![backblaze hard drive reliability 2017 backblaze hard drive reliability 2017](https://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/2rkAAOSw6DdZitSy/s-l140.jpg)
This is compounded by the fact that there is *nothing* in the report on ow these drives are used, where, under what issues etc. If they are 20% less per unit but only have a failure rate of ±.75% the economics are far more important. The Seagates' are all likely running in a high redundancy environment where total deployment of drives matters more than statistical reliability (to a point). The price point of the drives is also a factor. There is simply no way the sample sizes are enough to making any meaningful assessment for WDC … the Hitatchi values are the balance and do fair better at the larger volume. Over this usage, the annualized failure rates are 1.1. That is just over 73% of *all* the drives tested. Backblaze In aggregate, the company has now accumulated 3.7 million drive days for the consumer disks and 1.4 million for the enterprise ones. The Seagate sampling is 67,125 total drives. That helped us end 2016 with 3TB drives being the smallest density drives in our data centers. Big Drives Rule We increased storage density by moving to higher-capacity drives.
![backblaze hard drive reliability 2017 backblaze hard drive reliability 2017](https://d2rormqr1qwzpz.cloudfront.net/photos/2015/08/07/55-79489-security-certified-hdd250gb-l1-1438978202.png)
Looking at the data per year, a slightly different picture emerges. The same applies for the ST8000NM0055 rated at 0.44, achieving 1.23. By comparison, the ST12000NM0007 is enterprise-class and has a published AFR of 0.35, but around 2 in the Backblaze study. That’s down from 2.47 in 2015 and well below the 6.39 failure rate for 2014. However, this drive is a desktop model, so not rated for 24×7 operation. Well, anyone drawing any kind of brand conclusion on this is running a fools race. The overall hard drive failure rate for 2016 was 1.95.