Nice of Backblaze to indicate their drive vendor given their quantifiable experience. Although it is not one I've used to date, on the other hand I've got a couple thousand dollars in failed hard drives from the traditionally accepted "major" vendors sitting on this, that and the other surface waiting for me to get the ambition to deal with their customer "service"...and packaging...and shipping...

All too many of which were DOA right out of the antistatic wrap (unless I mistook funereal shrouds for antistatic wrap?).

Time for a change, perhaps, and I find Backblaze's petabytes of experience to be...reassuring.

We implemented an in-house result validation which will allow us to get rid of the redundancies caused by the wingman-system. We forwarded it to our friends at IBM yesterday and it can hopefully go live soon (i.e., after some testing). This will essentially double the productivity of CEP2!

Exactly

Hello ibsteve2u,
Validation without repetition is always project-specific, though there are numerous examples to provide helpful hints.
Lawrence

Dear ibsteve2u,
sorry - it's only gonna work for CEP2. But other projects may want to have a closer look whether there are cheaper ways to ensure the validity of the obtained results.
Best wishes,
Your Harvard CEP team