[m348e912]

I love that bb is publishing this information but it may result in driving up the cost of the most reliable hdds which ends up costing them more with future drive purchases assuming they gravitate to buying more reliable drives in the future.

[michaelt]

> it may result in driving up the cost of the most reliable hdds which ends up costing them more

I assumed publishing the stats would actually work to BackBlaze's advantage, because it means no HDD supplier is going to skimp on quality control on the order going to BackBlaze.

[kqr]

Unless the higher price commended by more reliable disks causes other manufacturers to improve reliability, thus making the pie larger.

Since they're always trialing other disks on small scale, this can only really benefit both them and humanity as a whole!

[flamebreath447]

Remember that cloud providers get drives in bulk at lower cost than the consumer.

Also I think they know this and still post it for the community benefit. What people store in the cloud is important and drive failure is their business because they are storing that data.

[notacoward]

Also the cloud providers and hyperscalers are extremely well equipped to handle drive failures without data loss, so they can afford to buy the cheapest even if it's less reliable. If you just have one drive, or even a pair, the calculus changes.

[1024core]

BB has been doing this for many years. Nobody has complained about this affecting the prices yet.

[ksec]

Well people knew about HGST even more BB's data were available.