In the B&R console selecting "Jobs" and "HISTORY" shows no error (all jobs successful) but selecting "Storage Management" shows the offload errors, so I failed to notice this for several days. Wonder why no email notification is received for this error. Has that changed? The error (below) refers to some invalid version id. "keep only the last version" is enabled on the bucket at backblaze end as was the recommended practice prior to immutability support in B2. Immutability is set to 30 days in the B&R object repository and backups are copied to capacity tier as they are created. Now this backup chain seems to have a reached a stage where it has to delete some files in the object storage which errors with a "DeleteMultipleObjects" failed message (see below). A month ago I changed the capacity tier to use a bucket with object lock when B2 acquired immutability support. ![]() The SOBR has a one performance and one capacity tier (backblaze) and has been working fine for a long time. Go figure! Of course, they are dealing with a much, much larger sample size.I just found out capacity tier offload of one of my backup jobs has been failing for several days now. They don't like the WD Reds, yet my experience is the opposite again. This is not a long time, but, the results are good so far.Īs you have noted, I have seen more reports in these forums of Seagate drive failures than any other brand, yet, Backblaze rates them highly. I just bought another a couple of weeks ago, but, I have three 8TB Reds that have been in service for about 18 months with no issues whatsoever. ![]() Now, I only buy 8TB (or larger in the future) WD Reds. My 3TB Reds in the backup server have been in service since early 2012. I know that Backblaze drive reports do not often look favorably on the WD Red NAS drives, but, I use them almost exclusively (as do some others in these forums) for data drives and I use 7200 RPM HGST drives for parity. A user with triple backup needs really huge amounts of bad luck to not be able to recover if a desktop-class drive in the main server happens to fail.Īnyone have input on other drives to consider which might be slower, like NAS, Purple, or the like? But since even enterprise disks fails sometimes, it really isn't a recommended route go enterprise disks and ignore backup. The video puts too much focus on the value of a 5 year warranty and that the buyer should base the disk choice on purchase price per warranty-years.įor a user that ignores backup and only trusts in the parity drive, I would definitely recommend high-end drives with less probability of failures. ![]() But 15% failure after 5 years still doesn't represent so much money compared to the premium prices of the enterprise drives.Īnd this is one of the reasons why BackBlaze is fine with desktop drives - their storage model has enough redundancy that they can handle failures and 15% lost drives after 5 years is still much less money than what they would gain from having a 5-year warranty with enterprise disks. If we assume that the economical life span is 5 years, then 2,5% of enterprise drives would have failed after 5 years, and 15% of desktop drives (I'm assuming broken drives gets replaced so the formula would be 5*0.03 and not 1-0.97^5). The important thing here is that if enterprise disks have an annual failure rate of 0.5% and desktop drives an annual failure rate of 3%, it normally still cheaper to buy desktop drives - assuming that the user has a backup strategy that can handle drive failures without data loss. Would you expect enterprise drives to do better? Yes, you might.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |