In 2013 Backblaze saw ~14% avg failure rate at 3 years 3 months. Drive useful life: 4 years, roughly.
In 2021, Backblaze saw ~14% failure rate at 7 years 9 months. Drive useful life: about 6 years.
That gave us what was a stable-seeming, old "replace drives at 5 years, or you're getting risky" rule of thumb (unless you prefer to replace on failure, of course).
In 2025, Backblaze saw ~5% failure rate at 10 years 3 months. Drive useful life: ~10 years, roughly!
I find the upgrade quite surprising. I would have expected them to be mature already in 2013. Or maybe there is change in selection. Blackblaze did go for cheap drives before. But with most users moving to SSD as default drive maybe overall HDDs have moved to more reliable segment. As in lower quality drives are just not made for desktops in mass volumes.
Part of it was drive quality. The 2011 flood that impacted Western Digital[1] caused them to buy a lot of lower-quality Seagate drives which affected their stats for years.
But I think part of it is the modern densities have less tolerance for manufacturing issues, so if the disks work they work well. Kinda like the Mars rovers which only had to work 90 days but they really had to work, so they ended up working for years.
> modern densities have less tolerance for manufacturing issues, so if the disks work they work well
Backblaze even showed with their statistics that the "bathtub curve" is dead - new drives have a barely lower failure rate than middle-aged drives <a href="https://www.backblaze.com/blog/drive-failure-over-time-the-bathtub-curve-is-leaking/" rel="nofollow">https://www.backblaze.com/blog/drive-failure-over-time-the-b...
It isn't that it is dead, it is just pushed out really really far. So the bathtub curve turns into, "if it survives birth, it lives forever"
Well, until the tail of the bathtub, which still seems to be there, but more of a wide dyke rather then a sharp and tall bathtub-edge. Which is father away than it used to be.
Drives still have a meaningful average working life is what I see in te data. There's just barely any infant mortality left.
The term "bathtub curve" came from the fact that typically hard disks had a lot of early deaths in the first year right out of the factory, hence a graph of hard drive death age would have a high side on the left (brand new drives dying) and a high side on the right (old drives dying), and during the average lifetime the drives were reliable, so the curve was shaped like a bathtub (high sides, flat bottom).
This lead to a lot of people doing things like intensive burn-in cycles for a week to test new drives before putting them in their machines.
When there are no longer early deaths (the "left" side of the bathtub), it's just "old things wear out" which doesn't have a special word for it.
I remember back in the late nineties / early 2000s drive failures really were pretty common. During my childhood I think I had three. I've never had a catastrophic failure since then, really came a long way.
> I remember back in the late nineties / early 2000s drive failures really were pretty common.
Yup. And most people wouldn't bother but typically you could RMA HDDs: the terms were quite generous. I was in Europe and did learn, as a teenager, how to RMA HDDs to get shiny replacements (IIRC for example for Seagate HDDs I'd send them to the Netherlands and then after a few weeks I'd get a new one by the mail).
My father was deep into photography in that era and digitized all his photos. He was understandably paranoid about drive failures. The solution? ZIP disks everywhere! Cue massive family stress when the disk containing his competition entry was nowhere to be found and definitely in one of the kids rooms. It was, of course, found 3 days later in the glove box of his truck (thank you for reading my lowercase-t trauma dump).
I think that's because there is differences in comparison. When an HDD reached 5 (or X) years it's much more likely to live to 10 (or y) years than one that died at 2 (or Z) years already. ;)
There is both the mathematical truth to it, but also the physical/chemical one. If something eg. deformed or had a slight manufacturing mistake the wear will be quicker. If everything works perfectly and eg. there are little vibrations (can be everything from earthquake to noise) then HDDs also tend to live longer and run faster. Of course the shipping process also can take its toll and vary greatly.
I think in the world of computers it's all to easy to forget that things largely aren't binary and "logically perfect". Even with advancements in manufacturing and materials drives are physical things in the real world influenced by many things inside and outside of the manufacturer's and user's control.
> That gave us what was a stable-seeming, old "replace drives at 5 years, or you're getting risky" rule of thumb (unless you prefer to replace on failure, of course).
That's not exactly what this means. This is like life expectancy at birth vs life expectancy at current age. (which is the thing where people act like "only kings got old" in the past, when while there is some truth to it also doesn't mean "you would be dead by 30" when you already reached adulthood. The biggest difference we got regarding life expectancy at birth by far was doctors and nurses cleaning their hands, followed by things like vaccines for childhood diseases)
Manufacturing errors are likely to hit early. So replacing a drive means you might replace a perfectly healthy drive with one that will eat your data.
Just use SMART and you have a way better insight of how well your drive does than any such advice.
And also you likely won't run your drives in the same conditions as Backblaze, so things might vary in both directions.
There is shipping, storage, running conditions, series, manufacturing, and many variables. So you have a way better understanding of your drive than what Backblaze can provide if you just look at your drive's SMART data and run a self test.
This is broadly consistent with my own experience at smaller scale. Out of a dozen or so 2TB HGST drives in use for 10+ years (mostly Ultrastar SATA, with a few Deskstars that may or may not be mechanically identical), I've had only one failure, and that was of a bare drive that was outside my control, so I have no idea how it was handled. And this was in a dusty environment with no air conditioning, not a datacenter.
Likewise with SSDs. Given their slightly more write intensive than ordinary desktop workloads, I'm reasonably confident that the capacitors in my 10-year-old enterprise SSDs (HGST SAS with Intel flash) will fail before the flash.
I wonder if any of the improvements in failure rates were caused by changes in how backblaze operates the drives? Like, have they learned things about cooling or improved write leveling or better power management or something.
Could be better controllers, or better driver firmware, or something.
Just curious where in the chain the improvements come from.
realityfactchex · · focus · HN ↗
In 2021, Backblaze saw ~14% failure rate at 7 years 9 months. Drive useful life: about 6 years.
That gave us what was a stable-seeming, old "replace drives at 5 years, or you're getting risky" rule of thumb (unless you prefer to replace on failure, of course).
In 2025, Backblaze saw ~5% failure rate at 10 years 3 months. Drive useful life: ~10 years, roughly!
Thanks for all the HDD improvements, industry!
Ekaros · · focus · HN ↗
magicalhippo · · focus · HN ↗
But I think part of it is the modern densities have less tolerance for manufacturing issues, so if the disks work they work well. Kinda like the Mars rovers which only had to work 90 days but they really had to work, so they ended up working for years.
[1]: <a href="https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-flood-on-the-diskdrive-market" rel="nofollow">https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-flood-on-the-diskdrive-market
kalleboo · · focus · HN ↗
Backblaze even showed with their statistics that the "bathtub curve" is dead - new drives have a barely lower failure rate than middle-aged drives <a href="https://www.backblaze.com/blog/drive-failure-over-time-the-bathtub-curve-is-leaking/" rel="nofollow">https://www.backblaze.com/blog/drive-failure-over-time-the-b...
genxy · · focus · HN ↗
brnt · · focus · HN ↗
Drives still have a meaningful average working life is what I see in te data. There's just barely any infant mortality left.
kalleboo · · focus · HN ↗
This lead to a lot of people doing things like intensive burn-in cycles for a week to test new drives before putting them in their machines.
When there are no longer early deaths (the "left" side of the bathtub), it's just "old things wear out" which doesn't have a special word for it.
bayindirh · · focus · HN ↗
The tub has not disappeared, but its shallower and longer.
mzhaase · · focus · HN ↗
mrlonglong · · focus · HN ↗
Pretty crap.
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
OptionOfT · · focus · HN ↗
gandreani · · focus · HN ↗
TacticalCoder · · focus · HN ↗
Yup. And most people wouldn't bother but typically you could RMA HDDs: the terms were quite generous. I was in Europe and did learn, as a teenager, how to RMA HDDs to get shiny replacements (IIRC for example for Seagate HDDs I'd send them to the Netherlands and then after a few weeks I'd get a new one by the mail).
anthomtb · · focus · HN ↗
nalekberov · · focus · HN ↗
tete · · focus · HN ↗
There is both the mathematical truth to it, but also the physical/chemical one. If something eg. deformed or had a slight manufacturing mistake the wear will be quicker. If everything works perfectly and eg. there are little vibrations (can be everything from earthquake to noise) then HDDs also tend to live longer and run faster. Of course the shipping process also can take its toll and vary greatly.
I think in the world of computers it's all to easy to forget that things largely aren't binary and "logically perfect". Even with advancements in manufacturing and materials drives are physical things in the real world influenced by many things inside and outside of the manufacturer's and user's control.
Sohcahtoa82 · · focus · HN ↗
And not because it failed, but because I was doing a system overhaul and replaced all my storage with M.2 NVMe drives.
tete · · focus · HN ↗
That's not exactly what this means. This is like life expectancy at birth vs life expectancy at current age. (which is the thing where people act like "only kings got old" in the past, when while there is some truth to it also doesn't mean "you would be dead by 30" when you already reached adulthood. The biggest difference we got regarding life expectancy at birth by far was doctors and nurses cleaning their hands, followed by things like vaccines for childhood diseases)
Manufacturing errors are likely to hit early. So replacing a drive means you might replace a perfectly healthy drive with one that will eat your data.
Just use SMART and you have a way better insight of how well your drive does than any such advice.
And also you likely won't run your drives in the same conditions as Backblaze, so things might vary in both directions.
There is shipping, storage, running conditions, series, manufacturing, and many variables. So you have a way better understanding of your drive than what Backblaze can provide if you just look at your drive's SMART data and run a self test.
jasomill · · focus · HN ↗
Likewise with SSDs. Given their slightly more write intensive than ordinary desktop workloads, I'm reasonably confident that the capacitors in my 10-year-old enterprise SSDs (HGST SAS with Intel flash) will fail before the flash.
cortesoft · · focus · HN ↗
Could be better controllers, or better driver firmware, or something.
Just curious where in the chain the improvements come from.
Melatonic · · focus · HN ↗
tiffanyh · · focus · HN ↗
usefulcat · · focus · HN ↗