2

    Diogenes2 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    2,151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those numbers are hardly scientific.. They are return rates for an e-tailer ... Nothing that shows that they were verified hardware failures, as opposed to user failure or other factors.

    It might mean nothing more than Intel buyers returned fewer drives, for whatever reason ..
     
    #2 Diogenes2, Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011
  3. Voo

    Voo Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you're claiming that Intel (e.g.) drives get returned for user failures or other reasons more often, because..? If you take two pretty independent facts and claim they influence each other somehow you should have at least a good theory for it, because I don't see why the average user should treat one hard drive different than any other just because there's a different sticker on it.
     
  4. Diogenes2

    Diogenes2 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    2,151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually I'm saying the Intel returns, were more likely hardware failures, than were the others.

    It's not that the average user treats the drive different, it's a matter of what kind of user buys a particular drive, and why they might be more or less likely to return it.

    One possibility could be, that people who pay more for an Intel drive, may be more likely to have more success in installing it correctly and using it properly ..

    It would be interesting to see sales volumes versus return rates ..

    Chances are, the drives with the highest failure rates, are the ones they sold the most of, and offered more opportunities for someone to screw up, or decide they don't like the way it sounds..

    The main problem with the report, is that it tells us nothing about how the returned drives were evaluated, and that they were in fact hardware failures..
     
    #4 Diogenes2, Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011
  5. Voo

    Voo Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't make any sense, from my perspective. If the volume is large enough to be statistically significant (which it seems to be), then just selling more only narrows the statistical error down but doesn't mean the return rate goes up for whatever reason (or if it does, why? Why would I be more likely to kill a drive if 100 persons bought it instead of only 10?)

    Also Intel SSDs aren't more expensive than other drives out there. Further if we look at Kingston (only sells cheap drives) vs. OCZ (several more expensive ones) the Kingston return rates are lower.


    And if we ignore SSDs for a second and look at HDDs we see that there are large differences even though the differences between the different manufacterers HDD's are minimal at best.
    Although one thing there is, that we'd have to look what releases fell into the given timespan - if WD was the only one to release a potentially high failure drive (e.g. 7.2k rpm 2tb) and others didn't that would skew the result - not a problem for SSDs.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - failure rates Forum Date
Backblaze Q2 2016 hard drive failure rates Memory and Storage Oct 11, 2016
Hard drive failure rates after bad packing? Memory and Storage Mar 23, 2016
Seagate 3TB high failure rate --Backblaze Memory and Storage Jan 21, 2015
Seagate "power of one" HDD high failure rates? Memory and Storage Dec 4, 2014
SSD Failure Rates? Memory and Storage Mar 5, 2014