Backblaze seems to relish providing transparency into their infrastructure. We’ve been sharing their annual drive failure reports whenever we come across them, because it gives a fascinating real world look into overall drive reliability.Now the company has given an overview of how their Storage Pod rack infrastructure has evolved over time.
Backblaze has been releasing an annual report of their hard drive reliability for five years now. It’s a rare look into real world performance of drives at pretty massive scale. For 2018, they had just under 105,000 data drives in operation for their cloud storage and backup services.
Blackblaze’s recently announced B2 Snapshot Return Refund Program makes their already economical cloud storage offering even more enticing to SMBs.
Tom Hollingsworth and Rich Stroffolino discuss the news of the week, including public cloud earnings, fog computing, crowdfunded enterprise IT, and Backblaze’s hard drive reliability numbers.
While I’ve never used their service, CrashPlan was always on my radar as a competent home backup solution. I really liked the peer-to-peer element on top of their centralized cloud backup, the more options the better, right? Sadly, the company is leaving the consumer market. Dan Frith weighted his options, and opted to return his backups to Backblaze.
In this iteration of Gestalt Storage News:
– Stephen Foskett declares 2017 the year of the Cloud Extension
– Excelero’s exciting NVMesh
– Backblaze’s 10th annual backup survey
Plus, the tragic story of Firewire (RIP)
Backblaze just released their 10th annual survey results on backup frequency. As a personal and business backup provider, they have a clear interest in the responses. But, like their disk drive reliability numbers, it’s nice that they share the results publicly.
Backblaze published their drive reliability figures. They’ve got a few drives to derive data from, having 300PB of data kind of requires it. The company recently upgraded from 2TB drives from HGST and Western Digital to new Seagate 8TB drives. There was some concern that if these had significantly higher failure rates than the 2TB drive they would prove less cost effective. Afterall, the the HGST drives had a failure rate of just 1.6%.