Tracy R Reed wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
That means that they are likely comparing fairly new, large ATA 7200RPM
drives to *significantly* older 7200RPM SCSI drives. That's a bit unfair.
They aren't. Read the papers. :)
I did. I didn't see where they controlled for that. I *certainly*
didn't see anything about 10K+ RPM SCSI drives.
Could you point me at the pages where they reference how they controlled
that?
Most of their data agreed with the other papers which are independent of
google. I find that pretty interesting.
Give me the *data* and then I will find it interesting.
We would be better off if they published the raw data without comment.
Would you really have sifted through all of that data and done a similar
analysis for yourself?
Would I? No. But there are some people I trust who would.
I know I wouldn't. And would you have kept the
results to yourself and given us the raw data without comment as well? I
mean, someone has to comment right?
Sure. But comment without data is useless. If the paper said, "SMART
catches 99% of all errors or SMART catches 1% of all errors", you
couldn't verify that either.
Data with comment is great.
Data without comment is acceptable.
Comment without data is unacceptable.
And, Google *knows* this. That paper exerts a bunch of force on the
internal QA departments of Google's competitors without giving them any
information with which to work.
I have *seen* this. Firsthand. Companies do this at ISSCC
(International Solid States Circuits Conference) *all the time*.
Companies have published papers that have circuits that simply *do not
work*. Companies have announced details about chips that were
*verifiably false* after delaminating the chip.
All of this solely for the purpose of creating misinformation for
competitors.
Do I think Google is doing that? Probably not. But I can't verify
without data.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
