GNU social JP
  • FAQ
  • Login
GNU social JPは日本のGNU socialサーバーです。
Usage/ToS/admin/test/Pleroma FE
  • Public

    • Public
    • Network
    • Groups
    • Featured
    • Popular
    • People

Conversation

Notices

  1. Embed this notice
    Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 03:36:00 JST Carl T. Bergstrom Carl T. Bergstrom
    • waldok :polarbear:
    • Ars Technica

    Sadly, @arstechnica is embarrassing themselves with their innumeracy here.

    The average time-to-failure of HDDs is not less than three years, and the study in question does not claim that they do.

    So what went wrong....?

    https://fediscience.org/@arstechnica@mastodon.social/110310597119922958 h/t @waldok

    In conversation Friday, 05-May-2023 03:36:00 JST from fediscience.org permalink

    Attachments



    1. https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/741/530/493/919/original/6a92cd64047dce72.png
    • Embed this notice
      Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:11 JST Carl T. Bergstrom Carl T. Bergstrom
      in reply to
      • waldok :polarbear:
      • Ars Technica

      @waldok @arstechnica

      The previous story also makes the intriguing claim that older drives have longer lifetimes than newer drives. The blog post from which they take this claim does not offer adequate explanation for me to be certain, but one has to wonder.

      I'm guessing this is what happened: "we did a study of drives that failed in 2022 and found that drives made in 2007 were on average 15 years old when they failed, whereas drives made in 2020 were on average 2 years old at failure."

      In conversation Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:11 JST permalink

      Attachments


      1. https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/864/821/935/460/original/ae32e7b635aecc3b.png
    • Embed this notice
      Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:12 JST Carl T. Bergstrom Carl T. Bergstrom
      in reply to
      • waldok :polarbear:
      • Ars Technica

      @waldok l

      This story follows a previous @arstechnica story that somehow managed not to notice that hard drives sent to a data recovery company are not a good sample from which to estimate hard drive failure rates and instead blames SMR (shingled magnetic recording) technology.

      It even notes that the previous study sounded too bad to be true, but then takes the Backblaze results as evidence to the contrary.

      https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/03/hdds-arent-as-durable-as-they-used-to-be-study-of-2007-damaged-drives-suggests/

      In conversation Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:12 JST permalink

      Attachments



      1. https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/848/716/801/884/original/14751302559617a5.png
      2. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: cdn.arstechnica.net
        HDD average life span misses 3-year mark in study of 2,007 defective drives [Updated]
        Data recovery firm blames SMR and size, following limited analysis.
      Paul Cantrell and GNU Too repeated this.
    • Embed this notice
      Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:13 JST Carl T. Bergstrom Carl T. Bergstrom
      in reply to
      • waldok :polarbear:
      • Ars Technica

      @waldok @arstechnica

      This does not mean that your drive will fail at 2.5 years on average.

      In fact, something closer to the data we need are buried deeper in the article: the annualized failure rate data. The average annualized failure rate is 1.4%.

      We don't know the distribution of failure times, but for comparison, if the risk of failure was constant over time and thus the lifetime of a hard drive was exponentially distributed, this would correspond to an average lifetime of 70 years.

      In conversation Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:13 JST permalink

      Attachments


      1. https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/783/504/916/516/original/fc6a88e0f2afcb10.png
    • Embed this notice
      Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:14 JST Carl T. Bergstrom Carl T. Bergstrom
      in reply to
      • waldok :polarbear:
      • Ars Technica

      It's a form of selection bias.

      The study in question looks at the failure times not of all hard drives, but *of the drives that failed*.

      Of those drives, the average failure time was 2.5 years.

      @waldok @arstechnica

      In conversation Friday, 05-May-2023 09:07:14 JST permalink

      Attachments


      1. https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/762/111/027/896/original/ad72953077acabef.png
    • Embed this notice
      GNU Too (gnu2@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 09:37:17 JST GNU Too GNU Too
      in reply to
      • waldok :polarbear:
      • Ars Technica
      @ct_bergstrom @waldok @arstechnica lulz
      In conversation Friday, 05-May-2023 09:37:17 JST permalink

Feeds

  • Activity Streams
  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.