Vendor disk failure rates: Myth or metric?
Disk problems contribute to 20% to 55% of storage subsystem failures
Computerworld - The statistics of mean time between failures (MTBF) and average failure rate (AFR) have gotten lots of attention lately in the storage world, especially with the release of three much-discussed studies devoted to the topic in the last year. And for good reason: Vendor-stated MTBFs have risen into the 1 million-to-1.5 million-hour range, equaling 114 to 170 years, a lifespan that no one is seeing in the real world.
Three studies over the past year on MTBF include the following:
- Google Inc.'s "Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population"
- Carnegie Mellon University's "Disk Failures in the Real World"
- University of Illinois' "Are Disks the Dominant Contributor for Storage Failures?"
Indeed, "how do these numbers help a person who wants to evaluate drives?" says Steve Smith, a former EMC Corp. employee and an independent management consultant in Bellevue, Wash. "I don't think they can.
Even storage system maker NetApp Inc. acknowledges in a response to an open letter on the StorageMojo blog that failure rates are several times higher than reported. "Most experienced storage array customers have learned to equate the accuracy of quoted drive-failure specs to the miles-per-gallon estimates reported by car manufacturers," the company says. "It's a classic case of 'Your mileage may vary' -- and often will -- if you deploy these disks in anything but the mildest of evaluation/demo lab environments."
Study resultsThe upshot of the recent studies can be summarized this way: Users and vendors live in very different worlds when it comes to disk reliability and failure rates.
Consider that MTBF is a figure that's reached through stress-testing and statistical extrapolation, Harris says. "When the vendor specs a 300,000-hour MTBF -- which is common for consumer-level SATA drives -- they're saying that for a large population of drives, half will fail in the first 300,000 hours of operation," he says on his blog. "MTBF, therefore, says nothing about how long any particular drive will last." In other words, MTBF does a very poor job communicating what the actual failure profile looks like, he says.
It's like providing the average woman's height in the U.S. but without showing the numbers used to derive that average, Smith says. "MTBF became the standard because it was perceived as a simpler answer to the question of reliability than showing the data of how they arrived at it," Smith says. "It's an honest-to-God simplification."
- IT Security - Fighting the Silent Threat "IT Security - Fighting the Silent Threat" is a global report into business attitudes and opinions on IT security. Download the report now...
- Cutting Complexity - Simplifying Security This white paper looks at how the latest IT Systems Management solutions can simplify and automate a vast range of routine IT management...
- Your Data under Siege: Defeating the Enemy of Complexity Even if you have adequate antivirus protection, are there still holes in your IT security armor? Is lack of bandwidth to manage the...
- Build Your IT Security Business Case In this latest whitepaper from Kaspersky Lab, you'll find useful facts, examples and business case arguments to help you get buy-in and commitment...
- Pre-Engineered solutions from VCE Simplify Core Infrastructure Implementation In this video, the CTO of Purdue Pharma, a privately held pharmaceutical company explains how Purdue transformed their data center infrastructure with VCE.
- Data Protection and Disaster Recovery with iSCSI and VMware Get this on demand webcast now All Disaster Recovery White Papers | Webcasts