Yeesh sorry to offend
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
No, the raw data used in the chart shows only the number and percentage of failures per brand during that quarter, not the age of the drives at the time of failures. Read what I wrote again.
No, the raw data is not the data in the chart, which is a summary analysis. Please read what I wrote again:
Originally Posted by claes
The raw data they have available
actually allows you to sort in this way. Also, the chart in their quarterly blog post shows failure rates per year/quarter.
As you can see, although I am referring to the same data set, I am also referring to two different ways it can accesses - the "raw data" as opposed to "the chart in their quarterly blog."
Regarding "the chart in their quarterly blog," although it does not show the age of the drive/only goes back to 2013, it does show that some drives were not deployed in 2013 (newer models that hadn't been purchased/released). While you can not draw conclusively how old a drive is from this information, you can see yearly failure rates per drive, as I argued.
Further, the "raw data" is actually very explicit about when a drive was deployed and it's quarterly failure rates. You can get that data here
, as linked to twice in the blog post, which includes a lot
more data than provided in their quarterly summaries. SQL required.