Dispelling Backblaze's HDD Reliability Myth - The Real Story Covered - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 11:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
HomeArticlesIT/DatacenterEditorials
Dispelling Backblaze's HDD Reliability Myth - The Real Story Covered


Read more at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html#UX5OD0IAgPphmv71.99
Quote:

Introduction

Companies have a funny tendency to do just about anything for publicity. Being a storage writer requires staying up to date on the news, and in the normal course of my week, I watch companies clamor for attention daily. Attempts range from the mundane to the hilarious, and sometimes even questionable. Some will do anything to separate themselves from the thunderous cacophony of the thousand other companies screaming for attention.


Personally, I'm happy I'm not the one tasked with promoting companies or their products. I can see that there must be somewhat of an addictive property to nailing it though, as we observed from the splash of Backblaze headlines in the last few weeks.

Backblaze has had their name emblazoned on the front page of every tech website this week with the results of their HDD reliability blog post. Backblaze's blog is a running anthology of their company, and their efforts to provide users with unlimited online backup for a scant $5 a month. The very fact that you read that sentence makes this all worthwhile for Backblaze - they just got their message out.

This latest post is a result of their initial blog entries covering how long HDDs last, and the follow-up that enterprise HDD's are less reliable than consumer drives. Needless to say, there are holes in the methodology big enough to drive a truck through. However, the headlines led to questions from the public about more detailed drive failure rates, and Backblaze complied with the latest post, "Which Hard Drive Should I Buy?"

While Backblaze is somewhat clear about the results, they don't explain the test environment, and they don't do a good job of explaining why much of their data is worthless to the typical consumer. Further digging unearths questionable practices, at least if the goal is to gather data on drive reliability. Backblaze follows the open source mentality of sharing data on their enclosures, and even share schematics so readers can build their own Backblaze servers. This provides us some insight into their activities.

Reading their blog posts during the HDD crisis in 2011 is enthralling, they really do go to any length to continue operation in a cost-efficient manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't fall in line with determining the winners or losers of HDD reliability. To add insult to injury, most tech websites have picked this story up and proclaimed the results as a definitive guide to drive reliability.

The Backblaze results have been tallied and placed in nice charts, and winners proclaimed. Hitachi and Western Digital appear to be the winners, and Seagate comes in a distant third. However, in this case, even the winners are losers. Let's fire up the truck and drive through the holes in this test, and explain exactly why the results shouldn't affect anyone's purchasing decision.

Backblaze unabashedly sources the cheapest consumer drives they can find for storing their customers' data. Their noble goal is to provide storage as cheaply as possible, and then pass those savings along to their customers. They do not use drives indiscriminately, each model goes through a short test phase to assure the drive suits their purposes. Pairing these cheap drives with various RAID and replication schemes provides enough integrity to safely store data.


During the Thailand flooding in October 2011, Backblaze had to go to extreme lengths to procure enough drives to sustain operations. With the prices of HDD's rising exponentially, and supply in short stock, they literally took to the streets as a drastic form of damage control. They named the practice 'drive farming'.

First, they found that buying external drives was very cost effective. The whims of the market dictate that external drives are often cheaper than internal desktop drives. These drives come in small enclosures and are usually connected via USB or eSATA. Backblaze buys these drives, and strips the drives from the enclosures in a process they lovingly refer to as "shucking". Much like shucking a head of corn, they rip the enclosure apart and out pops a useable HDD.

During the Thailand flooding in October 2011, Backblaze had to go to extreme lengths to procure enough drives to sustain operations. With the prices of HDD's rising exponentially, and supply in short stock, they literally took to the streets as a drastic form of damage control. They named the practice 'drive farming'.

First, they found that buying external drives was very cost effective. The whims of the market dictate that external drives are often cheaper than internal desktop drives. These drives come in small enclosures and are usually connected via USB or eSATA. Backblaze buys these drives, and strips the drives from the enclosures in a process they lovingly refer to as "shucking". Much like shucking a head of corn, they rip the enclosure apart and out pops a useable HDD.

6028_02_dispelling_the_backblaze_hdd_reliability_myth_the_real_story.png

At first they pillaged area Fry's and Costco's until some employees were eventually banned from purchasing more drives. They fanned out further and enlisted the help of friends and family to continue purchasing drives, even detailing complex drive purchasing schedules to skirt drive purchasing limitations. When this approach began to fizzle in the local area, they even pondered going cross-country in Ryder truck. This eventually led to crowdsourcing. Backblaze offered their readers a $5 bounty per drive for drives purchased and sent to them during a Costco sale.

This practice exhibits amazing ingenuity and a laudable effort to deliver the best bang for the buck to their customers. Unfortunately, it doesn't mesh well with creating a stable sample pool to determine drive reliability. Backblaze also acknowledges using drives that were known RMA's, and refurbished, in the sample pool.

6028_03_dispelling_the_backblaze_hdd_reliability_myth_the_real_story.png


The majority of Backblaze's failures occur in the first few weeks of service, which is understandable considering their drive purchasing methods. The typical 'bathtub curve' of failures is expected with many storage devices, with the highest chance of failure in the beginning and ending stages of the product's life. However, it is feasible to conclude that their drive sourcing methods tainted their results.

Interestingly enough, Backblaze won $5 million in venture funding. Soon after, Costco was offering a sale on external HDD's with a limit of five per person. Even with the massive funding, they chose to take advantage of the sale to get the best bang for their buck. As they stated, old habits die hard.

Unfortunately, these drives are included in their failure ratings.

Backblaze also extends their ingenuity to the server rack. They have designed purpose-built Storage Pod enclosures, and share the schematic freely online. This commendable commitment to information sharing also sheds light on their 'failure rate' data.

The Storage Pod is currently on revision 3.0, with two prior incarnations requiring upgrades to deal with a number of design problems, most notably vibration.

6028_04_dispelling_the_backblaze_hdd_reliability_myth_the_real_story.jpg

Vibration is every hard drive's enemy, and creates an exponential amount of wear on components. Vibration even has performance implications. A typical desktop HDD experiences a relatively vibration-free existence in a stable environment, and is designed accordingly. One of the major differences in enterprise HDD design is vibration resistance technology. This allows the drive to function well and stand up to the wear and tear of the server chassis and rack.

More HDDs installed in an enclosure raises the amount of vibration. Backblaze packs 45 HDDs per enclosure for maximum storage density. While the drives are initially exposed to vibration from their neighbors inside the server, once placed into the rack, they are exposed to even more vibration from other servers. This creates the 'perfect storm' of vibration, and the use of consumer drives results in horrendous failure rates, as evidenced by the data from Backblaze.

6028_05_dispelling_the_backblaze_hdd_reliability_myth_the_real_story.png


It is no wonder that Backblaze has continued to refine their chassis to provide more resistance to vibration: the early models merely had nylon spacers to dampen vibration. Taking a closer look at their data, we can see that the drives in use the longest suffer the highest failure rates. One likely reason is simple: these older drives are in revision 1.0 of their storage enclosures, which suffer from significant vibration issues that merited a redesign.

Unfortunately for Seagate, these drives are predominantly from their product lines. This paints them in a very unforgiving light due to obvious chassis issues, with a misleading annual failure rate of 25.4% that would surely put Seagate out of business, if it were realistic.

Backblaze has left a significant amount of information out of the disclosed failure rate data. Segmenting these drives to different chassis revisions would be the responsible approach to information dissemination. We can rest assured that the older drives aren't in the best chassis available, revision 3.0 wasn't released until February 2013.

Another issue that affects the lifespan of an HDD is drive temperature. Variations in temperature and humidity have an impact upon drive life. Reading through the Backblaze blog, one comment that drew my eye was on server rack temperature;

... we've observed in the past three years that: 1) hard drives in pods in the top of racks run three degrees warmer on average than pods in the lower shelves; 2) drives in the center of the pod run five degrees warmer than those on the perimeter; 3) pods do not need all six fans-the drives maintain the recommended operating temperature with as few as two fans; and 4) heat doesn't correlate with drive failure (at least in the ranges seen in storage pods).


6028_06_dispelling_the_backblaze_hdd_reliability_myth_the_real_story.jpg



Backblaze claims that drive temperature doesn't affect drive life. That is counter to the observations of many others, including drive manufacturers. There is a reason for specified temperature ranges for HDD's. Though they are likely within these ranges, the Backblaze drives cannot be directly compared to each other with varying temperature ranges, let alone other drives. Once again, the lack of pertinent information makes any real conclusions impossible, and the uneven nature of the test environment spoils the data.


Workloads

Each drive is designed meticulously to provide a tightly-defined service level in its intended environment. These guidelines determine not only the design, but also the type of components used. The most cost-effective drives are designed to deliver exactly the correct performance and longevity in their intended environment, and nothing more. Utilizing robust components above the workload requirements of the drive is wasteful, and adds cost unnecessarily. This design efficiency also means the drives are more likely to fail in untoward conditions.


Backblaze procures the cheapest possible HDD on the market at all times, regardless of its workload rating, and then subjects them to a harsh environment that is virtually guaranteed to destroy the drive. This leads to higher failure rates than observed in the wild. This reflects just how precisely these drives are engineered to fulfil their stated purpose, and nothing more.

Another concern is the direct comparisons between drives, even though they endure varying workloads. Comparing drives of the same make and model is impossible if the same workload isn't applied. Expanding that out to compare different models and manufacturers is even more ridiculous. There is no way to know how many times the drives have spun up and down, and how many times the drives were subjected to varying types of data requests.

Random data requires more movement, and thus creates more wear and tear on delicate HDD heads. Spinning up and down, and also entering and recovering from various sleep states, also wears the drives differently over the course of time. With no real rhyme or reason to the workload distribution, let alone the environment, direct comparisons are impossible.

Only one thing is certain; the drives were subjected to workloads well beyond their design limits.


Final Thoughts


The data from Backblaze should not influence a purchasing decision by any consumer, regardless of what type of drive they are purchasing. The innumerable variables, and lack of documentation, ensures the results are unreliable. Even for the winners, the results aren't good; the failure rates are exponentially higher than those observed in the real-world. One should question whether these companies could survive financially with the massive warranty return rates in real-world scenarios.

We covered some of the most obvious holes in the methodology behind the Backblaze comparisons, but there are many more, such as sample size. With varying numbers of drives for each model, it is possible that some bad batches may have made their way into the sample pool, thus further skewing the numbers.


There is no clearer example of this than in their blog post titled "Enterprise Drives: Facts or Fiction?". In this blog post, Backblaze compared 368 enterprise HDDs, presumably purchased as a batch, to 14,719 consumer drives. Along with the fact that a bad batch may skew the numbers, Backblaze admits they subjected the drives to various chassis, temperatures and workloads. This creates data that is essentially worthless for comparative purposes, but when paired with a catchy title, it serves the purpose of attracting attention.

The enthusiast in me loves the Backblaze story. They are determined to deliver great value to their customers, and will go to any length to do so. Reading the blog posts about the extreme measures they took was engrossing, and I'm sure they enjoyed rising to the challenge. Their Storage Pod is a compelling design that has been field-tested extensively, and refined to provide a compelling price point per GB of storage.

It is the release of the data, in handy charts and graphs that encourage misrepresentation, which brings out the data-storage stickler in me. HDD manufacturers spend billions of dollars in R&D, and their labs are designed to characterize and measure the reliability and endurance of their storage solutions.

The Backblaze environment is the exact opposite. I do not believe I could dream up worse conditions to study and compare drive reliability. It's hard to believe they plotted this out and convened a meeting to outline a process to buy the cheapest drives imaginable, from all manner of ridiculous sources, install them into varying (and sometimes flawed) chassis, then stack them up and subject them to entirely different workloads and environmental conditions... all with the purpose of determining drive reliability.

Of course that wasn't the intention, but that is how some will interpret the data. In my opinion, the intoxicating allure of media coverage overwhelmed common sense, and Backblaze released these numbers with a catchy title that would attract attention. The tech media is to blame as well, with many posting the information with little or no research. Unfortunately, the Backblaze blog post will be copy/pasted innumerable times for years to come as an authoritative source of data, when it is the furthest thing from a comprehensive study imaginable.

Read more at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index5.html#iLFiOVkFF8G0dFIe.99



Thoughts ???

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 12:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Good article.

Unfortunately there is almost no other similar data (good or bad) on hard drive reliability which is why the original article was so popular.

Since there are millions of hard drives out there it's really a shame. The consumer should know more about this subject.
assassin is offline  
post #3 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 12:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Good article.

Unfortunately there is almost no other similar data (good or bad) on hard drive reliability which is why the original article was so popular.

Since there are millions of hard drives out there it's really a shame. The consumer should know more about this subject.

I agree. I wish there was more information. The only thing that seems certain from that article is the Hitachi appears to be very good. They had average age of drives 1.5-2 years and high sample size. If this article above is right and the conditions were less ideal, then the fact Hitachi did well in them regardless suggests they are good. I can't imagine a scenario where if you improve conditions the drive reliability would fall.

I looked into those Hitachi drives a bit after reading that article and I found they not only have double the MTBF rating of WD or Seagate (2 millions versus 1 million) but they also have double the warranty (5 year warranty vs only 2 or 3 years)

Additionally I discovered they are available in 7200rpm and 4TB sizes (something that is hard to get as a combo) so you can get big capacity and good performance too.

I also found they sell under $189 for the 4TB. That seems like a great choice for storage. The 5 year warranty basically ensures you will have a working drive for 5 years. That is value right there.

So I did appreciate reading that first Backblaze article.

I also appreciated reading this article above as a counter to it, the combination of the two keeps me in check. I found a Hitachi drive I love, but I don't stop buying the Seagate models I love and had good luck with as long as the price remains great.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #4 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 12:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Good article.

Not really. I skimmed quickly through the article and kept thinking how poor the logic was and how sorely lacking it was with any supporting evidence to its claims. Then I went back and saw that it was written by Paul Alcorn. If I had seen the byline earlier, I would not have been surprised at how bad the article was, since I have read a number of things he has written in the past. As far as I can tell, he has no educational credentials in statistics or engineering, and it really shows. Compare that to the credentials of Brian Beach, who has had a distinguished engineering career and has a strong background in engineering and statistics.

Rather than waste time on Alcorn's article, just consider that there is only one important question to consider when deciding whether backblaze's data can be useful in making HDD purchase decisions: whether any of Backblaze's methodology is flawed in a way that favors one manufacturer over another. Few of supposed methodological flaws mentioned in Alcorn's article obviously favor one manufacturer, and where there is some small possibility of bias, Beach has already discussed it in his original article.
jim2100 is offline  
post #5 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 05:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Not really. I skimmed quickly through the article and kept thinking how poor the logic was and how sorely lacking it was with any supporting evidence to its claims. Then I went back and saw that it was written by Paul Alcorn. If I had seen the byline earlier, I would not have been surprised at how bad the article was, since I have read a number of things he has written in the past. As far as I can tell, he has no educational credentials in statistics or engineering, and it really shows. Compare that to the credentials of Brian Beach, who has had a distinguished engineering career and has a strong background in engineering and statistics.

Rather than waste time on Alcorn's article, just consider that there is only one important question to consider when deciding whether backblaze's data can be useful in making HDD purchase decisions: whether any of Backblaze's methodology is flawed in a way that favors one manufacturer over another. Few of supposed methodological flaws mentioned in Alcorn's article obviously favor one manufacturer, and where there is some small possibility of bias, Beach has already discussed it in his original article.

I am amazed you know the author. Are you sure he has no credentials or just guessing ? What makes you dislike him ? Any other bad articles ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #6 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 05:29 PM
Senior Member
 
mcturkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Not really. I skimmed quickly through the article and kept thinking how poor the logic was and how sorely lacking it was with any supporting evidence to its claims. Then I went back and saw that it was written by Paul Alcorn. If I had seen the byline earlier, I would not have been surprised at how bad the article was, since I have read a number of things he has written in the past. As far as I can tell, he has no educational credentials in statistics or engineering, and it really shows. Compare that to the credentials of Brian Beach, who has had a distinguished engineering career and has a strong background in engineering and statistics.

Rather than waste time on Alcorn's article, just consider that there is only one important question to consider when deciding whether backblaze's data can be useful in making HDD purchase decisions: whether any of Backblaze's methodology is flawed in a way that favors one manufacturer over another. Few of supposed methodological flaws mentioned in Alcorn's article obviously favor one manufacturer, and where there is some small possibility of bias, Beach has already discussed it in his original article.

I agree with you - this article talks about the data Backblaze presented as a myth... considering that they presented the facts of their own experience with thousands of drives, I'm not sure how anyone can logically claim it's a myth. Their methodology, while not perfect by any means, was probably more representative of the experience that a typical consumer is likely to have. An enterprise customer can buy direct from the manufacturer, get drives shipped properly every time (no poor packaging, no poor delivery handling, etc), and use enclosures built to maximize drive reliability over cost savings. Backblaze used consumer drives that may or may not have been packaged and delivered perfectly. Every drive group would have suffered from a certain amount of delivery abuse, which I strongly suspect to be one of the leading causes of early failure.

The only possible point that I think this article makes is the lack of clear data on survival rate in each pod design. Beyond that, there's not really a bias shown to one manufacturer or another. It is also necessary to recognize that the Seagate 1.5TB failure rates shouldn't count as a mark against overall Seagate failure - they were a known bad line of drives that are an anomaly compared to the other capacities.
mcturkey is offline  
post #7 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 05:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I am amazed you know the author.

I'm surprised you do not. You remind me of him (Paul Alcorn, aka computurd). A lot.
EricN likes this.
jim2100 is offline  
post #8 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 06:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcturkey View Post

I agree with you - this article talks about the data Backblaze presented as a myth... considering that they presented the facts of their own experience with thousands of drives, I'm not sure how anyone can logically claim it's a myth. Their methodology, while not perfect by any means, was probably more representative of the experience that a typical consumer is likely to have. An enterprise customer can buy direct from the manufacturer, get drives shipped properly every time (no poor packaging, no poor delivery handling, etc), and use enclosures built to maximize drive reliability over cost savings. Backblaze used consumer drives that may or may not have been packaged and delivered perfectly. Every drive group would have suffered from a certain amount of delivery abuse, which I strongly suspect to be one of the leading causes of early failure.

The only possible point that I think this article makes is the lack of clear data on survival rate in each pod design. Beyond that, there's not really a bias shown to one manufacturer or another. It is also necessary to recognize that the Seagate 1.5TB failure rates shouldn't count as a mark against overall Seagate failure - they were a known bad line of drives that are an anomaly compared to the other capacities.

I can't imagine a scenario where if you made the study better would somehow suggest Hitachi was not reliable. If they did good, they did good. Period. They seem head and shoulders above the rest. Bigger sample size and period tested, and Hitachi was rather consistent across all their models. If I had to draw a conclusion it would be that Hitachi was good.

But is seems Seagate might have been disadvantaged a bit, and WD did not have enough tested long enough. Only 346 WD RED models with avg age being only .5 years is not enough data for me. Hitachi had over 12,000 hard drives with average age 2 years, and they tested thousands of each model and each model did well. Hard to poke holes in that. Perhaps some redemption or a rematch for Seagate is needed, but I can't see how you can knock Hitachi for doing well in the less than ideal scenario. If you made the test easier would Hitachi do worse ?? I doubt it.

I'd love to see the newer Seagate models and WD models and how they hold up over the next year. That will be interesting to me.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #9 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I can't imagine a scenario where if you made the study better would somehow suggest Hitachi was not reliable. If they did good, they did good. Period.

The problem is, that's not a logical conclusion you can arrive at from that post.

You can certainly conclude that those specific models of Hitachi drives are reliable. They certainly didn't skew anything to make the drives last longer.

The problem is you can't just assume that based on a couple of models used that the entire brand is particularly reliable.

If you're going to allow for dismissing the Seagate 1.5TB drives as "a bad model" then you have to allow for the possibility that the Hitachis used could have been "a good model"

You can't pick and choose your outliers on a whim.
assassin likes this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is offline  
post #10 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 07:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
I think almost any article (good or bad, pro or con) on this subject is worthy of reading. Extremely relevant to this forum where we are all (okay many of us anyway) looking to store our media.
Djoel likes this.
assassin is offline  
post #11 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 07:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

I think almost any article (good or bad, pro or con) on this subject is worthy of reading.

What an odd thing to say. What use is an article that states a number of incorrect things, or talks nonsense? What if Mfusick's posts on the subject of HDDs were collected into an article?
jim2100 is offline  
post #12 of 129 Old 02-01-2014, 07:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

What an odd thing to say. What use is an article that states a number of incorrect things, or talks nonsense? What if Mfusick's posts on the subject of HDDs were collected into an article?

Because just as you have done it brings light to the subject. I had no idea about the very insightful things you brought up about the author. Now I do. And now I understand both the rebuttal and the original article much better. And it strengthens the original article even more, imo.

And just like mfusick's confused posts will be refuted and disproven with actual fact and science and not just loud and overly wordy opinion.
assassin is offline  
post #13 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

The problem is, that's not a logical conclusion you can arrive at from that post.

You can certainly conclude that those specific models of Hitachi drives are reliable. They certainly didn't skew anything to make the drives last longer.

The problem is you can't just assume that based on a couple of models used that the entire brand is particularly reliable.

If you're going to allow for dismissing the Seagate 1.5TB drives as "a bad model" then you have to allow for the possibility that the Hitachis used could have been "a good model"

You can't pick and choose your outliers on a whim.

You make a valid point. Perhaps other models may not be the same, so you can't paint the entire MFG with a broad brush. I agree and have said this before too.

But if you were forced to make a guess or a purchase decision the limited data does suggest Hitachi a good choice. That's not conclusive but it's still something.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #14 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,185
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

I think almost any article (good or bad, pro or con) on this subject is worthy of reading.

That's the attitude that propagates the "teach the controversy" crap. The notion that all theories are valid and all opinions worthy, this is the very essence of anti-science.

The article in this thread is click-bait trash. The author stacks hypothetical upon hypothetical to rebut a pile of data. He neither supplies new evidence nor performs any statistical analysis to support his conclusion that Seagate merely fell victim to a syzygy of biases. Amusingly, his attempt to generate ad traffic failed here, because the one thing Mfusick respects less than science is other people's copyrights.
jim2100 likes this.
EricN is online now  
post #15 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
What's wrong with some copy pasta ? biggrin.gif

I gave credit and a link smile.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #16 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post

That's the attitude that propagates the "teach the controversy" crap. The notion that all theories are valid and all opinions worthy, this is the very essence of anti-science.

The article in this thread is click-bait trash. The author stacks hypothetical upon hypothetical to rebut a pile of data. He neither supplies new evidence nor performs any statistical analysis to support his conclusion that Seagate merely fell victim to a syzygy of biases. Amusingly, his attempt to generate ad traffic failed here, because the one thing Mfusick respects less than science is other people's copyrights.

Very true. What I meant was that I like articles that get people talking about actual reliability DATA and in that regard I like all articles because it gets us talking.(especially on a subject like this where there is almost zero actual data).

Some of the best articles in science are articles about experiments or trials that fail to prove their hypothesis. With the new information provided about the rebuttal author that is where we are which makes the original article that much better, imo. I didn't know this before because I didn't know much about the author.
assassin is offline  
post #17 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
I haven't seen any evidence of the author that's negative only Jim's opinion on him.

Not saying Jim is wrong or I don't agree either; just the jury might still be out rather than case closed. I don't actually know enough to have an opinion on the author. I just thought the article was interesting. I agree with Assassin any article is a good one if it gets information spread or discovered.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #18 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
jbcain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 63
An article is only as good as it's proof towards the subject.
jbcain is offline  
post #19 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
I am reading the article on my phone but why is there no area for comments? Is this always disabled on that website?
assassin is offline  
post #20 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
jbcain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 63
must be your phone.

jbcain is offline  
post #21 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 06:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

You make a valid point. Perhaps other models may not be the same, so you can't paint the entire MFG with a broad brush. I agree and have said this before too.

But if you were forced to make a guess or a purchase decision the limited data does suggest Hitachi a good choice. That's not conclusive but it's still something.

Bot you weren't forced to make a guess. That's the point. All you ever talked in regards to hard drives was pimping the Seagate drives... right up until the backblaze article got posted, and from that moment on, you've decided that Hitachi (and by your "somebody's got a gun to my head and their forcing me to extrapolate about data that isn't actually there!" logic, Toshiba as well) is the new mfusick approved hard drive brand. And once you got it in your head that you liked Hitachi/Toshiba, you've continued to plug their superb reliability and without actually bringing any relevant data to the discussion.

In the absence of relevant data most people simply don't talk about the data.
In the absence of relevant data, you chose to bring up irrelevant data.

Personally, I don't care if you want to give recommendations for various products. What bothers me is when you do it and try to justify it with bad data, or bad logic.
assassin likes this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is offline  
post #22 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 07:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
You need your meds bro.

First,

Calm down.

Second,
if you go back months and months ago in that original Seagate vs WD 5400rpm thread Assassin started you'll clearly see where I bought Hitachi and Seagate and Toshiba, even posting my receipt, the price I paid, and pictures of the hard drives I bought. I even compared them, and gave them all a thumbs up. I'm brand agnostic and I'd favor any of those over the WD 5400rpm models. I'll admit this; my opinion on this is well known.

I only have more Seagate because at the time they were cheaper and more easily available. I generally feel the best hard drive is the cheaper and easily available one. All three brands are in my server now working great. I also have Samsung and WD in my server too. My worst and most disliked are the WD 5400rpm Greens because they fail and throw errors often and they are the slowest.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #23 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 07:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcain View Post

must be your phone.


Okay. Will check on the laptop. Thanks.
assassin is offline  
post #24 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

You need your meds bro.

First,

Calm down.

Second,
if you go back months and months ago in that original Seagate vs WD 5400rpm thread Assassin started you'll clearly see where I bought Hitachi and Seagate and Toshiba, even posting my receipt, the price I paid, and pictures of the hard drives I bought. I even compared them, and gave them all a thumbs up. I'm brand agnostic and I'd favor any of those over the WD 5400rpm models. I'll admit this; my opinion on this is well known.

I only have more Seagate because at the time they were cheaper and more easily available. I generally feel the best hard drive is the cheaper and easily available one. All three brands are in my server now working great. I also have Samsung and WD in my server too. My worst and most disliked are the WD 5400rpm Greens because they fail and throw errors often and they are the slowest.

First, I'm not excited. Second, I'm not your bro.

Third, I don't think you know what "brand agnostic" means. Repeatedly telling everyone how much you hate WD and their drives isn't brand agnostic. You have very clear favorites that you push on people. That isn't brand agnostic.
Joshua B and assassin like this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is offline  
post #25 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 07:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

First, I'm not excited. Second, I'm not your bro.

Third, I don't think you know what "brand agnostic" means. Repeatedly telling everyone how much you hate WD and their drives isn't brand agnostic. You have very clear favorites that you push on people. That isn't brand agnostic.

He actually is about the exact opposite of "brand agnostic" and the fact that he stated that is just ridiculous. Reminds me of the time he was pushing OCZ ssds on everyone because they had "better performance" despite many people questioning their reliability. We all know what happeded to OCZ eventually largely because of the perception (reality?) that they just weren't as reliable.
ajhieb likes this.
assassin is offline  
post #26 of 129 Old 02-02-2014, 07:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
I'd happily buy or use WD 7200rpm drives actually. I've said this many times. It's only the intellispeed (5400rpm) WD models like RED and GREEN that I hate.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #27 of 129 Old 02-03-2014, 07:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

He actually is about the exact opposite of "brand agnostic" and the fact that he stated that is just ridiculous. Reminds me of the time he was pushing OCZ ssds on everyone because they had "better performance" despite many people questioning their reliability. We all know what happeded to OCZ eventually

Actually they declared bankruptcy because of cash flow problems related to being at the mercy of the NAND market; not owning their own production or having a direct access to inventory just did them in. Overpaying or under supply of memory chips was what hurt OCZ.

The happy ending you left off I see. Intentionally?

Toshiba purchased them, gave them financial backing they needed, will still honor all warranties in main stream line SSD models, and Toshiba owns NAND production so OCZ will always have direct access to what they need most, and have control of the environment and purchase of it.

OCZ remains OCZ, now owned by parent company Toshiba.
All that said, I don't see how that at all relates to this thread ? You just throwing stones ?

OCZ is irrelevant in this discussion and the only good thing about them was you could buy their SSD products at ultra low prices. There's a lot to like about that. Take that away and you don't have much left to like about OCZ. So I don't understand your point or the relevance here.

Also since you call me out a lot I think I'll return the favor.

Do you have any evidence to suggest you post is true or did you just guess and make it up ? Specifically do you have any data or a source showing what you said (reliability) was what made OCZ declare bankruptcy ? This is what you are suggesting above right ? Or did I read it wrong ?

I have data showing that what I said is true (NAND market and supply issues) is what caused OCZ bankruptcy.

Nice to see you just making up a reality you want to exist. Pot meet kettle ?

Lastly how does OCZ bankruptcy relate to any of this or me ? I guess if I said buy an OCZ because it's cheaper and then years later OCZ declares bankruptcy because of memory supply issues that makes me evil or discredits me ? I'm not making your jump there. Seems fabricated and wishful thinking on your part, also seems intentionally aimed to discredit me or show me as wrong, but I'm not making the loose jump of logic to allow it to make sense why you even posted that.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #28 of 129 Old 02-03-2014, 07:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Actually they declared bankruptcy because of cash flow problems related to being at the mercy of the NAND market; not owning their own production or having a direct access to inventory just did them in. Overpaying or under supply of memory chips was what hurt OCZ.

The happy ending you left off I see. Intentionally?

Toshiba purchased them, gave them financial backing they needed, will still honor all warranties in main stream line SSD models, and Toshiba owns NAND production so OCZ will always have direct access to what they need most, and have control of the environment and purchase of it.

OCZ remains OCZ, now owned by parent company Toshiba.
All that said, I don't see how that at all relates to this thread ? You just throwing stones ?

OCZ is irrelevant in this discussion and the only good thing about them was you could buy their SSD products at ultra low prices. There's a lot to like about that. Take that away and you don't have much left to like about OCZ. So I don't understand your point or the relevance here.

Also since you call me out a lot I think I'll return the favor.

Do you have any evidence to suggest you post is true or did you just guess and make it up ? Specifically do you have any data or a source showing what you said (reliability) was what made OCZ declare bankruptcy ? This is what you are suggesting above right ? Or did I read it wrong ?

I have data showing that what I said is true (NAND market and supply issues) is what caused OCZ bankruptcy.

Nice to see you just making up a reality you want to exist. Pot meet kettle ?

Lastly how does OCZ bankruptcy relate to any of this or me ? I guess if I said buy an OCZ because it's cheaper and then years later OCZ declares bankruptcy because of memory supply issues that makes me evil or discredits me ? I'm not making your jump there. Seems fabricated and wishful thinking on your part, also seems intentionally aimed to discredit me or show me as wrong, but I'm not making the loose jump of logic to allow it to make sense why you even posted that.

What? I just linked you a source. Obviously you didn't even take the time to read it. There are plenty others out there...
Quote:
The press release says that “OCZ will continue to operate and serve existing and future customers during this process.” Given OCZ’s reputation for poor drive reliability—which is no doubt part of the reason the company’s on the block to begin with—it’s hard to imagine Toshiba selling SSDs under the OCZ banner once the sale is complete unless it invests some serious cash in rebuilding the brand

And how does this relate? Well let's see...

"Company A" is known for having a good performing drive at the cheapest cost but there are questions about reliability. Some random people on internet continue to spout this drive as being the "best" (well at least before the backblaze article which apparently has made you sing a different tune) while completely disregarding the questionable reliability.

I see much more similarities in "Company A" comparing OCZ SSDs and Seagate hard drives than dissimilarities. But that's just me.
assassin is offline  
post #29 of 129 Old 02-03-2014, 09:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,355
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

What? I just linked you a source. Obviously you didn't even take the time to read it. There are plenty others out there...
.

Again I am not following your logic.

First,

Who is talking about Seagate ? I'm not. I missed this part, and why you are making this jump. I thought we were bashing on Mfusick because he does not like WD 5400rpm because they cost more, have serious reliability concerns in some cases, and generally poor performance. I have (and still do) recommend the Seagate models because they work great and they are cheap, but I recommend the Hitachi and the Toshiba just the same for the same reasons. The only reason why Seagate was more popular was because the drives are often cheaper and more easily available (on sale more often). Non of this has anything to do with OCZ or SSD's IMO.

Second,

That link you posted is old, and it's negative towards OCZ intentionally, and it was written in a time of a lot of questions and no answers. They pose several negatives about OCZ during the period which is was uncertain what would happen. Would Toshiba close them? Change the name ? What about OCZ warranties ?? Will the new company honor them ? What happens to their non SSD businesses ?

If you are going to link an article link a recent one. Link one with the answers, not hearsay or questions being asked.

Here is the official release:
http://ir.ocz.com/news/detail/3014/ocz-reaches-agreement-with-toshiba-corporation-to-acquire-solid-state-drive-business
Quote:
This acquisition will provide Toshiba with access to OCZ's proprietary controllers, firmware and software, as well as the teams responsible for bringing these solutions to market, in addition to OCZ's established brand and sales channels. This strategic opportunity will bring critical controller IP and NAND supply all under one global organization, allowing for an even more robust and competitive solid state solution offering for all of OCZ's and Toshiba's mutual customers moving forward.

and,
Quote:
"Over the past year, OCZ has dealt with numerous issues which have stressed the company's capital structure and operating model, posing a challenge to achieving near term profitability. The combination of NAND flash supply constraints and credit issues have impacted our ability to satisfy the demands of our customers; this combined with increased pricing pressure in our industry have contributed to our on-going operating losses. On an operational basis, we completed a complex investigation, several restructurings and a multi-year restatement that added significantly to our working capital requirements," stated Ralph Schmitt, CEO of OCZ. "We have been working diligently on this partnership with Toshiba and we believe that this is the best outcome under our current corporate conditions."

Here was the storage review article I remember reading: http://www.storagereview.com/toshiba_closes_ocz_acquisition
Quote:
In early December OCZ Technology filed for bankruptcy and at the same time announced plans by Toshiba to acquire OCZ's key storage assets including its engineering team and controller technology. Toshiba had previously worked to supply NAND for OCZ's SSDs, a deeper pairing made sense given the strengths of each company. Toshiba owns fabs and can create NAND; OCZ has a reputable SSD controller and better distribution channels for storage products globally. Tonight Toshiba Corporation announced that the company "has finalized the purchase of substantially all assets of OCZ Technology Group, making it a wholly owned subsidiary and Toshiba Group Company." Going forward the former OCZ will operate independently as OCZ Storage Solutions, a Toshiba Group Company.

The new OCZ Storage Solutions portfolio fills many gaps for Toshiba, whose core strength is in 2.5" enterprise hard drive, and to a lesser extent SSD, solutions. Toshiba has limited exposure to the client SSD space where OCZ excels, and does not offer flash solutions targeting the high throughput PCIe space. OCA also supplements the Toshiba portfolio with software solutions and other acceleration products like ZD-XL. Of course the core benefit to the OCZ products is the immediate access to Toshiba NAND and engineering talent, which should derive both performance and economies of scale gains (lower retail prices).

OCZ Storage Solutions will remain based in San Jose, California, with strategic design centers located in Irvine, California, Tel Aviv, Israel, and Abingdon, UK

MaximumPC is usually a very good resource for news on this kind of stuff, they had a recent article that explained it well:

http://www.maximumpc.com/toshiba_finalizes_ocz_buyout_what_comes_next2014
Quote:
New Beginnings
Toshiba on Wednesday finalized the purchase of OCZ Technology Group, making it a wholly owned subsidiary and thus officially marking the end of an era that began over a decade ago. However, it's also a new beginning of sorts -- or a second chance, if you will -- as Toshiba said the division will operate independently as OCZ Storage Solutions and continue to churn out high performance solid state drives.

Going forward, OCZ Storage Solutions will use Toshiba's cutting-edge NAND flash memory chips combined with the company's proprietary controllers, firmware, and software for both client and enterprise-class SSDs. Essentially what this means is that OCZ can build drives like before, but without having to worry about shortages in the NAND flash memory market, which played a role in driving the company to bankruptcy in the first place.


So again, I'd ask you to back up your claim that poor reliability was the reason why OCZ declared bankrupcy, and then explain to me how you make that leap from that to how that effects the Backblaze study or the drives and MFG we are talking about ?
Was the goal of that post just to show that I gave some advice in the past to buy cheap SSD's, but that turned out perhaps bad (it did not really) so obviously no credit should ever be given to what I say ?

I like to talk about this stuff. I like to be accurate about it. I even like when data is shown that shows I am wrong; I like learning and discussing this stuff. What I absolutely hate is when you try to make the conversation about me and not about the technology of HTPC. Why the continual personalization of everything ? Why do you focus the conversation so much about me, and tearing me down ??? I'd love if you posted your own opinion, and why you feel that way, provided some data that supported it. That's much better IMO than trying continually to post nonsense aimed at discrediting me or my opinion. But alas this is why we can't have nice things. This isn't a personal debate and nor should it be so it does bother me when you try to make it out to be that. Let's just stick to the real facts and talking about HTPC technology. If you think my opinion is wrong, or you disagree with it post your own, support it and let people decide for themselves. That's what forums like this are for. They are not for personal grudge matches and bickering. If your goal is to balance the public perception against my own opinion on something, stating your own opinion and backing it up with data is a much more effective and helpful way of doing that than trying to personally tear me or my opinion down. Sorry to vent some frustration here but I think you need some awareness about how much your posting has degraded. I miss the old posting you used to do that was helpful and informative.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #30 of 129 Old 02-03-2014, 05:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 230
I am not going to get into another complete waste of time ridiculous argument with you but suffice to say that OCZ is never going to come out and say "Look. We blew it. Our SSDs sucked as far as reliability goes. Or at least the perception of the reliability".

What they are going to say no matter what is something like this....
Quote:
"Over the past year, OCZ has dealt with numerous issues which have stressed the company's capital structure and operating model, posing a challenge to achieving near term profitability. The combination of NAND flash supply constraints and credit issues have impacted our ability to satisfy the demands of our customers; this combined with increased pricing pressure in our industry have contributed to our on-going operating losses. On an operational basis, we completed a complex investigation, several restructurings and a multi-year restatement that added significantly to our working capital requirements," stated Ralph Schmitt, CEO of OCZ. "We have been working diligently on this partnership with Toshiba and we believe that this is the best outcome under our current corporate conditions."

Obviously you really ARE (have) bought what OCZ was selling no matter what even if it was a line of bull.
jim2100 likes this.
assassin is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

Tags
Seagate , Seagate Hard Drives , Seagate Stbv4000100 4tb Expansion Desktop Drive , Western Digital , Ocz Technology , Ocz Vertex 4 Vtx4 25sat3 256g 2 5 Mlc Internal Solid State Drive Ssd , Ocz Technology Vector 150 Series 120gb 2 5 Inch Sata Iii Internal Solid State Drive With 3 5 Inch Ad , Ocz Technology 256g Vertex 450 Series Sata 6 0 Gb S 2 5 Inch 7mm Height Sold State Drive Ssd With Ac , Ocz Technology 128g Vertex 450 Series Sata 6 0 Gb S 2 5 Inch 7mm Height Sold State Drive Ssd With Ac , Ocz Technology 128gb Vertex 4 Series Sata 6 0 Gb S 2 5 Inch Solid State Drive Ssd With Industrys Hig , Ocz Technology 256gb Vector Series Sata 6 0 Gb S 7 Mm Height 2 5 Inch Ssd With 100k Iops And 5 Year , Ocz Technology 128gb Vector Series Sata 6 0 Gb S 7 Mm Height 2 5 Inch Ssd With 95k Iops And 5 Year W
Gear in this thread - Stbv4000100 by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off