- May 7, 2013
- 404
- 0
- 0
I am a bit cheesed off about seeing posts using the reporting of Backblaze to paint Seagate harddrives in a bad light.
Here are the facts as far as have been reported by both Backblaze and the various tech sites.
Backblaze by their own admission buys in harddrives based on price with no other consideration being paramount.
Backblaze by their own admission bought Seagate drives alost exclusively during the harddrive crisis after the floods because other manufacturers were not able to supply.
Backblaze by their own admission buys in external USB drives to take them apart.
Backblaze by their own admission stated that when they could use the drives even after they had been deemed faulty in a single drive environment.
Yes I have bought Seagate drives (and Hitachi and WD drives). My personal criterion has been price. Thing is that I have NEVER used ANY drives in a RAID configuration.
If I were going to use drives in a RAID (or NAS/SAN environment - and as opposed to most "tech journalists" out there I do know the difference between NAS and SAN) I would buy drives specifically designed for that environment.
Now to my mind whoever was/is responsible for purchasing mission critical equipment at Backblaze is criminally irresponsible.
One thing which I have not seen in any reporting is what kind of Power Supply Units they use in their drive farms. If they use the same kind of criterion there (cheapest possible) then what surprises me least is the amount of drive failures they have had but rather that there have not been even more.
Backblaze's reporting of Seagate drive failures is not so much an indictment of Seagate but rather an indictment of the incompetence of Backblaze itself.
Backblaze has bought in higher end Hitachi drives when the price has fallen due to the introduction of newer model. They buy in newest models Seagate drives because of capacity and price irregardless of the STATED USE by Seagate.
What I find horrific is that in a so-called "professional" data storage company they get a high percentage of their drives from breaking apart external USB drives.
The whole "Backblaze-Seagate" controversy is bullsh#t as far as I can see, from their own reporting
It's like there was a dire need for engines, so they bought a few thousand cheap VW Golf cars, stripped the engines out of them, bunged them into tractors and then turn around and say that VW is crap because so many of the engines they built into the tractors failed under load.
If Backblaze is too effing stupid to use the right tool for the right effing job then they cannot blame anyone but themselves.
Here are the facts as far as have been reported by both Backblaze and the various tech sites.
Backblaze by their own admission buys in harddrives based on price with no other consideration being paramount.
Backblaze by their own admission bought Seagate drives alost exclusively during the harddrive crisis after the floods because other manufacturers were not able to supply.
Backblaze by their own admission buys in external USB drives to take them apart.
Backblaze by their own admission stated that when they could use the drives even after they had been deemed faulty in a single drive environment.
Yes I have bought Seagate drives (and Hitachi and WD drives). My personal criterion has been price. Thing is that I have NEVER used ANY drives in a RAID configuration.
If I were going to use drives in a RAID (or NAS/SAN environment - and as opposed to most "tech journalists" out there I do know the difference between NAS and SAN) I would buy drives specifically designed for that environment.
Now to my mind whoever was/is responsible for purchasing mission critical equipment at Backblaze is criminally irresponsible.
One thing which I have not seen in any reporting is what kind of Power Supply Units they use in their drive farms. If they use the same kind of criterion there (cheapest possible) then what surprises me least is the amount of drive failures they have had but rather that there have not been even more.
Backblaze's reporting of Seagate drive failures is not so much an indictment of Seagate but rather an indictment of the incompetence of Backblaze itself.
Backblaze has bought in higher end Hitachi drives when the price has fallen due to the introduction of newer model. They buy in newest models Seagate drives because of capacity and price irregardless of the STATED USE by Seagate.
What I find horrific is that in a so-called "professional" data storage company they get a high percentage of their drives from breaking apart external USB drives.
The whole "Backblaze-Seagate" controversy is bullsh#t as far as I can see, from their own reporting
It's like there was a dire need for engines, so they bought a few thousand cheap VW Golf cars, stripped the engines out of them, bunged them into tractors and then turn around and say that VW is crap because so many of the engines they built into the tractors failed under load.
If Backblaze is too effing stupid to use the right tool for the right effing job then they cannot blame anyone but themselves.