On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:53:21PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:01 AM <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote: > > > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > >... Here's a report > > by folks who do lots of HDDs and SDDs: > > > > https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2021/ > > > > The gist, for disks playing similar roles (they don't use yet SSDs for bulk > > storage, because of the costs): 2/1518 failures for SSDs, 44/1669 for HDDs. > > Forgive my ignorance... Isn't Mean Time Before Failure (MTFB) the > interesting statistic?
I think what hede was hinting at was that early SSDs had a (pretty) limited number of write cycles per "block" [1] before failure; they had (and have) extra blocks to substitute broken ones and do a fair amount of "wear leveling behind the scenes. So it made more sense to measure failures along the "TB written" axis than along the time axis. Cheers [1] In a very sloppy sense: those beasts have big write units, 256K and up. -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
