><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> Actually Google's study did say that failure rates were highly correlated<br>
> with the model and manufacturer. Unfortunately for us, they didn't name any<br>
> specific manufacturers or models in their report. From the report:<br>
><br>
> "Failure rates are known to be highly correlated with drive<br>
> models, manufacturers and vintages [18]. Our results do<br>
> not contradict this fact. For example, Figure 2 changes<br>
> significantly when we normalize failure rates per each<br>
> drive model. Most age-related results are impacted by<br>
> drive vintages. However, in this paper, we do not show a<br>
> breakdown of drives per manufacturer, model, or vintage<br>
> due to the proprietary nature of these data."<br>
><br>
> The interesting thing from the report was that higher temperatures and heavy<br>
> usage didn't seem to correlate with a higher failure rates regardless of<br>
> manufacturer. The report is short and easy to read or just skim over if<br>
> anybody wants to look more closely:<br>
> <a href="http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf" target="_blank">http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf</a>.<br>
<br>
hrmm, the report I read from them talked about failures being more<br>
related to environment than manufacturer/model. I wonder if they since<br>
updated their report?<br>
<br></blockquote></div>This is the report from a couple of years ago. It is the only one I recall seeing. It always stuck out in my memory because it contradicted the common idea that higher temperatures and heavy usage were the main causes of drive failures. In that report I think they do say that there were other studies that seemed to indicate that temperature was a factor. However, no other study used nearly as many drives as Google, so it is generally seen as being more reliable data.<br>