I use the Backblaze HD data when I teach workshops in survival analysis to data scientists (I'm a statistician) and indeed according to the data this is by far the worst HD among all the consumer HD they use. This is true even after adjusting for numbers of cycles and power-on hours.
The hazard ratio, a conventional measure of risk if you will, for this drive is approximately 25 times worse than that of the reference drive (another Seagate). That means they die at a rate that is 25 times worse (everything else being equal).
The other interesting part that emerged from the data is that Seagate both produced the worst and also one of the best drives in terms of survival (yet the damage was done by that model).
I use the Backblaze HD data when I teach workshops in survival analysis to data scientists (I'm a statistician) and indeed according to the data this is by far the worst HD among all the consumer HD they use. This is true even after adjusting for numbers of cycles and power-on hours.
The hazard ratio, a conventional measure of risk if you will, for this drive is approximately 25 times worse than that of the reference drive (another Seagate). That means they die at a rate that is 25 times worse (everything else being equal).
The other interesting part that emerged from the data is that Seagate both produced the worst and also one of the best drives in terms of survival (yet the damage was done by that model).