Hard drive failure is unpredictable, so answering the question of how long hard drives last will inherently comes with a lot of caveats.
Short answer: That being said, if you just want a quick rule of thumb for how long you can expect the hard drive in your laptop should last, we’d say you should be prepared for disk failure after three years of use.
Long answer: A handful of studies on the lifespan of hard drives might give you some clearer indication, but they still aren’t very helpful. Many of the hard drives tested do not fail at all. These drives are also kept in controlled environments and don’t undergo the same conditions as, say, your laptop drive.
Factor in the following questions:
- What brand is the hard drive?
- What do you use it for? Running applications, viewing media, or storage?
- How often do you use your computer?
- Is it frequently shaken, vibrated, or bumped?
- How hot does your computer get?
These factors and many more can affect the lifespan of a hard drive. All of the discussion below, unless otherwise noted, refers to standard magnetic disk drives, not solid state drives or hybrid drives.
Which hard drive brands last the longest?
Short answer: HGST (rebranded name for Hitachi) drives generally last longer than Seagate and Western Digital. We don’t have enough definitive data on Samsung or Toshiba to make a conclusion about them.
Long answer: In 2014, cloud backup company Backblaze started posting statistics on the failure rate of over 27,000 hard drives and their respective brands. In short: Hitachi’s failed the least, followed by Western Digital. Seagate had the highest failure rate by far, with 13 percent of Backblaze’s 1.5TB models failing over the course of a year.
When new results were published one year later, however, Western Digital surpassed Seagate and failed the most of the brands tested. Toshiba results were included in these results despite the relatively small number of drives tested. Toshiba scored roughly the same as Seagate. HGST was still the most reliable overall.
In 2016, the latest report, Seagate returned to its position as the hard drive brand with the highest failure rate, followed by Western Digital. Toshiba beat both of them, but Hitachi held firm at number one with the lowest annual failure rates.
Note that failure rate varies between models as well as brands. The 1.5TB models from Seagate fail far more often than the larger models from the same brand tested by Backblaze, for instance.
Why does Backblaze measure the failure rate per year instead of the age of the hard drives when they fail? Because most of the drives they tested didn’t fail at all. Four in five hard drives were still going strong by the end of each three-year test.
What causes hard drive failure?
Short answer: Factory defects and vibration
Long answer: A useful way to visualize the cause of failure rates in hard drives is with something called the Bathtub Curve.
The Bathtub curb tells us hard drives have a high rate of failure in their first few days, weeks, and months of use. This is usually the result of factory defects. A hard drive might be dead on arrival, for instance. Some call this the hard drive “infant mortality” rate.
If a hard drive has no factory defects, it will typically endure over the next two or three years without issue, which means the failure rate falls. By year four and five, the failure rate is well on its way back up again. These failures are due to general wear and tear, but pinpointing a specific cause has proven troublesome for researchers.
Conventional wisdom would have you believe hard drives that get hot will generally fail faster than those that don’t. Some studies conclude as much, but the largest study on the subject matter to date performed by Google suggests otherwise. You might also assume that hard drives which are used more fail quicker than those used less. Not so, says Google:
“Contrary to previously reported results, we found very little correlation between failure rates and either elevated temperature or activity levels.”
Google measured activity (also referred to as “utilization”) levels by analyzing the total time spent reading or writing data on the drive over a period of time. Drives that were utilized more failed significantly more in the first three months, but then failure rates dropped off in the subsequent months and years. The failure rates remain even and even less than the less-used drives until year five, when drives with higher utilization levels start failing more often again. Google attributes this to what it calls the “survival of the fittest theory,” in which the causes of failure that are associated with higher utilization are more prominent early and late in a drive’s lifetime. In short, utilization might not be causing hard drive failure, it just makes the actual causes of failure surface more quickly.
In Backblaze’s report, the company notes that some drives were incompatible due to what they surmised was vibration. While the impact of heat and activity is still inconclusive, vibration, bumps, drops, and shakes can definitely shorten the life of a hard drive.
Can I trust the MTBF?
Short answer: No
A hard drive’s MTBF, or mean time between failures, is an estimation of how long a hard drive will last. Some hard drive manufacturers advertise this figure as a way of showing how reliable a specific drive model is, which usually ranges between 1 million and 1.5 million hours.
A study by Carnegie Mellon University shows that MTBFs are greatly exaggerated. They suggest “a nominal annual failure rate of at most 0.88 percent.”
“We find that in the field, annual disk replacement rates typically exceed 1%, with 2-4% common and up to 13% observed on some systems. This suggests that field replacement is a fairly different process than one might predict based on datasheet MTTF.”
That’s more than double, and in some cases more than tenfold, than what a manufacturer states in the MTTF.
What to do if your hard drive fails
Short answer: Back it up before it fails.
Long answer: Dealing with hard drive failure requires preventative measures. Trying to recover data off of a hard drive after it has failed is a difficult and expensive endeavor. The best practice is to regularly back up your drives to a separate location, either a physical drive or the cloud.
For most of your media files–documents, pictures, videos, downloads, etc–a standard cloud backup service like IDrive or Crashplan should get the job done painlessly. Cloud backup ensures that your files will always be available whenever you need them. While an external hard drive could just as easily fail as the hard drive you backed up onto it, cloud backup services keep copies of your copies in a variety of locations, so you needn’t worry about failure or theft. Most cloud backup providers use apps that will automatically back up your files as you add, edit, and delete them, which makes the process all the easier.
If you want to back up your operating system, settings, and programs, things get a bit more complicated. We sometimes call these “bare bones” or “full system” backups. They come in two varieties: images and clones.
Cloning creates an virtually identical hard drive to the original, complete with files, applications, operating system, settings, boot record, allocation table–everything. If your hard drive fails, just swap in the cloned drive and you’ll be back up and running as if nothing ever happened, albeit back in time to the point when you created the clone.
Creating an image is similar, but everything is saved to a large compressed file that can be saved to an external hard drive. It can be stored on a normal storage partition instead ofinstalled and it takes up a lot less space. The downside is that restoration is a bit more complicated. You’ll need the boot disc that comes with your operating system–either a CD or a thumb drive, and run the emergency restoration program to get things working again.
“hard drive mechanism” by Magnus Hagdorn licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
January 21, 2014
My last two blog posts were about expected drive lifetimes and drive reliability. These posts were an outgrowth of the careful work that we’ve done at Backblaze to find the most cost-effective disk drives. Running a truly unlimited online backup service for only $5 per month means our cloud storage needs to be very efficient and we need to quickly figure out which drives work.
Because Backblaze has a history of openness, many readers expected more details in my previous posts. They asked what drive models work best and which last the longest. Given our experience with over 25,000 drives, they asked which ones are good enough that we would buy them again. In this post, I’ll answer those questions.
Drive Population
At the end of 2013, we had 27,134 consumer-grade drives spinning in Backblaze Storage Pods. The breakdown by brand looks like this:
Hard Drives by Manufacturer Used by Backblaze | |||
Brand | Number of Drives | Terabytes | Average Age in Years |
---|---|---|---|
Seagate | 12,765 | 39,576 | 1.4 |
Hitachi | 12,956 | 36,078 | 2.0 |
Western Digital | 2,838 | 2,581 | 2.5 |
Toshiba | 58 | 174 | 0.7 |
Samsung | 18 | 18 | 3.7 |
As you can see, they are mostly Seagate and Hitachi drives, with a good number of Western Digital thrown in. We don’t have enough Toshiba or Samsung drives for good statistical results.
Why do we have the drives we have? Basically, we buy the least expensive drives that will work. When a new drive comes on the market that looks like it would work, and the price is good, we test a pod full and see how they perform. The new drives go through initial setup tests, a stress test, and then a couple weeks in production. (A couple of weeks is enough to fill the pod with data.) If things still look good, that drive goes on the buy list. When the price is right, we buy it.
We are willing to spend a little bit more on drives that are reliable, because it costs money to replace a drive. We are not willing to spend a lot more, though.
Excluded Drives
Some drives just don’t work in the Backblaze environment. We have not included them in this study. It wouldn’t be fair to call a drive “bad” if it’s just not suited for the environment it’s put into.
We have some of these drives running in storage pods, but are in the process of replacing them because they aren’t reliable enough. When one drive goes bad, it takes a lot of work to get the RAID back on-line if the whole RAID is made up of unreliable drives. It’s just not worth the trouble.
The drives that just don’t work in our environment are Western Digital Green 3TB drives and Seagate LP (low power) 2TB drives. Both of these drives start accumulating errors as soon as they are put into production. We think this is related to vibration. The drives do somewhat better in the new low-vibration Backblaze Storage Pod, but still not well enough.
These drives are designed to be energy-efficient, and spin down aggressively when not in use. In the Backblaze environment, they spin down frequently, and then spin right back up. We think that this causes a lot of wear on the drive.
Failure Rates
We measure drive reliability by looking at the annual failure rate, which is the average number of failures you can expect running one drive for a year. A failure is when we have to replace a drive in a pod.
This chart has some more details that don’t show up in the pretty chart, including the number of drives of each model that we have, and how old the drives are:
Number of Hard Drives by Model at Backblaze | ||||
Model | Size | Number of Drives | Average Age in Years | Annual Failure Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Seagate Desktop HDD.15 (ST4000DM000) | 4.0TB | 5199 | 0.3 | 3.8% |
Hitachi GST Deskstar 7K2000 (HDS722020ALA330) | 2.0TB | 4716 | 2.9 | 1.1% |
Hitachi GST Deskstar 5K3000 (HDS5C3030ALA630) | 3.0TB | 4592 | 1.7 | 0.9% |
Seagate Barracuda (ST3000DM001) | 3.0TB | 4252 | 1.4 | 9.8% |
Hitachi Deskstar 5K4000 (HDS5C4040ALE630) | 4.0TB | 2587 | 0.8 | 1.5% |
Seagate Barracuda LP (ST31500541AS) | 1.5TB | 1929 | 3.8 | 9.9% |
Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) | 3.0TB | 1027 | 2.1 | 0.9% |
Seagate Barracuda 7200 (ST31500341AS) | 1.5TB | 539 | 3.8 | 25.4% |
Western Digital Green (WD10EADS) | 1.0TB | 474 | 4.4 | 3.6% |
Western Digital Red (WD30EFRX) | 3.0TB | 346 | 0.5 | 3.2% |
Seagate Barracuda XT (ST33000651AS) | 3.0TB | 293 | 2.0 | 7.3% |
Seagate Barracuda LP (ST32000542AS) | 2.0TB | 288 | 2.0 | 7.2% |
Seagate Barracuda XT (ST4000DX000) | 4.0TB | 179 | 0.7 | n/a |
Western Digital Green (WD10EACS) | 1.0TB | 84 | 5.0 | n/a |
Seagate Barracuda Green (ST1500DL003) | 1.5TB | 51 | 0.8 | 120.0% |
The following sections focus on different aspects of these results.
1.5TB Seagate Drives
The Backblaze team has been happy with Seagate Barracuda LP 1.5TB drives. We’ve been running them for a long time — their average age is pushing 4 years. Their overall failure rate isn’t great, but it’s not terrible either.
The non-LP 7200 RPM drives have been consistently unreliable. Their failure rate is high, especially as they’re getting older.
1.5 TB Seagate Drives Used by Backblaze | ||||
Model | Size | Number of Drives | Average Age in Years | Annual Failure Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Seagate Barracuda LP (ST31500541AS) | 1.5TB | 1929 | 3.8 | 9.9% |
Seagate Barracuda 7200 (ST31500341AS) | 1.5TB | 539 | 3.8 | 25.4% |
Seagate Barracuda Green (ST1500DL003) | 1.5TB | 51 | 0.8 | 120.0% |
The Seagate Barracuda Green 1.5TB drive, though, has not been doing well. We got them from Seagate as warranty replacements for the older drives, and these new drives are dropping like flies. Their average age shows 0.8 years, but since these are warranty replacements, we believe that they are refurbished drives that were returned by other customers and erased, so they already had some usage when we got them.
Bigger Seagate Drives
The bigger Seagate drives have continued the tradition of the 1.5Tb drives: they’re solid workhorses, but there is a constant attrition as they wear out.
2.0 to 4.0 TB Seagate Drives Used by Backblaze | ||||
Model | Size | Number of Drives | Average Age in Years | Annual Failure Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Seagate Desktop HDD.15 (ST4000DM000) | 4.0TB | 5199 | 0.3 | 3.8% |
Seagate Barracuda (ST3000DM001) | 3.0TB | 4252 | 1.4 | 9.8% |
Seagate Barracuda XT (ST33000651AS) | 3.0TB | 293 | 2.0 | 7.3% |
Seagate Barracuda LP (ST32000542AS) | 2.0TB | 288 | 2.0 | 7.2% |
Seagate Barracuda XT (ST4000DX000) | 4.0TB | 179 | 0.7 | n/a |
The good pricing on Seagate drives along with the consistent, but not great, performance is why we have a lot of them.
Hitachi Drives
If the price were right, we would be buying nothing but Hitachi drives. They have been rock solid, and have had a remarkably low failure rate.
Hitachi Drives Used by Backblaze | ||||
Model | Size | Number of Drives | Average Age in Years | Annual Failure Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hitachi GST Deskstar 7K2000 (HDS722020ALA330) | 2.0TB | 4716 | 2.9 | 1.1% |
Hitachi GST Deskstar 5K3000 (HDS5C3030ALA630) | 3.0TB | 4592 | 1.7 | 0.9% |
Hitachi Deskstar 5K4000 (HDS5C4040ALE630) | 4.0TB | 2587 | 0.8 | 1.5% |
Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) | 3.0TB | 1027 | 2.1 | 0.9% |
Western Digital Drives
Back at the beginning of Backblaze, we bought Western Digital 1.0TB drives, and that was a really good choice. Even after over 4 years of use, the ones we still have are going strong.
We wish we had more of the Western Digital Red 3TB drives (WD30EFRX). They’ve also been really good, but they came after we already had a bunch of the Seagate 3TB drives, and when they came out their price was higher.
Western Digital Drives Used by Backblaze | ||||
Model | Size | Number of Drives | Average Age in Years | Annual Failure Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Western Digital Green (WD10EADS) | 1.0TB | 474 | 4.4 | 3.6% |
Western Digital Red (WD30EFRX) | 3.0TB | 346 | 0.5 | 3.2% |
Western Digital Green (WD10EACS) | 1.0TB | 84 | 5.0 | n/a |
What About Drives That Don’t Fail Completely?
Another issue when running a big data center is how much personal attention each drive needs. When a drive has a problem, but doesn’t fail completely, it still creates work. Sometimes automated recovery can fix this, but sometimes a RAID array needs that personal touch to get it running again.
Each storage pod runs a number of RAID arrays. Each array stores data reliably by spreading data across many drives. If one drive fails, the data can still be obtained from the others. Sometimes, a drive may “pop out” of a RAID array but still seem good, so after checking that its data is intact and it’s working, it gets put back in the RAID to continue operation. Other times a drive may stop responding completely and look like it’s gone, but it can be reset and continue running.
Measuring the time spent in a “trouble” state like this is a measure of how much work a drive creates. Once again, Hitachi wins. Hitachi drives get “four nines” of untroubled operation time, while the other brands just get “two nines”.
Untroubled Operation of Drives by Manufacturer used at Backblaze | |||
Brand | Active | Trouble | Number of Drives |
---|---|---|---|
Seagate | 99.72 | 0.28% | 12459 |
Western Digital | 99.83 | 0.17% | 933 |
Hitachi | 99.99 | 0.01% | 12956 |
Drive Lifetime by Brand
The chart below shows the cumulative survival rate for each brand. Month by month, how many of the drives are still alive?
Hitachi does really well. There is an initial die-off of Western Digital drives, and then they are nice and stable. The Seagate drives start strong, but die off at a consistently higher rate, with a burst of deaths near the 20-month mark.
Having said that, you’ll notice that even after 3 years, by far most of the drives are still operating.
What Drives Is Backblaze Buying Now?
We are focusing on 4TB drives for new pods. For these, our current favorite is the Seagate Desktop HDD.15 (ST4000DM000). We’ll have to keep an eye on them, though. Historically, Seagate drives have performed well at first, and then had higher failure rates later.
Our other favorite is the Western Digital 3TB Red (WD30EFRX).
We still have to buy smaller drives as replacements for older pods where drives fail. The drives we absolutely won’t buy are Western Digital 3TB Green drives and Seagate 2TB LP drives.
A year and a half ago, Western Digital acquired the Hitachi disk drive business. Will Hitachi drives continue their excellent performance? Will Western Digital bring some of the Hitachi reliability into their consumer-grade drives?
Correction: Hitachi’s 2.5″ hard drive business went to Western Digital, while the 3.5″ hard drive business went to Toshiba.
At Backblaze, we will continue to monitor and share the performance of a wide variety of disk drive models. What has your experience been?